Jump to content
Iflybyyou

Some thoughts on Pluralism

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, romansh said:

I don't think I have the biochemical activity to be able to love and care for the whole world. Also there are individuals in this world, while not hating them, I do have severe dislikes for. Now this mythical Jesus that thormas has put on a pedestal  might be worthy of emulation, ignoring the bits that thormas is parable-izing. 

But thormas refuses to tell us the mechanism by which we can love all or become all caring. It seems to be all arm waving to me. Here is the point thormas thinks people should be at, but he does not how to get there.

Not the whole world, just the part you touch. One is not parent to the whole world, one is parent (fully, truly, and, if very lucky, with a spouse who is the same) to a single child or several children and that is the whole world - and it is expansive.

If there is a mechanism by which we can love or become caring for our friends, partner and our kid(s); if these are mere 'arm waving' then and only then you might have a point. But I doubt it. You know how to 'get there' with them.............it is simply love, caring for, caring about, being love to them. This, my friend, is the world and what I have been saying. You had it all the time!

 

Share this post


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

Actually the question was raised was it possible for most of us to become 'fully or truly human' in this (one) lifetime and I mentioned that theologians have different theories on this. The belief is that Jesus was truly human in this lifetime and that the life of 'being Love' continues in God (the how, where, what does it look like. etc. no one has any idea). You seem to be having problems with the word fully, so let's move to another word I have used to capture this: truly human. Any of us can be truly human in this life. However, and I did mention this previously, it is an achieving in the moment or moments, a failing and achieving yet again. This captures the idea that being truly human is an ongoing process: complete or full in the moment(s) but not always in all our moments. So, I know you like measurements and evidence and the normal use of words but in religious belief as in some philosophies, words are stretched or taken out of the 'normal usage. So being truly human is indeed a becoming, a process, an achieving, an actualization and the point is to try to 'string those moments together into a whole. Now back to the word full; to be fully human means, in these moments, to be 'fully' the likeness of or the embodiment of love; there is a completeness because one is fully love and there is no selfishness. There is no there to get to; there is only fully being love in the moment, and then there is the next moment and the one after that. So it can be said that one is fully human but they must continue to do love in order to be fully, truly, human. Now what happens after this one lifetime if we are still on the way? Does it, in some way, continue until, as we said many posts age, all is One, until all is fully, truly, completely Love? I vote yes.

So there is a completeness and a becoming; there is a completion and a continuing actualization. So we all can be but it is never ending (I knew you'd like that one). 

I think we are at a point where we are just regurgitating our points and talking back past one another.  I think to be fully and truly something means there is a target to be established and reached.  Otherwise, how can one ever know if they are being fully or truly that thing.  You seem to be now arguing that fully or truly is only a partial state of being and that one can never actually achieve that state of being fully or truly human.  We can in our moments, and we may do this forever, but we might not reach that point of actually being full or true.

You say that in religious belief as in some philosophies, words are stretched or taken out of the 'normal usage. Whilst you say truly or fully human is a becoming, a process, an achieving, an actualization, you then go on to say that the point is to try to 'string those moments together into a whole.  So how do you determine what that 'whole' actually is?  When do you know you have met this whole?  How is whole actually demonstrated?  Can you spell it out clearly what that whole consists of?  If you think there is a whole then surely you must be able to measure it and determine when that whole has become the sum of its parts.  

My issue with this way of looking at 'wholeness' is that it is fine for you, but if somebody else's fully and truly is slightly different, how does anyone verify what the correct fully and truly actually is?  It seems it can't be done because neither seems to be able to produce any specifications about what this truly or fully consists of. 

For you, it seems to be this term 'love'.  But what is love precisely?  You say no-selfishness = love, and when we are broadly talking of course we can see that self-centredness can harm.  But where do you draw the line between love and self-centredness precisely?  I'm sitting here typing a response to you - is that self-centredness because I could be out helping the homeless?  I will eat fairly well tonight at home - is that self-centred because I could be giving half of my food to the starving or less well nourished.  I would say the devil is in the detail, so when you are making broad statements like God is love or Jesus was fully human, one normally has to articulate what that standard is to indeed be considered that thing.  You don't seem to be able to do this.

Share this post


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

I think Thormas thinks he is explaining it to us, but both you and I can see that that explanation is lacking completely. I'm not sure we're going to get any better an answer though.

Probably not, I would say refer to the latest response to Rom but, I fear, neither of you will understand that either. There are no measurements, no evidence, no substantiation - only a reflection on simple human experience. But even that might be too much to ask - being outside of your 'discussion' parameters.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

It's pretty normal in a discussion to substantiate claims when asked.  To fall back on 'religious belief' as some disclaimer to not being able to produce such substantiation or evidence, naturally ends the discussion.  All power to you in your religious belief in working towards becoming fully human.  I have no problem with that.  Just don't harm others along the way. 

There is no disclaimer, only a statement of what belief actually means. Demanding substantiation on a particular belief about God is not possible; one cannot substantiate that God is love or that God is not love. On this I think you agree. However, one can substantiate what is in a biblical text and provide credible scholarly works to present the most likely interpretation or one can substantiate a position/belief by providing the work of respected, credible scholars who hold the same or equivalent positions.  I have done both; you have been unable to do either and Rom, given past and present experience, has no interest. It's hard to discuss with someone who won't do the work. Instead we get fig trees, temple cleansings, bad bits and 'fools' with no effort to look critically at these writings but only to repeat them - ignoring credible scholarship - in an effort to 'substantiate' a position. A position which is undercut by real research and critical questioning. A shame, we might have been able to find common ground but your position and effort were "lacking completely" and then some.

 

Share this post


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

Probably not, I would say refer to the latest response to Rom but, I fear, neither of you will understand that either. There are no measurements, no evidence, no substantiation - only a reflection on simple human experience. But even that might be too much to ask - being outside of your 'discussion' parameters.

It's not too much to ask, it just doesn't make sense as far as any parameters go concerning making a statement and then not being able to support it with anything other than religious belief.  If you're religious, perhaps the argument makes some sense, for the non religious, clearly it doesn't.

Quote

There is no disclaimer, only a statement of what belief actually means. Demanding substantiation on a particular belief about God is not possible; one cannot substantiate that God is love or that God is not love. On this I think you agree. However, one can substantiate what is in a biblical text and provide credible scholarly works to present the most likely interpretation or one can substantiate a position/belief by providing the work of respected, credible scholars who hold the same or equivalent positions.  I have done both; you have been unable to do either and Rom, given past and present experience, has no interest. It's hard to discuss with someone who won't do the work. Instead we get fig trees, temple cleansings, bad bits and 'fools' with no effort to look critically at these writings but only to repeat them - ignoring credible scholarship - in an effort to 'substantiate' a position. A position which is undercut by real research and critical questioning. A shame, we might have been able to find common ground but your position and effort were "lacking completely" and then some.

Again, I'm not demanding anything, I am simply asking you to support what you say with some evidence.  You now admit that you cannot.  Okay then. 

I would be very careful saying that you can substantiate what is in the biblical text from credible scholarly works to present, for the very reason you mention - i.e. that it is the 'most likely' interpretation.  So a couple of key things there that you note - 'most likely' is not certainty and 'interpretation' is just that, interpretation, again not certainty.  So we end up believing what we think is the right belief, until something else comes along that convinces us to change that way of thinking, as has clearly happened throughout the history of Christianity.  No doubt you will say the 'main principles' haven't changed, but really, what's the point of going down that path.  I think we have done this to death.  Or fully.  But that is a personal interpretation of fully so please don't ask me to substantiate it.

You may have looked critically at some of the writings and there may be theories as to why they should or should not be discounted, but much of it is opinion, whether scholarly or not.  That is fact.  I have read a number of works by scholars concerning all sorts of speculation and discussion around the NT and some of the Old.  I am sure nowhere near as much as the work you have put in.  But the one thing I am 100% certain of, and I am sure you will agree, there is no 100% consensus on all that is precisely accurate and what is not when it comes to the bible..  There is no undeniable evidence that the 'less than love' bits mentioned about Jesus are off the mark, or rather, which ones are less accurate than others.  Even having done all of that work and after thousands of years of tradition and inclusion in the Jesus story, only now are they being doubted by some.  Not a big vote of confidence for me in all verses that could possibly portray Jesus as less than 100% love.  We do agree though that Jesus was fully human, just for different reasons.

A shame it may be that we don't find common ground on your personal belief which cannot be substantiated, but I don't think my position or effort are lacking completely. 

Share this post


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

I think to be fully and truly something means there is a target to be established and reached.  Otherwise, how can one ever know if they are being fully or truly that thing.  You seem to be now arguing that fully or truly is only a partial state of being and that one can never actually achieve that state of being fully or truly human.  We can in our moments, and we may do this forever, but we might not reach that point of actually being full or true.

Are there day when, if you are a father, you truly, fully love your kids? If so, on one hand you did 'reach the target' but, on the other hand, tomorrow is a new day and the challenge is to do it again: to again truly, fully be father, which is to be love for them. You can know it, you know you were 'that thing.' But tomorrow, you won't know it till you do it again and the next day and again. It is partial but it is also, in some real way, complete, full. Paradox my friend, life is full of them.It is not either/or; it is both/and. 

So too, being truly human - but it is not merely a 'state' it is be-ing human: you are (fully) human because you are fully doing human At a particular moment, on a particular day - you are truly human. Then tomorrow comes. It is achieving and it is achieved but when tomorrow begins, we begin anew therefore it is always a present action: achieving.

55 minutes ago, PaulS said:

You say that in religious belief as in some philosophies, words are stretched or taken out of the 'normal usage. Whilst you say truly or fully human is a becoming, a process, an achieving, an actualization, you then go on to say that the point is to try to 'string those moments together into a whole.  So how do you determine what that 'whole' actually is?  When do you know you have met this whole?  How is whole actually demonstrated?  Can you spell it out clearly what that whole consists of?  If you think there is a whole then surely you must be able to measure it and determine when that whole has become the sum of its parts.  

Back to you as a father: if  you are truly, fully a father today, then tomorrow, then again and again and again - that is stringing the moments. And the more you string, the more you will be that father; it becomes your way of being. Again, the paradox: you are whole in each moment (day) and all your moments are whole, you have met it - but tomorrow always comes. Isn't this the  reality of love? Love is not a state, not a point, it is a way to be. Isn't love, isn't being a father who is love, self evident? Isn't it continually demonstrated? Isn't it clear  It is to those who are loved. How would we measure such love, the love that makes a true father? Is it something to be measured or is it known in full because it is lived, it is experienced by those to whom it is given.

 

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

 My issue with this way of looking at 'wholeness' is that it is fine for you, but if somebody else's fully and truly is slightly different, how does anyone verify what the correct fully and truly actually is?  It seems it can't be done because neither seems to be able to produce any specifications about what this truly or fully consists of. 

For you, it seems to be this term 'love'.  But what is love precisely?  You say no-selfishness = love, and when we are broadly talking of course we can see that self-centredness can harm.  But where do you draw the line between love and self-centredness precisely?  I'm sitting here typing a response to you - is that self-centredness because I could be out helping the homeless?  I will eat fairly well tonight at home - is that self-centred because I could be giving half of my food to the starving or less well nourished.  I would say the devil is in the detail, so when you are making broad statements like God is love or Jesus was fully human, one normally has to articulate what that standard is to indeed be considered that thing.  You don't seem to be able to do this.

 Isn't love, simply love? Slight, insignificant differences are one thing but is it ever more than that, is it even that when we come down to it? Back to the father: what has to be verified as if one can examine it externally; love is verified, love is true and known when it is experienced and 'gives life.' Isn't that what the father, the mother does daily when they love? What specifications would love produce, yet don't we know what it truly and fully consists of?

What are the 'details' in the example of you, the father, loving your kids? There are broad statements about the father being love and therefore being fully, truly a father - what are the standards that would be articulated to indeed consider what has been said of the father? If we answer that, we have an answer for God and Jesus. Can you do this? Does it really matter?

 

 

Share this post


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

It's not too much to ask, it just doesn't make sense as far as any parameters go concerning making a statement and then not being able to support it with anything other than religious belief.  If you're religious, perhaps the argument makes some sense, for the non religious, clearly it doesn't.

Quote

My point has been made.

39 minutes ago, PaulS said:

 support what you say with some evidence.  You now admit that you cannot.  Okay then. 

My point it made.

40 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I would be very careful saying that you can substantiate what is in the biblical text from credible scholarly works to present, for the very reason you mention - i.e. that it is the 'most likely' interpretation.  So a couple of key things there that you note - 'most likely' is not certainty and 'interpretation' is just that, interpretation, again not certainty.  So we end up believing what we think is the right belief, until something else comes along that convinces us to change that way of thinking, as has clearly happened throughout the history of Christianity.  No doubt you will say the 'main principles' haven't changed, but really, what's the point of going down that path.  I think we have done this to death.  Or fully.  But that is a personal interpretation of fully so please don't ask me to substantiate it.

I am always careful and if one reads enough, and double checks scholar against scholar, likely scholarly interpretations carry much more weight than than mere "opinion." The fig is an obvious one where there is no 'evidence' of any critical reading and judgement. Actually when you first mentioned it, I was curious as it is a bit of an oddity and I researched it. Prior to that I had an opinion but had never taken the time to truly consider it. That work shed substantial light on that little story and called into question your opinion and the argument based on it. I even shared that with you to no avail. How odd it that?

53 minutes ago, PaulS said:

You may have looked critically at some of the writings and there may be theories as to why they should or should not be discounted, but much of it is opinion, whether scholarly or not.  That is fact.  I have read a number of works by scholars concerning all sorts of speculation and discussion around the NT and some of the Old.  I am sure nowhere near as much as the work you have put in.  But the one thing I am 100% certain of, and I am sure you will agree, there is no 100% consensus on all that is precisely accurate and what is not when it comes to the bible..  There is no undeniable evidence that the 'less than love' bits mentioned about Jesus are off the mark, or rather, which ones are less accurate than others.  Even having done all of that work and after thousands of years of tradition and inclusion in the Jesus story, only now are they being doubted by some.  Not a big vote of confidence for me in all verses that could possibly portray Jesus as less than 100% love.  We do agree though that Jesus was fully human, just for different reasons.

A shame it may be that we don't find common ground on your personal belief which cannot be substantiated, but I don't think my position or effort are lacking completely. 

No, there is opinion and there is scholarly work based on a lifetime of research, learning ancient languages, etc. by professionals. So all opinion is not equal as you suggest. But it is a convenient dodge. Not looking for 100% only a preponderance of 'evidence.' Who's looking for undeniable evidence: simply read something on the fig tree and see what some critical biblical scholars say and whether that changes anything for you. If the story is a parable brought to life by a gospel writer, it is not one of your 'bad bits' if the story was the purposeful acting out of a parable by Jesus for his followers it was not one of your 'bad bits.' So too the temple: did it take place, when and where, was it acting out a parable, was it small, symbolic action done for his followers, was it as eventful as the synoptics suggest - leading to his death after threatening the temple and, therefore, the priests (after all in John it takes place at the beginning of his ministry and there were no repercussions). And it has been substantiated that Jesus followed the law, revered the temple and.....even sacrificed there - so he and/or his followers would had to go to the money changers and seller. So he cleanses it and then they exchange, buy and worship there?? And the 'fools' is an easy one. Yet to question these is inconvenient for your argument. 

Now things are being questioned and doubted and researched because we, for example, have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which generations for thousands of years did not. All generation are not equal and we have substantial advantages, you must know this. You use the tradition and inclusion and100% and all is just opinion and are comforted by the bad bits because they support your view. To research is to risk everything, so.............. do you.....really?

It is a shame but you can't get past your demand, or your need, to substantiate everything and yeah, they are lacking, if not completely then 'substantially.' 

BTW, I accept that jesus was fully human in the 'usual way' also.

Share this post


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

Are there day when, if you are a father, you truly, fully love your kids? If so, on one hand you did 'reach the target' but, on the other hand, tomorrow is a new day and the challenge is to do it again: to again truly, fully be father, which is to be love for them. You can know it, you know you were 'that thing.' But tomorrow, you won't know it till you do it again and the next day and again. It is partial but it is also, in some real way, complete, full. Paradox my friend, life is full of them.It is not either/or; it is both/and. 

I don't see it as a paradox at all.  I do see myself as being fully human loving my kids a lot of the time and I see myself as fully human when I don't perform so well.  You on the other hand have declared Jesus as fully human and have said that we can be that too - but you seem to think that fully human is some version of complete love all the time.  What does that actually mean?  That is the devil in the detail that you don't seem to be able to explain.  How do I get to that state of fully love/fully human?  Do I chastise my kids, do I hit them, if I hit them how hard, do I ground them instead, what parenting style demonstrates pure love? etc etc.  This 'love' is a completely subjective term so being 'fully love/fully human' has to be subjective too.  We can agree on some basics about love but I have no doubt that at some point either we, or others, will disagree on some finer points of what constitutes love.  This is my point - fully human seems to be an aspiration, but that aspiration will differ between individuals.  Hence why to claim fully human status one should be able to detail what that status actually entails and how to get to that point.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

So too, being truly human - but it is not merely a 'state' it is be-ing human: you are (fully) human because you are fully doing human At a particular moment, on a particular day - you are truly human. Then tomorrow comes. It is achieving and it is achieved but when tomorrow begins, we begin anew therefore it is always a present action: achieving.

Again, this is opinion.  Different cultures have different takes on what is proper character/behaviour and what isn't.  Yet you say there is one ideal of being fully/truly human - which you cannot precisely describe.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Back to you as a father: if  you are truly, fully a father today, then tomorrow, then again and again and again - that is stringing the moments. And the more you string, the more you will be that father; it becomes your way of being. Again, the paradox: you are whole in each moment (day) and all your moments are whole, you have met it - but tomorrow always comes. Isn't this the  reality of love? Love is not a state, not a point, it is a way to be. Isn't love, isn't being a father who is love, self evident? Isn't it continually demonstrated? Isn't it clear  It is to those who are loved. How would we measure such love, the love that makes a true father? Is it something to be measured or is it known in full because it is lived, it is experienced by those to whom it is given.

It's not a paradox - one is either whole or they are not.  My measure of whole is you are a human being that does good stuff and bad stuff and both types of stuff are fully human and what makes us whole.  You seem to pick the good bits out and say they're whole (not the bad bits) and when we can transform all those micro seconds into only the good bits then we become fully human.  I don't see the good bits in isolation as any kind of 'whole'.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Isn't love, simply love? Slight, insignificant differences are one thing but is it ever more than that, is it even that when we come down to it? Back to the father: what has to be verified as if one can examine it externally; love is verified, love is true and known when it is experienced and 'gives life.' Isn't that what the father, the mother does daily when they love? What specifications would love produce, yet don't we know what it truly and fully consists of?

Love is a word we use to describe a wide range of actions and emotions.  Some would consider it love to physically hurt their child to teach them a lesson.  Some would consider it love to let their child do whatever they want so that they don't feel bad.  Some probably once thought it was out of love for their God that they would bash the heads of babies from opposing tribes against rocks too.  Even the dictionary offers several different definitions of the word love.  To say love is 'simply', is rather simple in my opinion.  When you say fully human is living love like Jesus, similarly you open up the definition to all sorts of interpretations as to what actual constitutes Jesus love.  So when you say fully human is an expression of this complete love, it's not unreasonable to ask - demonstrate how that should be and how to get there.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

What are the 'details' in the example of you, the father, loving your kids? There are broad statements about the father being love and therefore being fully, truly a father - what are the standards that would be articulated to indeed consider what has been said of the father? If we answer that, we have an answer for God and Jesus. Can you do this? Does it really matter?

It only matters if I am trying to tell somebody else what they are not and what they need to be.  But even though I could do this, it will only be my opinion, even if I do base it on some pretty good books about parenting and psychology.

Share this post


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

My point has been made.

So you say.

56 minutes ago, thormas said:

My point it made.

Again.

56 minutes ago, thormas said:

I am always careful and if one reads enough, and double checks scholar against scholar, likely scholarly interpretations carry much more weight than than mere "opinion." The fig is an obvious one where there is no 'evidence' of any critical reading and judgement. Actually when you first mentioned it, I was curious as it is a bit of an oddity and I researched it. Prior to that I had an opinion but had never taken the time to truly consider it. That work shed substantial light on that little story and called into question your opinion and the argument based on it. I even shared that with you to no avail. How odd it that?

I wouldn't say to no avail - you presented a view on the fig tree that I considered. I'm not hung up on the fig tree and I only mentioned it initially with a raft of other 'questions' pertaining to the character of Jesus. I'm not arguing that Jesus did or didn't curse the fig tree but am trying to demonstrate to you that somebody thought this was a valid action of the loving Jesus. Why? And if they think this was part of how to be fully human, how in turn would it affect how they behave?

56 minutes ago, thormas said:

No, there is opinion and there is scholarly work based on a lifetime of research, learning ancient languages, etc. by professionals. So all opinion is not equal as you suggest. But it is a convenient dodge. Not looking for 100% only a preponderance of 'evidence.' Who's looking for undeniable evidence: simply read something on the fig tree and see what some critical biblical scholars say and whether that changes anything for you. If the story is a parable brought to life by a gospel writer, it is not one of your 'bad bits' if the story was the purposeful acting out of a parable by Jesus for his followers it was not one of your 'bad bits.' So too the temple: did it take place, when and where, was it acting out a parable, was it small, symbolic action done for his followers, was it as eventful as the synoptics suggest - leading to his death after threatening the temple and, therefore, the priests (after all in John it takes place at the beginning of his ministry and there were no repercussions). And it has been substantiated that Jesus followed the law, revered the temple and.....even sacrificed there - so he and/or his followers would had to go to the money changers and seller. So he cleanses it and then they exchange, buy and worship there?? And the 'fools' is an easy one. Yet to question these is inconvenient for your argument. 

I never said all opinion was equal, but even scholarly opinion is sometime 'opinion'.  If two professionals disagree I would imagine you would say one was wrong, one was right, or they were both wrong.  They can't have different opinions and both be right can they?  Same with scholars - some scholars may be right, some may be wrong, and some we cannot validate.  That's all I'm saying.  You seem to place a serious trust in 'scholars' but I am certain you don't feel the same about every scholar, do you?  

56 minutes ago, thormas said:

Now things are being questioned and doubted and researched because we, for example, have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which generations for thousands of years did not. All generation are not equal and we have substantial advantages, you must know this. You use the tradition and inclusion and100% and all is just opinion and are comforted by the bad bits because they support your view. To research is to risk everything, so.............. do you.....really?

I don't understand what you're asking.  Do I research?

56 minutes ago, thormas said:

It is a shame but you can't get past your demand, or your need, to substantiate everything and yeah, they are lacking, if not completely then 'substantially.' 

BTW, I accept that jesus was fully human in the 'usual way' also.

Okay.

Share this post


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

......... you seem to think that fully human is some version of complete love all the time.  What does that actually mean?  

Quote

It was explained and the 'detail' is given in responses to both you and Rom and, let us not forget, presented in Jesus.

Your, so called 'complete version of love' (your language?) is simple and presented in the Good Samaritan and the story of the woman about to be stoned. It's all actually very simple, thus my example of one as a Father for both you and Rom. Yet even putting it in those terms is unsatisfactory and can't get to you through the wall of evidence, measurement, detail and proof that you have built and behind which you sit. I can see you in the Samaritan parable: "do I slow my walk, how slow?, do I say something, what do I say?, do I tell the guy I'll call for help, when will I call and whom?, what approach, what action, demonstrates love and compassionate for this guy? Meanwhile, the guy bleed out. Well done, you are the poster boy for the guy who pays no attention to the plank in his eye but bitches about the speck in another's eye. Except here, you complain about details, substantiation, opinion, subjective, states and point to reach and can't even sit back and see what love looks likes in the human father.  Rather you demand, "detail', complete versions, demonstrations, measurement." People 'instinctively' know and respond to  love. The Mother gives it daily to her child, the child is drawn to it when the grandfather visits, we see it when it is on display in the life of strangers, kids who are bullied cry themselves to sleep longing for it, it is rarely talked about by some male friends but it is lived by them throughout their lives together. There is no real disagreement, we 'know' what constitutes love, we know what love is. The challenge is to love the other as you love your own (and yourself). If you need details on that, not sure who can help you. And,in Christianity, among some eastern Church Fathers, taking up this challenge to love and actually doing it is the deification of man. While in the western expression, it has been called by some the humanization of man: becoming human, being the very 'likeness' of God: by..............loving. Remove the plank and see what you already know.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

 Yet you say there is one ideal of being fully/truly human - which you cannot precisely describe.

Quote

Yet it is 'described' in Jesus and I too described it.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

It's not a paradox - one is either whole or they are not.  

Wow, you really need to read more. Christianity is ripe with paradox: transcendent and immanent; god and man; lose yourself to find yourself and on and on. Life too is ripe with paradox. You are on the either/or button, while the world is both/and. Just wow!

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

Love is a word we use to describe a wide range of actions and emotions.  ......... all sorts of interpretations as to what actual constitutes Jesus love.  So when you say fully human is an expression of this complete love, it's not unreasonable to ask - demonstrate how that should be and how to get there.

Quote

But the word is being used as care, compassion, concern for another. it is simple. As for Jesus' love - the plank is blinding you to what is right there in the NT and in life.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

 It only matters if I am trying to tell somebody else what they are not and what they need to be.  But even though I could do this, it will only be my opinion, even if I do base it on some pretty good books about parenting and psychology.

So, what are the details? What are the standards in the love of a Father for his child? Do tell but keep it basic?

Share this post


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

I'm not arguing that Jesus did or didn't curse the fig tree but am trying to demonstrate to you that somebody thought this was a valid action of the loving Jesus. Why? And if they think this was part of how to be fully human, how in turn would it affect how they behave?

I never said all opinion was equal, but even scholarly opinion is sometime 'opinion'.  If two professionals disagree I would imagine you would say one was wrong, one was right, or they were both wrong.  They can't have different opinions and both be right can they?  Same with scholars - some scholars may be right, some may be wrong, and some we cannot validate.  That's all I'm saying.  You seem to place a serious trust in 'scholars' but I am certain you don't feel the same about every scholar, do you?  

If you are allowing that the fig tree might not have actually occurred then it is not a valid action of anybody......because it didn't happen; it wasn't an action. 

Actually I look beyond just two scholars who might differ. But on many issues, there is a preponderance of evidence (i.e. agreement) and even you are saying that scholarly research is sometimes not opinion. Also, it becomes rather obvious when one has a position and then looks for 'evidence' in the bible to bolster the position they began with. What is a bit scary is that you reduce all to opinion, state we just can't know, make assumptions and continually make statements on those assumptions (fig trees, temple, cleansing, bad bits) without even bothering with an expert opinion or two or three or four. 

Trust but verify so I look to scholars and see who they read, who they mention. I did this with Ehrman who referred to about 6 other scholars, got books on all and read.

Share this post


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

If there is a mechanism by which we can love or become caring for our friends, partner and our kid(s); if these are mere 'arm waving' then and only then you might have a point. But I doubt it. You know how to 'get there' with them.............it is simply love, caring for, caring about, being love to them. This, my friend, is the world and what I have been saying. You had it all the time!

Circularity abounds again. If one wants to care for them, love them. Exactly how does one turn on this love? I find I either love someone or I don't. My child. It was love at first sight. Some person I don't know very well … I find I might like them I might not. 

I have been playing this game with you as long as you have been espousing Love is God. You steadfastly have not explained how to turn on this Love/love.

So in places you seem to suggest that people do not become Truly Human and yet this person Jesus who is as human as the rest of us became Truly Human? 

Regarding the myth of Jesus. I would agree the myth is likely based on a person (or persons) at least one of whom was likely called Jesus. I think this was the gist of Ehrman's book, if I recall correctly. Its a while since I read it. I think we can agree, an angel did not fore tell of an immaculate conception. The three kings story is likely false? All the miracles are mythological fancy. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Not every word ascribed to Jesus was actually spoken by Jesus, in that there is much added (made up) later. Not every action ascribed to Jesus was done by Jesus. We are left trying determine what was said by Jesus and how it might be interpreted in the context of the times.

From all this you deduce that he was Truly Human©?

Share this post


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

It was explained and the 'detail' is given in responses to both you and Rom and, let us not forget, presented in Jesus.

Your, so called 'complete version of love' (your language?) is simple and presented in the Good Samaritan and the story of the woman about to be stoned. It's all actually very simple, thus my example of one as a Father for both you and Rom. Yet even putting it in those terms is unsatisfactory and can't get to you through the wall of evidence, measurement, detail and proof that you have built and behind which you sit. I can see you in the Samaritan parable: "do I slow my walk, how slow?, do I say something, what do I say?, do I tell the guy I'll call for help, when will I call and whom?, what approach, what action, demonstrates love and compassionate for this guy? Meanwhile, the guy bleed out. Well done, you are the poster boy for the guy who pays no attention to the plank in his eye but bitches about the speck in another's eye. Except here, you complain about details, substantiation, opinion, subjective, states and point to reach and can't even sit back and see what love looks likes in the human father.  Rather you demand, "detail', complete versions, demonstrations, measurement." People 'instinctively' know and respond to  love. The Mother gives it daily to her child, the child is drawn to it when the grandfather visits, we see it when it is on display in the life of strangers, kids who are bullied cry themselves to sleep longing for it, it is rarely talked about by some male friends but it is lived by them throughout their lives together. There is no real disagreement, we 'know' what constitutes love, we know what love is. The challenge is to love the other as you love your own (and yourself). If you need details on that, not sure who can help you. And,in Christianity, among some eastern Church Fathers, taking up this challenge to love and actually doing it is the deification of man. While in the western expression, it has been called by some the humanization of man: becoming human, being the very 'likeness' of God: by..............loving. Remove the plank and see what you already know.

Wow!  Monumental leap in your insults, assumptions and bias. Keep working on becoming that fully human ideal you think has been achieved.  Clearly this is going nowhere, so I will finish it for me.  Out.

Share this post


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

Circularity abounds again. If one wants to care for them, love them. Exactly how does one turn on this love? I find I either love someone or I don't. My child. It was love at first sight. Some person I don't know very well … I find I might like them I might not. 

I have been playing this game with you as long as you have been espousing Love is God. You steadfastly have not explained how to turn on this Love/love.

So in places you seem to suggest that people do not become Truly Human and yet this person Jesus who is as human as the rest of us became Truly Human? 

Regarding the myth of Jesus. I would agree the myth is likely based on a person (or persons) at least one of whom was likely called Jesus. I think this was the gist of Ehrman's book, if I recall correctly. Its a while since I read it. I think we can agree, an angel did not fore tell of an immaculate conception. The three kings story is likely false? All the miracles are mythological fancy. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Not every word ascribed to Jesus was actually spoken by Jesus, in that there is much added (made up) later. Not every action ascribed to Jesus was done by Jesus. We are left trying determine what was said by Jesus and how it might be interpreted in the context of the times.

From all this you deduce that he was Truly Human©?

How does one turn on anything - from exercise, to starting a business, to running for public office, to love (i.e. compassionate concern for another)? They decide and they begin. There is no secret code, Rom. Don't you know this already about life? And, love is part of life.

I too love certain people and not others but the love that is talked about in Christianity is a bit different (there is something shared and also something different in these 'kinds' of love): Christian love is compassion for another, showing and acting out of concern because they are a human being and a child of God.This is one of the two great commandments. To have such compassion (generally speaking) is a choice. So, if someone thinks this is the way we should act, they just start; they decide and begin.

A game, so we agree that you're not a serious participant and whether you agree or disagree on a particular issue, you don't (really) engage. You just ask your questions, never contribute, ask others to summarize and restate things........and the trolling (a rather apt description someone else coined for you) continues. But this is known about you, and a number of people just ignore you or call you on it. Hey, how far along are you with the book you stated you would read and get back to us on? 

Rom, I remember you asked about how to turn love on in a recent post but could you give me all the other times where you, specifically and explicitly, asked this and my response? You know. just so I can review. Perhaps you can time it with the reporting on the book.

Since I rarely take you seriously - although I have on a number of occasions responded in the hope you were serious (a choice to care) - and rather than answer yet again a question that was answered and explained at length, just re-read everything :+}

A myth based on persons one of whom was called Jesus? That's the gist of Ehrman? Can you give us the specific passages (chapter, page and lines) from Ehrman?  You know, just to check and let us know who the other guys are that the myth is based on. Start with a long version, then follow up with a nice summary. 

Rom, you list things you don't believe; you can do better than that. Like what was added, by whom, when, was it based on anything, was it actually made up, could that still be a valid early Christian 'memory' of Jesus? Are you a Jesus seminar guy or do you side with those scholars who have raised concerns about the methods and results of the Seminar? What are your sources when you try to determine this stuff?

Finally, I don't deduce anything, especially from the stuff you mention.  However, I do accept the Christian take on Jesus and value the theological insights, on that, through the ages. 

Share this post


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

Wow!  Monumental leap in your insults, assumptions and bias. Keep working on becoming that fully human ideal you think has been achieved.  Clearly this is going nowhere, so I will finish it for me.  Out.

Never said I was, still working on it and thanks for the well wishes.

Actually there was no leap in or presence of assumptions or bias; I was just restating your parameters and indicating how these demands can blind one to something obvious in life (even when someone else is making a good faith effort to present something that you asked about to begin with). Regarding the so-called insults, I took a cue from Jesus and was making a point by 'acting out a parable." The point of a parable, told or acted, is to give one pause so they can re-look (look again, look anew) and reconsider before they miss out? Furthermore, you can look back at your demeaning/insulting comments: don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

 

Share this post


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

image.jpg

and there we have it :+}

Well Done!!

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

×