thormas

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. Yet it is 'described' in Jesus and I too described it. 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! 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. So, what are the details? What are the standards in the love of a Father for his child? Do tell but keep it basic?

My point has been made. My point it made. 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? 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.

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. 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. 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?

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. 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.

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!

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).

The so called bad bits are not ignored, actually I'm the one who addressed them. Actually, the view 2500 years ago is not as different as you like to suggest to the time of Jesus and through to today however, as mentioned, there is a continuing evolution in both religious thought and human consciousness. Sure there are differences but the Jews and the Christians say that the God of Abraham, Moses, the Prophets, David, Solomon, the Baptizer, Jesus and continuing to today is the same, true God. And where have I said they're wrong? There is a core belief that is consistent (the same/similar view) and much of the cultural, societal, tribal context had fallen away, by your calendar, less than 500 years later. No one is saying there is no cultural context but you take that to mean that all is mere opinion producing radically different views, images and beliefs. Whereas the reality is that there is an understanding, a belief that remains through to this day. Christians have millions of different images of God? Can you name the first 100,000? And are you talking crop circles now?

Well, not mythical and I refer you to Bart Ehrman on the question of the existence of Jesus. That settled, the how was answered.

Not mere opinion but i know, since you continually say it, it makes you happy. Sure it stands up and that you don't agree is fine. As for the rest, see previous posts. And, we're back to measuring and demanding evidence of what is a religious belief (on that see previous posts).

Ah, an attempt at humor. But............this has been dealt with. Acting out of a parable is not a report of Jesus' behavior. The Temple is more involved but might be similar and the fool thing has been addressed. I never have heard people contemplating the story of the fig tree, felt Jesus was setting expectations and then go out and curse figs, trees or fig trees. Nor are many people showing evidence of pressure to call people who browbeat others a brood of vipers. But it would be colorful. Hey, are there many people overturning the collection baskets in churches? I think Burl could have fun with this in the Heatherns section. You are projecting your issues on millions of innocent Christians. And, nothing is pushed to the side, I'm the only one who researched, read and addressed these issues. Nice try though.

Of course. As the runner must run to be a runner, so too, man must love to be truly Human. One does and is what s/he does. In this case one does love and, thereby, is .......Love. How could love ever rest on its past glories and still be love?

We have now entered the Twilight Zone. Just one example: how many times are you going to bring up figs without having read scholars on the issue? You always go to the fig tree on which you hang your 'argument' that Jesus wasn't always nice.* However, it is amazing that you bring it up, I do the research, share it with you and yet it is you who accuse others of ignoring 'uncomfortable' information that goes against their position. Weird, Paul, just weird. *BTW, what you also don't realize that even if we decided for fun that the 'fig tree incident' was real, it would not impact anything (see comments on 'fools').

Of course it's not the only way to look at God. It is narrow because you give (your) one limited view of the Jewish experience and reflection on God. In these posts you have spoken and emphasized time and again your genocidal god. The rest has been asked and answered.

asked and answered Actually I didn't and I don't ignore it at all. We discussed the fig tree and the temple incident and I researched both: their historicity, their meaning and how they fit into the whole "view of Jesus.' And I presented some of that many posts ago. I never really bought into the 'fig tree incident' (as historical) thinking it was a bit weird but discovered that scholars talk about it as the acting out of a parable (parables, as you know, are told to drive home a truth). The Temple intrigued me and I had read an earlier book by Paula Fredriksen on the number of trips Jesus made to Jerusalem and the Temple incident and am in the midst of yet another one by her which also speaks of the same story. So, no, nothing is ignored. Rather, when something comes up, I seek out experts in the field and educate myself so I'm in a position to think critically and comment. As for the 'fool' comment if we're talking about the confrontation with the Scribes and Pharisees, I have answered that. I have found nothing that takes away from the Christian confession that in the person, Jesus, one sees God, one sees Love, one sees the one who is 'truly Human.'

Actually I did but, then again, I always do and thereby answer many more questions than you. Your forte is asking questions, never liking the answers yet never contributing much else. Even when another tries to take you seriously, assumes that you are ' adopting a behavior that resembles genuine interest' and give an answer, rather than taking it, commenting and presenting (and explaining) an alternative, you just (once again) attack. Such a waste of a conversation. So, I say again: become more caring of others. That is the be all and end all of love: compassionate care. In Christianity, this is what God is, and to be that likeness is to do/be the same. To adopt means to take what is another's and make it your own. I'm simply saying there is no need to 'adopt' behaviors that 'resemble caring' (actually why only resemble, are they not genuine caring?) because the capacity to care, to love is already one's own waiting to be actualized. In Christianity, if one becomes the likeness of God/Love, they are actualizing what is theirs. If for some reason you don't like this formulation, then by all means "adopt behaviors that resemble caring." The only caveat is that what you 'adopt' you must truly 'make your own.' Just a preference Rom, don't get bend out of shape.

No, this is a narrow understanding of Jewish history; the God they are in covenant with is not merely "vengeful, wrathful, and jealous." And you never acknowledge this. Plus it is this God of the covenant that Jesus, a Jew, of the 1st C CE believes in and preaches; there is no 'vengeful, wrathful, jealous' God in Jesus. And Jesus also lived at the close of the 1st C BCE and his view was not a one off. He was a traditional Jew and carried into his life that understanding. Yet, consistency, there is no mention of this by you. Plus, you must know the history of the Jews is full of drastic ups and downs that affect their understanding and is presented in their writings and this is true in the centuries leading to the time of Jesus. Although a Christian whose main focus in on the Jesus of the NT, I recognize that this man was a Jew and the entire idea of covenant, being the chosen people, living by the commandments and the apocalyptic prophecy is his faith. Rather ..........simple. Your view ignores the entirety of Judaism and the actual Jewishness of Jesus. Actually, there is great consistency although as a 21st C person, with a radically different world view, with the benefit of biblical and historical research and a different philosophical approach, I am speaking of that belief in ways that would resonate with modern people. Is there a cultural aspect or advantage? Of course. But one's culture does not stand apart, it (ideally) provides new tools, new information, new thought systems to consider and make one's own (i.e. makes it meaningful for the present) a faith that is share across centuries. Actually you have reversed it: we have a greater ability to know more about Jewish life and culture, the genres of biblical authors, Jesus and his followers than generations upon generations that lived before us. I was given a traditional view of Jesus, had the good fortune to avail myself (and I still do) of our present tools that enable us to have a much more nuance understanding of Jesus (and his God). Those tools enable us to better see the heart of that faith and provide the means to present it in today's language, in a way that resonates with our present understanding. So, we do know a considerable amount about the Jesus of the NT and what he said and therefore believed about God and based on that (ongoing) knowledge (different from opinion) the task is to translate it for a contemporary audience and also struggle with what to do when one simply disagrees with Jesus, the theistic explanation of God (which is not an explanation that makes sense to many today) and what to do when it is clear that Jesus was wrong. Well, good, you have included some that are typically not defined as such but we'll leave it for now. But, you continue to ask the same question even when you have been given the answer: it is a process: an achieving, an actualizing, a becoming and in Christianity, it is 'described' as likeness (a likening) to God, i.e. love (this is the real.practical sense of what it means to be fully human). I again refer you to my last response to Rom. There is no end point suggesting that once you're there, it's done; there is no end. When does love stop, when is love done, when does love end? It doesn't, there is only the loving; there is only the being fully human; in each moment, in every moment to love is to be fully and truly human: essence is existence. I give you three (to begin) theologians and philosophers and specific works: John Macquarrie's 'Principles of Christian Theology,' Gregory Baum's "Man Becoming' and John Hick's, 'Metaphor of God Incarnate.' Actually I first learned of Whitehead and process philosophy in the 70s when I first read Macquarrie. Baum was a bit earlier and Hick not until shortly before his death in 2012. "So how do we recognise one that is complete/entire?" You will know them by their fruits.

This has been answered with my comment on fools and my last response to Rom.

Well I don't think most people are through and through selfish; I think most people love others, particularly (hopefully) their family and friends. So it would seem all one has to do (easier many times said than done) is to become expansive in their concern for others. Of course, more is always necessary even with family and friends. I think most of us know when we have done a poor job at being a friend, a spouse or parent, a son or brother or being simply humane (showing compassion, being compassionate) or what I have termed simply being more human. The two great commandments actually cover the 10 commandments from Moses but the bottom line is 'one moves' by being love (failing, doing a better job next time failing again, trying again and continuing to love). It is not an achievement (as if it is reached and one can rest on their laurels); it is an achieving, a becoming, an actualizing: one must always do to be. Isn't that the way of love? Once you do it, it's not over, it's never over and who would want it to be.

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.

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."

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. 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!

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

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?

No, really, see above.

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