thormas

Well it is only a little story....... It is something Christ did and taught. The Gift is for all but, unlike the ugly Christmas sweater discarded in the back of the closet, it is to be used - it is to be lived.

How did we get to the attack on liberal Episcopalians? Fides formata, faith formed in love: so, we have the self-revelation of God (who is Love), Jesus' response of love, even unto death, then we have communities formed by those who accept the Christ as the Word and the Messiah of Love (God): thus we are formed in Love (i.e. in God, in Christ). Thus fides formata: faith formed in love. The Catholics just said, "you're welcome!" :+} You choose not to or are unable to respond in detail, other than quoting poor Dave and now Luther. Oddly, you seem to run scared of love, fearing it will be misused, but such 'love' is not God and does not form anything. I have never mentioned or even give passing notice to such pseudo-love which is merely selfishness; it is a will to power, it is not love and it is only the Love that is God that creates, saves and forms us to his likeness.

Yet we are obliged to try, especially in this age, to present the Christian Story so it speak again, to contemporary people, and can be Good New. If not................. Actually, the idea of re-gifting such sweater gifts makes the point: it is not a gift of great worth or actually any worth at all as it is easily forgotten and, when remembered, given away because it is irrelevant. Think, instead of a gift, that is received and treated as having worth, even great worth. It is truly accepted and it is 'used.' The analogy makes the point: the gift or grace of God, if accepted, is to be used or in our case, embodied/incarnated so it is lived in and through us; revelation is the self-revealing, the self-giving of God and, as in any love, it is meant to be be lived, to become one, in/with the beloved; it is meant to be accepted, to be used. BTW, no-one but you is talking about law (although it seems to be an attempt to define and dismiss another's opinion), I am merely talking about the reality of a gift that is given, accepted (and used). You are right, the gracious giver makes no demands but the reality persists: a gift of great worth, a truly meaningful gift (as I assume God's is) used if accepted. Try going to someone's house for dinner and not eating (i.e. using) the gift of food that has been given to you out of their generosity. But as with law, you miss the point with your use of the word requirement: we are not talking about etiquette, legal obligations or requirement, we are talking about the simple act of giving and receiving. Further the equivalent is not 'living up to the Law, it is 'obeying' the law of God, as did Jesus. However, properly understood, to obey is to make important to you what is important to another: so for the one who receives, truly receives the Law of God, it becomes important to them (as it is to God, for it is none other than love), which means, not that they 'live up to it' but that they live it (again incarnate love). A distinctive? God's grace is not a safe space it is Life, it is God. Manipulation, seriously? There is no manipulation in the giving of any gift if it is truly given in love. All I have said about love, gift, God, Jesus has no implication of manipulation or self-interest: I am not talking about the Giver, I'm talking about the one who receives the gift which goes to the points we discussed above. Nobody is manipulating God's Word: if it is the word of Life, it is to be lived (used). Further, look how many have moved on from Christianity - not because the Word of God was manipulated but because it was not understood - especially for a 21st C people. Properly understood, there is no distinction between the Law of Love and the Gospel of Love - except by those among us who miss that it is the same Father revealed in both. So the commandment to love your neighbor and to love God "does not require any specific response?" But there can be a response if called by God but if not called, no response is necessary? Well, this will be a surprise to Jesus given his announcement: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. " He was calling for a response, (metanoia) specifically because of the presence of God. Faith vs works: Revelation is the self-revealing, the self-giving of God to us; Faith is the response, the giving of ourself to God; it is relationship. In any relationship, where human beings are involved, relating means doing, responding; it means being for the other. So too our relationship with God: to be for God, is to be for Love; it is to be for his children - your neighbor and the stranger. Love, is a response, an action, a way of being in the world. It is not that we have to respond to love, it is that because we are love (Grace), we respond!

1.Even for Jesus, it was all about God. Jesus didn't focus on himself, he pointed to the Father, his coming Kingdom, the two great commandments and on and on. Jesus, though, is the communicator,is he not? He is the Word spoken/communicated to humanity. 2.As to Scripture, in the period under discussion, weren't there theologians, including Greek Fathers, who knew not to take the Bible or all of it, literally? Then we can go to Augustine (Roman) who takes Genesis literally, as the fundamental revelation from God and, I guess without exegesis (were there two different stories and which came firs?) and we get..........original sin which the Lutherans (and others) accept as....... literal truth. 3.Well here it gets complicated especially if we agree with the Lutheran position that God loves all but choses who is to be saved: does that mean he choses that all will not be saved? And if that is so, where is his Love, where is human freedom..........and where is the once and done salvation from the death and resurrection of Jesus? But leaving this aside, are you saying it is not a gradual transformation? Even if 'all are saved' doesn't it still suggest, if we are to believe that God created us in freedom (as seemingly displayed in the 'story' of Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel and on and on), that we have to accept the salvation and live the Way of Jesus, the Way of God? Or do you allow for a situation where a murderer or Hitler, can spend his life doing what they do, have a smoke and a whiskey, waiting for the 'Day' but having no need for metanoia because they are or might have been chosen to be saved. Plus, don't human beings grow, at least in part, by training themselves or forming what we call habits that are either virtuous .....or not. And isn't the one who 'takes up' the salvation presented by Jesus, the one who is virtuous, has formed habits, 'trained' themselves and continually, by embodying love (God), are transformed into a new man, a new woman, a child of God? How can there not be what you call 'cooperation' with God if man is free? 4.Isn't the world, as you call it, where God already is, eternally immanent in his creation - or, to reverse it, with Paul, don't we and the world have our being in God? Isn't the world, the 'place' where Jesus came for man and woman? Isn't it to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Further, it isn't a mere foretaste, because the Kingdom has begun (a seed perhaps but it has begun). The Kingdom doesn't lie ahead, it has begun and we are called to live it - which, of necessity, changes the world, i.e transformation. Salvation is deliverance, if one is delivered or healed that is a transformation or a change from what was prior to the salvation/deliverance. 5.Is the follower of the Christ not to be ethical in the place where they find themselves, the world? Does not Jesus teach us to live the 2 great commandments, does he not tell his parables so we can see ourselves, hear the call and challenge of Life and live that life, is this not an ethic that we are called, taught to live? If Lutherans have a problem with the commandments, look no further than Jesus and the prophets of God. As for technique, isn't that simply how we carry out the living of the great commandments? And, isn't the living the 2 great commandments an imperative, i.e. crucial/important to Jesus in his life and therefore, the life of one who follows him? 6. I grant you that the idea of Church, based on the Roman state, did go astray. However, church, understood as the communities of those who follow Jesus, is indeed the (well I would not use vessel or instrument because that suggests things not human beings) Body (of Christ) that is called to do what Jesus did and as he said, "whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." So, now it rests on us, the 'new' Body - or embodiment - of God Actually, I haven't substituted anything and I have used your language in my responses. However, my challenge to my faith seems much more far reaching that the Lutherans (at least as presented here) who seem to still be ruled by their namesake. Perhaps I am wrong but that's how I have understood your presentation. Well, a quick look at Dave and he appears off on two things: 1.Salvation is gratis, a gift but as we all know a gift is to be accepted (or not) and used (or not). If you give someone a beautiful Christmas sweater with reindeer and little squirrels and perhaps a cardinal on it and of course it is covered in gold glitter, and they accept it then go home and throw it in the bottom of the closet, have they really, I mean really, accepted it? Well, sure on one hand they 'took' it, but actually they haven't: to accept a gift is to use it as it is intended. For example, if someone give you a lollipop and you accept it, the only was to truly accept and use it ........is to suck it. So, Dave, on first read, seems to think if we say gratis, that's it but he forgets who he is dealing with: human beings - who have to use or not use the gift. It is not a condition, it is the reality of any gift. Then, of course, we have to explore what Dave means by faith and trust. Dave's next issue is his take on God: if one, including a Greek Father or two, speaks in terms of deification it is not an either/or, whether God loves us 'as we are' or only 'as we are becoming more divine.' It is not either/or, it is both/and. As an example: a good parent loves her child both as she finds her and as she is becoming and growing into her best self (and even when she is not growing but having difficulty in life); the Mother does not bestow love in one case and not the other, rather, the Mother is constant love, she is the one who meets the child 'as she is' and it is her presence, love and encouragement that empowers the child to become her 'best self.' So too, God does not love us only as we are or only as we are becoming: this is too static a view of God and a limited view of love that not recognize its inherent power. It is Love (i.e. God), ever-present, that comes to us, is given to us 'as we are, wherever we are' and it is this self-same Love that empowers us to respond to Life (i.e. God) and grow to maturity as the likeness, true sons and daughters, of the Father. Love does not chose moments or conditions in which it finds us, Love is always, eternally grace and it is always ours - in all and every 'moment' of our being. One note, let's not get testy about whether or not one has a high view of scripture especially since it remains a bit unclear whether you take it as the revealed word or allow for some exegesis. Also, I have never thought in terms of 'sexing up religion' ...............?

Actually, it appears that most are extremely comfortable with recognizing that animals, ruled by instinct, are distinct from human being, who, as you say are animals, but also recognized as more than animals.

Male lions are lazy, the females do all the work.

Well, this assume a thing or an animal can make a judgment which actually goes to the heart of the discussion. If an animal or a thing acts on instinct, there is no judgment of the other, no condemnation of the other, no choice and no need for salvation. As for man, the 'biblical' judgment that I have been talking about is neither measurement (as in one doesn't measure up to a standard) nor condemnation, both of which suggest a disregard for or a dismissal of the other. In measuring/condemning 'judgment' there is no compassionate concern for the other man or woman. Such 'judgment' is for one's self without regard for the other. Loving or true judgment, on display in the NT, is for (on behalf of) the other: it attempts to make the other aware of an opportunity (that had been missed), a road not taken and the danger inherent (for themselves) if they ignore the opportunity that has been presented.

That is not selfish, that is animal instinct. No one imagines that the lion has a smoke and a black coffee, ponders his options like an English King of old, makes a decision, lays out the tactics and puts them into action to accomplish what the lion does........instinctively. There is a difference in kind between this act of an animal and the killing of a baby by an adult human. I would suggest this is just about universally accepted, however you, unlike the lion, are free to choose to believe the opposite. Further, a bunch of lion seeing the new king kill the cubs is radically different that a bunch of human seeing an adult male attacking not only one kid but all the kids in a particular family. The very use of the word choices makes the case for self-consciousness. Interesting though to ponder whether intelligence begets self-consciousness or self-consciousness begets intelligence. Regardless, you have tied intelligence to self-consciousness to the the dawn of sin. We are animals but with the intelligence and (self) consciousness - we are more. I'm not replacing instinct with sin, rather I'm saying there are two different realities or ways of being in the world: animals have their instincts, while man has intelligence and self-consciousness that moves him beyond the rule of instincts and the reality of the (pure) animal.

Really - Imperial Consensus? Will I checked his blog, put in 'imperial consensus' and really got nothing. It seems so important to you, I assumed it was a major thing. The only reference I found was to what seems to be the traditional understanding of Christianity, so I assume traditional theism. However, what I was presenting was not traditional theism, I simply linked creation and salvation which is biblical through to progressive and panentheistic and thus more nuanced than what must be considered imperial by the Lutherans???

You'll have to explain this one........ Although I appreciate the Amazon referrals, I have a long list of books I'm reading. But feel free to provided some detail on justification by faith if you are able.

I regard sin as self-centeredness or selfishness which differs, in kind, from love of others and also from (healthy) love of self. The 'destruction' that results from real selfishness seems evident across history, is universal, easily recognizable and considered toxic.Sin or selfishness presupposes self-consciousness and choice (self over, even to the detriment of others). Everything you have said of lions goes to instinct which does not presuppose (or require) self-consciousness or choice. In addition, the argument that animals sin, based on your examples, would not be considered credible or realistic (based on experience) by most of us - even without the benefit of scientific research. We consider animals hunting, and thus competing, for resources as natural (i.e. instinct), so too the protection of the bloodline and what you have termed 'betrayal.' And if we throw in scientific research and include those animals, other than man, that are considered, or might be, self aware - the question becomes one of definition and degree. Is awareness of the animal self in a mirror equivalent to a baby's 'awareness of self' and, even here is the baby's awareness of self a harbinger for something (much) more and also therefore, categorically different from other animals as they grow to full maturity? I have no issue with allowing that some other animals might be self aware (actually this is extremely exciting to ponder), however, is this the same as or different from man's self-consciousness: if the same, is it awareness to a different degree and if that degree is considerable then it is a difference in kind - therefore truly different and not the same? Still, if you look at man with a history, with language, with culture, with its science and philosophy, medical discoveries - and with its decision to dominate and destroy also - this seems radically different from animals; even animals with some self awareness act on instinct. I know about 'language' in some animals and their own communities but to the best of our considerable knowledge, there still seems to be a difference, a major difference, in degree and in kind that would lead most of us to see animals capable of sin (or human like selfishness) to be neither realistic nor credible. Furthermore, sin as merely our animal instincts doesn't seem to give us much because it seems apparent (given ordinary experience and science of the vast majority of other creatures) that humans don't have or are not ruled by instincts as are animals: choice trumps instinct; self-consciousness overrides instinct. Again with the lions as I recognize their need of, for example, the pack and they need nurturing to survive and grow. No issue at all. I don't see it as a 'lower need' than ours because their need, as you point out is essential to their survival; rather I see it as instinctual enabling for a lion to be a lion. Again, different from a human being. Further, you are correct about the need of the troupe of monkeys - however we were never a troupe of monkeys; they might have been in our line of development but they were animals, they were a different being, they are not 'us' and what we are or became is radically different. Plus, the very idea of 'working toward being a more peaceful species' or "better version of human" speaks to self-consciousness and choice (actually a choice against self-centeredness and toward/for others, i.e. compassion) not instinct. Seemingly lions don't ponder a better version of lion or think about working toward being a more peaceful species of lions. Again, I am using the word human to speak of more than species and I'm also recognizing a common awareness that we share: that some of us are 'more human' than others because of the way we act in the world (which also reflects who we are). Again, the rapist, the child molester, the serial killer, the Hitlers are stripped of humanity, of their human-ness, in our ordinary language: they 'are' monsters, animals, inhuman, and with the school shooter, we refuse to use their name (thus further stripping them of a human identity). By their actions they are know: they have failed, are failing, to be the only thing they can be: human. We don't say this about lions (they that one over there is failing to be a true lion and its lion-ness is diminished, however we do call them animals - but they are). And the beat goes on. Thanks.

This seems reminiscent of the baby and the bathwater. To become so suspect of a major part of the tradition seems a shame. But, isn't this picking and choosing biblical passages or entire themes to suit ones purposes? How can a Christian consider God as Creator or the 'ordering of creation' suspect? You can't mean you simply doubt the story and opt for evolution because evolution has no place for Augustine's original sin (see below). Actually it doesn't imply that, for it is God that enables us to be 'better people' or, to say the same thing with different words: to have a greater 'likeness' to God; to be more Christ-like; to change (metanoia) and become new men, new women; to become a son or daughter of the Father, etc. We can only be 'better people,' only overcome sin/self-centeredness (i.e. salvation from sin) because of God, the God who does not merely love but is Love. It is only Love (God) that overcomes self-centeredness (the original sin of 'Adam' and the self same only sin of mankind). It is not whether or not God can only truly love us when we are something more than what we are; it is that we can only be(come) more, because we are Loved or to get to how it works: we can only become more or better people or overcome sin/selfishness if and to the degree we incarnate God - if we embody and become love! Grace is gift, gift is given, what is actually given is God: God gives himSelf! What is radical is the Power of Love (i.e. God) - literally the only power by which man becomes like Christ. This is indeed radical. There is no moralism here, this is salvation theology. Well the reality seems to be that human beings are self-centered (i.e.sinners). I will leave Augustine for another time. What does chosen mean? Does God choose not to save some people? If we can only be saved by love (which is God) then God must not love all because that is the only way to be saved. Sounds like the guy on the beach who yells to the drowning boy, "I love you" but does nothing to save him or worse, choses not to? Say what? Finally, what hypothetical humanity? Humanity is actual people - no hypothetical about it: no people, no humanity.

Yes.

possibility, You have misunderstood and/or misinterpreted the situation I mentioned both in its particulars and also by the assumption that all 'fights' are the same. I was not fearful of repercussions, I did what was necessary to stop violence and harm to a kid. Rather simple. Compassionate is multi layered: for the smaller kid, for the onlookers and for the kid who is going violent. Further, it was not protecting my interests = you are projecting yourself into the situation and assuming motives and attitudes not in play - at all. It was not motivation by fear, it was motivated by preventing possible harm to others. You really don't know me, how would you, however I never feared for my job as a teacher. And when I mentioned the scenario of explaining why nothing was done to protect their child, fear again played no role; it was rather the possible scenarios that someone could have cared for a child but couldn't or wouldn't. Again, a simple human interaction and a parent's hope. A fight does not only start when someone retaliates, someone can not like how you look or the shirt he's wearing and cold-cock the other person: fight begins and ends in one punch and a hospital visit for the one attacked. And it does not only continue as long as either side feels 'wronged' - it continues, many times, for as long as it takes to protect yourself or another - until additional help arrives. This fight, or stopping the fight, in this situation was not about retaliation on my part???? And this goes to many/most bullying: the one bullied has done nothing, nothing at all and the bullying begins. So, I have no issue with a parent discussing why the bully bullies but if it continues and your child is at risk or simply has everyday ruined and is fearful of the next - something has to be done. Whether that is telling the principal of a school about the situation and threatening to sue over the bullying (talk about fear - it is there for schools) to giving another a taste of their own medicine - there are steps that can and should be taken. As for the risk of becoming the bully - I have never seen that happen. It might, I have never seen it.. I agree that bullying can be horrible but I have to tell you a slap up side the head is no longer bullying, it is assault, a physical attack on another (small, sure but in a school situation or schools sanctioned activities - not acceptable). And that's what I would have my lawyer tell the principal and the parents of the bully when we met and that, if it ever happens again (if they look at my kid sideways) - all legal hell will break loose. Sorry, but the kid has nothing to understand in the moment when s/he is slapped (and will they finally feel bullied when they get a kick to the kidneys, a fist to the nose, a push down the stairs, a full out beating on the streets?). I simply disagree: one can understand why another is a bully and feel compassion - but how long does this understanding and compassion have to last if they fear going to school or they are humiliated at all or could be physically harmed or driven to suicide - because sometimes all the understanding and compassion in the world won't stop someone? Where is the compassion that is driven to protect the one being bullied in this scenario? The fight might quickly go out of some bullies but not all bullies. Compassion is also about stopping any or further harm to others (who also deserve compassion) and then addressing, with understanding, why the bully bullied. But, sometimes, just like the mother protecting the kid from touching the hot oven, you just have to say (or shout), "No!" None of this is simple but I lean to the innocent first.

You do make sense. I didn't miss the point, just trying to lay the groundwork and answer your question about "this applying to the earlier species that led to Homo sapiens" and "Did amoebas and Neanderthals require 'salvation'?" So, I think the other creatures have been covered and I have no earthly idea about Neanderthals - were they conscious of self? No idea but if they were then it become interesting. When man did not yet roam the earth (so to speak), it seems there was no need for salvation from sin because there was no sin. Further, I don't know a precise moment when 'the need' came into being because I have no exact idea (but I bet it was on a July 20th) when man's consciousness of self took hold and he was truly different than all other creatures. However, whenever that happened, one supposes sin began and so did salvation. Salvation is a man-made concept since it is ours but it doesn't follow that, because it is man-made, it does not describe and say something real about the human experience. When a lion cub grows to maturity, it is a lion; it is not more or less lion than they lion next to it: a lion is a lion is a lion. Our experience indicates it is not the same with humans. As we grow to maturity and even before we get there, we recognize that some of us do human well, others don't and some do it very badly: unlike a lion, human is sometimes not human. For us, in our ordinary experience, we recognize that some of us are failing at the very thing, actually the only thing we can be: human (the lion is incapable of failing to be a lion). There is a further realization: that we need others to enable us to be and to do; we need the words of others and the love of others to learn, grow and thrive. The need is not only when we are young and growing to adulthood, but throughout life (it should be obvious from our experiences with hospitals, rehab centers, long term care facilities and prisons that people, all people need this very human interaction). Seemingly, what we need is not part of the 'original packaging;' none of us have it until it is given; none of us own what we need. All of us need others but, perhaps, especially the prodigal sons and daughters: they need to hear (to be called, awakened, challenged by the words of others) and they need to be loved - encouraged (literally given the courage) to change and try again and again to be human. For the prodigal, this is healing; this is saving. If no one owns what s/he gives this suggests something more is necessary, something more must give what is necessary for men and women to become truly human. For some, this is God: the Word of Life spoken in and through our words; Love given in and through our love - that 'builds' human beings. Man needs God to be human and some of us must be healed first before we can continue on our path to become whole. God/Life/Healing/Salvation is 'given' in and through the human community. 'All' Jesus did was shout this Word (of life) from the rooftops in order to awaken, challenge and call us into life- the better to be heard; 'all' he did was shower all with love wherever they were found (the sun shines on all, the rain falls on all) - the better to show how it's done. Jesus embodied the Word (the same word that is spoken by and in women and men) and he embodied the Love (the same love given by men and women). Jesus embodied (incarnated) God so that in him, literally, the word that calls us could be heard and the Love that empowers us could be experienced; Jesus, by giving flesh to Word and Love, simply showed where God already was. Also, it is not isolate to Jesus. So the concept of salvation is ours, thus man-made. The concept of how man comes to be is also man-made. However, both (are believed by some to) reflect a reality that is not man-made: how we interact in the world, how we grow and become 'human' is a given in which we find ourselves. So too is the reality that some must be healed before they are able to get back to the work of being human (analogous to a sick man needing to be healed before being able to get back to his life, not only back but fully engaged in life). I don't see any hole to fall into when one thinks of our existence before becoming Homo sapiens. First, it was not our existence if it is pre homo sapiens. And, second, isn't that the same existence that all of creation, from the stars and black holes to the trees and animals on earth have with God? I don't see a hole, I simply see creation groaning, moving toward fulfillment (whatever that might look like) and man (and perhaps others), the one conscious of himself, the one both full of anxiety and capable of being like God, at the leading edge as consciousness moves to self-consciousness which in turn is called 'into' Consciousness Itself. Now here's what I wonder about: does all creation move to this Consciousness? Then the question becomes, while the idea of "God" (discussed above) is man-made (certainly the words are), is it also an “aha”moment (an insight) about the reality that is given and in which we have our being?

Again, this is an academic discussion for me and I when I am speaking about laws, legal procedures and even human society, I am trying to make a point and it is not about dissecting these topics (unless that is the specific topic under discussion). I do have to include a 'good lord" here with your comments on the idealistic whole, frequent diversions and virtuous life :+} The simple truth is that while I recognize your views ("of society and humanity in general, though, ..our weaknesses and fears - our mob mentality, instinctive tendencies, interpretation of laws"), I am not overwhelmed by this reality. There are fearful tendencies in some of us but not all of us and compassion (and love) is not only learned by experiencing or recognizing the worst we have to offer: it is truly and best learned by experiencing and recognizing and being thankful for the best we have to offer - because others gave us the best of themselves. I think knowing such love and compassion is the key, the only key, to being compassionate and loving unconditionally. I understand 'Christ-like' behavior to be on a continum from the ordinary, the everyday acts of many, and many more unknown, to those acts that rise to what we would consider courageous. For me, these actions define self and are (true) humanity, which is not all that uncommon in the world. What is 'Christ-like' it is as simple as smiling at 'the other' who is totally different than you and disarming them as they 'instinctively' return the smile; it is holding a door for a stranger, it is changing a flat for a family traveling on the road, it is a million acts of such compassion, such concern given by one to another in the course of the day - and it is not negated or overwhelmed by the true evil that some inflict on others and the world. Even Jesus, although the gospels don't dwell much on it, must have lived a life of small compassions in his everyday existence - or else he would not have been able to rise to the courageous when things went against him. He was aware of, but not overwhelmed by, the fearful tendencies of men and women in his everyday life of compassion or in his full moment of Love. We differ on world views: I don't see the world through the fearful lens, although I am very aware of that view and experience. I see the possibility of pain, humiliation and loss but I see the possibility and the actuality of something else that can (and does) overcome this. It is precisely in the discussion of bullying that you should react to what I shared, my personal value, and how bullying 'can be stopped.' Obviously, some others might have other, more fearful means but that is not the 'way' I suggested we stop bullying. I had one memorable experiencing of bullying when I was in high school: the kid, for no reason I could think of, started saying something about me. So, I simply turned the tables and gave him a taste of being on the other side; we remain friends. Did it destroy his self worth, did it lack compassion? No to the former but he got a taste; as to the latter, well it wasn't a punch in the face, I didn't trash his car or his parents' home, and, knowing this kid, I knew a heart tot heart wouldn't work - so I gave a little taste of what it was like to be me (the bullied). And, I didn't call him a snake or a brood of vipers, like Jesus did the Pharisees. When I was a teacher, I would work both players: I would talk to the bully and console the bullied but I would also not remain passive if it continued: I would step in and stop the bullying because of the lack of compassionate on the part of the bully was not acceptable and the continuing (lasting?) damage to the bullied. Sometimes compassion must make a choice for the bullied and it can be done without destroying the bully - as it is (should be) done for their sake also. Bottom line, given the horrific results of some bullying that lead kids to kill themselves, one cannot be passive or overly fret over a lack of compassion for the bully when an innocent is being destroyed. Good advice for your child but what if it continues.........what if she encounters a kid who is relentless? Same with fighting, I maybe got into one little kid 'fight' but when I was a teacher, there was a kid who started a fight at a dance; it was not going to be pretty and someone was going to get hurt - very badly (and I didn't think the parents waiting outside of the ER would want to hear how compassionate I was trying to be when their kid was beat up). So, I stopped the kid, it was over, I dealt with all parties afterward and things were back to normal - and like a lot that goes on in HS, it was forgotten. So we continue........

There you go again. As I have said before, this is fun (and educational) for me. My exclamation points and caps (or the occasional, "good lord" - which was fun) are for emphasis and not out of frustration. In addition, I don't take anything personally for the simple reason that I disagree with your position and recognize the misunderstanding or mis-construals - which at times require emphasis to emphasize what I actually said :+} However, I will read and comment later.

Correct!

It was not natural for others to misuse religion to hurt others. For example, Jesus (I know you might be able to excuse him because you believe him to be the Son of God, however, he was human), Mary, the alleged Joseph, the brothers and sisters of Jesus, his disciples and even Paul, who we could accuse of misuse when he was Saul but then changed. Plus we have countless others throughout history, most unknown to us by name, who never misused religion (actually if they had, we probably would have heard about them, like the Pope, Luther was against).So there is no natural inclination if so many can go against it what is their (so called) nature. There is no natural perversity, no original sin so defined by Augustine. There is only one sin, the original one of self-centeredness that presents in many ways. We are not born with a 'stain' we are born to a world where self-centeredness, big and small reigns and we are to greater and lesser degree nurtured in the way of the world. And we need help to 'overcome' the way of the world, but we need help for most things in human life. And help has always been here, even before the Christ (or was God not present to humanity?) and many were and are oriented (led, encouraged, cajoled, educated, challenged) from the get-go to love, to self-less ness and sin/selfishness is overcome because they, regardless of their religion, have chosen love (again, to greater and lesser degrees). The Christ put a spotlight on the God who was always with us: Jesus revealed what and where God already was.

I don't think so, do you? I accept evolution, including the evolution of man. Seemiingly, there is a movement from lower to more complex forms of life and with higher forms of life there seems to be a further movement from consciousness to self-consciousness. If that is not so or you disagree,please let me know your take on things. Now, I like most people accept that a rock is a rock and can impact its environment and that environment can also impact it (sometimes literally). Then we have trees and plants and I also accept that there seems to be a natural process about them that is inherent (for lack of a better description right now) yet this process is dependent for its fruition on other things like sun, rain, soil, birds, wind and such. And animals like lions, tigers and bears have instincts which guides and/or rules them and these animals both impact and are impacted by their environment and the other 'things' in that environment or that make up that environment. Now, I for one have never thought that rocks, trees or bears need to be saved, since it appears they are complete in themselves, aided by instinct, 'at home' in their environments and are all they can be: for example a baby lion is going to be a lion, it is inevitable under the right circumstances, so to speak. It's never going to be a bear or a rock or a tree, it may not make it to full lion maturity but all it can be is already established. So, I would think it is a bit crazy for anyone to suggest that anything other than man need to be saved. However since we don't know everything, is it possible that other beings on the earth (whales?) or other beings in our past (neanderthals?) or other beings in other galaxies might have self-consciousness and be more like humans than a tree, rock or a bear and need salvation? Sure. I'm open. You? One final note: St. Paul speaks of all creation groaning for completion (roughly speaking since I don't have a Bible in front of me). Now I still don't take this as a cry to be saved, I actually take it as poetry but I do like the image of all of creation moving to completion (whatever that might mean).

Good Lord, isn't it obvious? Take something as simple and as destructive as bullying, we can't think of or don't know how a parent, a teacher, a friend, a stranger can actively refuse to accept or tolerate such behavior on the part of their kid, their student, their friend, even a stranger? I have no idea what you mean by justifiably condoning or causing pain to those who cause pain. If my kid ever bullied another child, I would have talked to her, we would have discussed why she did it, how the other felt, how she would feel and on and on. Where is the causing of pain to the one who bullied? However, if someone tried to kill a child, we would not sit down over tea and discuss his feelings. We would stop him! The priority is to stop such actions, it is not to inflict pain on another which sometimes is inevitable. Stopping such actions is doing for an innocent what they cannot do for themselves. And, because we have laws, we have the rightful authorities do it rather than have vigilante justice. There is no lack of love in return, there is first and foremost the need to protect the innocent and stop the evil that another would inflict on that and other innocents. Lack of love? Do you think parents, teachers, cops, firemen, soldiers, and so many others do what they do because they lack love? For many, it's called service (to and for others). As you should have noted by now, I have not advocated for anyone to demand or inflict pain, humiliation, loss or death on anyone else. Rather, I have said, that those who cause harm, especially great harm and suffering on others.......should be stopped. I said they should be treated properly by officials or those responsible for there care, I am against the death penalty for reasons previously noted and discussions on 'mental' hospitals, prisons, rehab, etc. is something we have not discussed in any detail. Evil or horrific actions are condemned and should be, shouldn't they? Who is going to say, rape, serial murders, child molestation, tax evasion, bullying another to the point of suicide are not to be condemned? As for the person, the ideal is that they are stopped and treated humanely. However, in earlier posts, I noted that ordinary, everyday people, when reacting to such people, 'see' something, 'know' something: that this is not truly human behavior, that this is not how humans ought to act, that this is not.........human. Not really human! And this is revealed in their language. Then I tied this, in what I consider an academic discussion on this site, to a Christian anthropology: simply that human is (a verb) to be done and it is in the doing that one becomes truly human (and I specified that I was not merely using the term human as species). Further, that by their actions, they are known: that if one does not love (again using a Christian theology), they are, in some real way, not what they are born to be: human. They have not realized or actualized this potential and, in that moment (and perhaps longer, depending on their action), they are less than they could be, they are not yet truly human (and I stated that this potential is never losses even with death). There is a difference in degrees in our humanity. This, in this academic discussion, in no way implies, suggests or supports inflicting humiliation or pain on anyone. As opposed to those who bullied Kierkegaard in the streets, I have not suggested people run after others shouting, "not human, not yet human, monster, animal." So, I never advocated fighting bullying, murder, child molestation or rape with like actions - how absurd that would be. We stop it with Love but Love is active, involved presence: sometimes pointing out what is not right, not acceptable, sometimes shouting "Hot" to save a child from a hot oven, sometimes it is judgment (as I have used the term) as with the child who bullies, to talk, to educate, to open eyes, to present possibilities and the problem or the danger if one continues to bully (for example less and less friends). And sometimes, Love must step in and stop another from doing lasting harm or harm unto death. And the consequence is that one can die in pursuit of such service. There is indeed much that is undeserved: cancer, birth defects, parkinson's, measles, a hurricane right on top of you, and on and on. It is undeserved but there was no mention or advocacy for inflicting it on anyone else??

No problem, I accept the clarification and the agreement. However, I disagree that that is what Jesus teaches us or that is all he taught (once again, not sure what you are actually saying about his teachings). Again, we are to be the Good Samaritans, we are to be the Good Sons (in the Prodigal Son parable) and Jesus himself, 'condemned' the actions and words of the Scribes, the Pharisees, those who passed the injured traveler, the Rich Man, etc. Or, if condemn is too strong, he passed judgment or indicated that certain words, actions, attitudes were wrong: not in fulfillment of the 2 commandments. This (and what I have been saying) is not inflicting anything on others. However there is more to the story, our story than Jesus. He believed the world, as it was known, as it had been, was ending. It did not - so the communities that followed him had to adjust to the new reality. I am not saying we should not examine the moments to which you refer, rather I agree that we should and, further, these examinations (what I have called judgments) are with us from our earliest moments: 'we don't use that kind of language, we don't call people name in this family" or "use your words, not your fists" or "don't lose your temper, take a deep breath" and that's why we ticket, fine and have classes for reckless or drunken drivers. Yet, we still must condemn the actions of the murderer, the terrorists, the rapist, the school shooter, the drunk driver who kills another and such others and stop them from harming still others. Our own words have not caused this horrific actions and when we stop them it is not out of retaliation (that's why we have laws) or even a cop's personal anger or fear: it is for the safety of the innocent and, also, in our system, for the offender.

I too consider God as Savior, but it is always tied to God as Creator (and Sustainer); it is the same God. To me, there is no distinction: I create my child, I love my child, I want my child to have the fullness of life, I want to share life with my child (this is Creator) and if my child fails, has difficulty, needs help then I am still there for her (this is Savior/Healer).The God who saves is first (so to speak) the God who creates. I too accept grace/gift - the gift of life and, as part of that, the realization that I am only able to become 'Human' though the gift of Other who gives Self in and through the created order. God comes to us and enables us to become fully Human, in and through others (grace). Salvation enables us or empowers us to become sons and daughters of the Father (after the 1st born Son): this suggests we no longer sin and thus by definition are better people. So.........grace enables us to become better people. The Word, spoken in the beginning, the Word that echoes through all, is the same Word that is embodied (incarnated) and heard clearly in the man Jesus - in his life, death and Life. Again, not applied to things, given to men and women. Jesus did not apply, he was with and for others; he gave (gift/grace) himself to others so they might have Life. How are other Protestant traditions not accepting or defined by incarnation theology??? Further, speaking about the 'world without sin' is not mere speculation, it is, rather, a statement/belief about the God we believe is Savior: that he didn't need sin to love us, that as Love ItSelf, he loves us, as he did Adam & Eve, before sin entered the world. It is a fully biblical position. Don't Lutherans know this? Don't they know the sun shines and the rain falls on all, even as it? Don't they know the Good Son in the tale of the Prodigal is already with and loved by the Father? It is not speculation about how we think the world should be, it is s faith statement about who God IS! Spong and Fox may be different but these men and these other Christian traditions also 'confess' God and his Christ. How can you say they do not? As for the councils - that is for another day.

I have no idea what 'pretend grace' is but I also wonder how Lutherans understand real grace. I agree it is not a mere process of growth (how we understand that may differ), salvation is always 'there' but, indeed, it must be accepted (or not) - which might cause some to view it as an offer. After all, grave is a gift and a gift is offered to another and if accepted it must be used or taken up - so actually, grace is offered and an offer. Completed I get, applied not so much. One applies wax to a car, a thing - one does not apply something to a human being who is not a thing. Even your words, hearing and receiving are the antithesis of something that is applied and speaks rather to something given and the freedom and willingness of another to hear and to receive what is given, what is offered: Grace, or better, God.

I think a baby has no sense of what we might call morality for the simple reason that s/he is too young. I do allow for our innate goodness (original righteousness) and if 'nurtured' it is enabled to fully develop: we become what might be called sons and daughters of the Father. So, the baby's budding morality is developed, learned and nurtured. Is it who looks like them or who feeds them? In the days when babies were care for by wet nurses, did it really matter to the baby what they looked like? Or, does biology explain why we like the gray or the blue soldiers in a Cicil War play set (yes, there were play sets)? Hardly. Actually, one's preference probably reflects which side of the Mason/Dixon line they or their people (who nurtured them) lived on. Again, even liberals have babies who just want to be fed, changed, and held - they learn preferences from their parents. family and community - but as babies, it's all about the milk. I agree there is not a blank slate since we inherit a great deal, biologically, from our parents. Just saying that we don't inherit preferences (as above) nor do we begin with dark tendencies. We come into a world of other finite beings needing and wanting to survive not through group loyalty or tribalism but because each of us has this 'survival instinct.' Of course, it can be extended to cover a group or tribe but the 'instinct' is individual (first). And far right rhetoric is feeds 'prejudices' and beliefs that have been nurtured, caught or adopted in one's life. It is not a question of being above, it is a decision against and once chosen and lived, then indeed one is 'above it:' it has been dismissed as a worthy option. And it is not repression: if one is not racist, they have not repressed racism, they have been nurtured, oriented, educated and chosen against it; there is nothing to repress. Well, we disagree on a present day acceptance, from a Christian, or any, perspective, that human beings are perverse - but loved in spite of themselves. Interestingly, I also, with an eye to Scripture and Christian tradition, believe the very opposite is realistic and true. Did Luther never allowed that even if there were no sin, God would have still become one with humanity, for the Lover always wants to be with the Beloved and the Parent always wants to share life with the child. That the children are in need, that some of the children have made some bad, even some horrific, choices adds a dimension of necessary healing (i.e. salvation) but this does not change the reality that we are loved, not despite something about us, but because first, last and always, we are the Father's children. Original righteousness trumps 'original' sin.