davidk Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 First, we need a definition of sin. Opinions vary. One common definition notes that a "sin" must be deliberate. On this undestanding, you could not possibly enumerate "my sins" because you do not know my intentions. This is the failure of behaviorism. You could enumerate your own sins if you fully understand your intentions. In other words, on this definition of sin, the intentionality of consciousness is what counts. Yet, something struck me quite deeply when I did an internet search on the issue. A view I had never seen until now. The comment contrasts your view that "God spoke creation into existence" with the counter that "God loved creation into existence". I rather like the later phrase. If it be the case that the prophets transformed the old God of Wrath into a God of Love, then we really have to revist the notion of sin. A key word here is "contrast". It is a major element of Whitehead's metaphysics. There is an important difference between "contrast" and "opposition". When we allow different views into consciousness, we can deal with them (in contrast). When "an opposite" is excluded from consciousness, no comparison is possible. To put it another way, one could say that "God spoke" or that God is still speaking". More to follow as I think about this ... Sin: Disobeying God. I like; "God loved it into existence", God did love before He created all else. How about along with contrast- complement. "God lovingly spoke creation into existence." It's rather like the views some have of God in the Bible; maybe it should properly be looked on as contrast and complement instead of opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Sin: Disobeying God. I like; "God loved it into existence", God did love before He created all else. How about along with contrast- complement. "God lovingly spoke creation into existence." It's rather like the views some have of God in the Bible; maybe it should properly be looked on as contrast and complement instead of opposition. Well, you finally made it to the theories of Jung and Whitehead, about 100 years late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Well, you finally made it to the theories of Jung and Whitehead, about 100 years late. Not exactly. Neither of them had a sustaining view of God that was not in oppositon to God. I may have caused you to be wrong in your interpretation of my post. Maybe this can be more clearly said: Some see conflicting information in the Bible about God. While instead, the Bible is contrasting and complementing its teaching. The views of the Biblical God should properly be seen as contrast and complement instead of viewing the Bible in opposition with itself. Any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Not exactly. Neither of them had a sustaining view of God that was not in oppositon to God. Take a deep breath. Then run ... run davidk, Catch up with progress. Catch up with reality. Catch up with change. Catch up with Jesus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Take a deep breath. Then run ... run davidk, Catch up with progress. Catch up with reality. Catch up with change. Catch up with Jesus! If either Jung's emphasis on self or Whitehead's reasonableness ever had them surrender to God's ultimate authority more than just speculatively, you'd have some ground to stand on. Since neither did and ultimately they taught in opposition to God, not recognizing their need for Jesus' salvation. None can "catch up" with Jesus without His help. I pray you ask Him to help you humbly catch up in the understanding of your true need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Jung and Whitehead caught up to Jesus, thus my comment. We seem to have a higher respect for Jesus than some Paulinists (but not all Paulinists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Jung and Whitehead caught up to Jesus, thus my comment. We seem to have a higher respect for Jesus than some Paulinists (but not all Paulinists). It is in your words, "caught up to Jesus" that I can not understand of these or any other man capable. Do those that you speak of, these Paulinists, comport to some definition of a new religion? Is it a name for those that are clear in their trust of Pauls written witness of Jesus Christ? If the latter, it would seem not humanly possible to demonstrate any higher respect for Jesus than Paulinists. Claims of greater respect for Jesus than any of these Paulinists is, by the mere existence of the proposition, an effort to diminish Paul's testimony of Christ and a haughty claim that we bear a knowledege of Jesus Christ, through the likes of Jung and Whitehead, that Paul lacked from Jesus and his personal experience. It is a conspicuous attempt to discredit the Pauline epistles while raising the credibility of two dissenters to Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Some have eyes, but do not see. They see a statue or a deity of Jesus that they can talk about. Others have eyes and see Jesus as a state of being. They die daily to dive into this state. Christianity is not a new religion; some witness and some talk about Paul's witness. It is a matter of how deep ones goes into Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Some have eyes, but do not see. They see a statue or a deity of Jesus that they can talk about. Others have eyes and see Jesus as a state of being. They die daily to dive into this state. Christianity is not a new religion; some witness and some talk about Paul's witness. It is a matter of how deep ones goes into Christianity. I believe in the diety (divinity, essential divine nature) of Jesus Christ. That is the depth one must reach before further depths of Christianity can be explored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 DavidK that is good. Now dive deeper and see the love and Christ state of being in all your brothers and sisters. Serve them and serve the Lord. This is easily said, but to still the mind and intelect is difficult, but the reward is great. Praise the Lord! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 That it is good; why is it that man needs this God- Jesus Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.