Jesus Versus Paul

[JosephM]

(snip)

>>It seems to me that man's definition of love and God's love are not the same. If God is Love then the meaning is beyond words and the way to know that meaning is through Christ which you will not find in a book or in words or in thinking but in oneness with that Love.

 

I agree with you…in part. But if you are correct that man’s definition of love and God’s definition of love are not the same, then when the Bible, which was written by men to men, speaks of God as love or God’s love, then it is utter nonsense to us, isn’t it? It is analogous to saying that God is our heavenly Father, but that his role as father has no counterpart whatsoever to human fathers. If God’s role as father or his love has no counterpart to human fathers or human love, then speaking of God becomes meaningless. My opinion only, but if we focus too much on God’s transcendence, on his ineffableness, then we end up saying nothing whatsoever about him. While I agree that God’s love is beyond fully capturing in words, words and actions are all we have in order to communicate that love.

 

Perhaps you read more into what I have said than what I have said.

 

 

>>Does a butterfly need a standard to be itself?

 

It depends on a certain point of reference, doesn’t it? If we are talking, as you seem to be doing, on a metaphysical level, that a butterfly is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutron, and electrons, which are made up of…whatever…then, yes, it becomes senseless to talk about differentiations between one butterfly and another. For that matter (pun intended), at that level there is no difference between a butterfly and hippopotamus or a rock. We can say, with a high degree of assurance, that “all are one.” Okay. Fine. I get it.

 

But the fact is, we don’t experience life or existence on the atomic or subatomic level. We experience life on a high level of diversity where, despite the basic building blocks of matter, we DO make differentiations between things. As we experience and know a butterfly AS a butterfly. A butterfly is NOT a rock. Nor is it a hippopotamus. Nor is a Monarch butterfly the same as a Swallowtail butterfly. And that is my point; a butterfly has certain characteristics on the level in which we experience life that differentiates it from other things. And while a Monarch is not exactly the same as a Swallowtail, most would agree that they are both butterflies, not one a butterfly and one a hippopotamus.

 

Similarly, there seem to be different “Christs”. You say that, spiritually or metaphysically speaking, they are all the same. I say that, experientially, they are not. The Christ that David Koresh believed in is NOT the same Christ that I believe in. Nor is Paul’s Christ that same Christ that we see in Jesus. Their messages ARE different.

Obviously a poor analogy on my part. My point was that Christ needs no standard even as a butterfly needs no standard for itself. It is standard in itself. It is beyond judgement or comparison.

 

Should i be looking to their messages for truth?

 

>>There is no need to compare one Christ with another because spiritually speaking there is nothing to compare.

 

And that is where you and I are on a different wavelength. I think there is a differentiation and I think it is a big one.

 

 

Perhaps we are.

 

 

 

>>If we as humans stop looking at others and measuring and comparing and judging, we see one Christ and a new world appears….

 

…in which it is okay for anyone to do anything they want to anyone they choose because we don’t want to compare or measure morality or make judgments about how we should treat each other.

 

Never said that. That is a conclusion based on your understanding of what I said. I would say ... Always treat others with Love as God does and judgements about how we treat each other will not have to be made.

 

If, Joseph, you really believe this line -- that we shouldn’t look at others, measure, compare, or judge, then why do you even participate here at TCPC? Everytime you read a post, you are looking somewhat at the person that wrote it, measuring their words, comparing your own perceptions, and making some type of judgment. So why do you do it is this is not the world you live in?

 

bill

 

Am I treating you poorly or without Love? Am I measuring you or just sharing a different perspective through dialogue? Am I really judging you or are you judging yourself because you are judging me? I am not aware of judging you or myself. Oh yes, i am in the world... but perhaps not of the world...

 

Love Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Always treat others with Love as God does and judgements about how we treat each other will not have to be made.

 

I agree. And that is, again, where we see a differentiation between Jesus Christ and Paul's Christ. Paul actually called down curses on people, on anyone who disagreed with his theology. And even you yourself make "friendly" allusions that you are "further down the road" or more enlightened than others.

 

Am I treating you poorly or without Love? Am I measuring you or just sharing a different perspective through dialogue? Am I really judging you or are you judging yourself because you are judging me? I am not aware of judging you or myself.

I only meant what I said...and said what I meant.

 

Oh yes, i am in the world... but perhaps not of the world...

 

I hear the "Twilight Zone" theme going off in my head.

 

Thanks for chatting.

 

bill

[davidk]

Bill,

Like you I don't want to get too involved in THE philosophies, but it is how we approach truth and being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct. Like: God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing. Because which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to the questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

Pretty basic stuff to start with.

 

Do you think we need another thread, or private messages?

 

Dk

[JosephM]

I agree. And that is, again, where we see a differentiation between Jesus Christ and Paul's Christ. Paul actually called down curses on people, on anyone who disagreed with his theology. And even you yourself make "friendly" allusions that you are "further down the road" or more enlightened than others.

 

(snip)

 

Thanks for chatting.

 

bill

 

Personally i do not compare or analyse between Jesus and Paul having different portrayals of Christ. It seems to me to be a fruitless endeavour. Perhaps not for others as i speak for myself. As far as the allusions you refer to they exist only in the mind of the one who measures. To me there is no more or less enlightened. Everything is as it is. One is not better than the other. Only different. Perhaps you look at it differently than I?

 

As far as the concept of "further down the road". In a million years it will not even matter to your flesh. Time is not a concept of Spirit. Anyway, it is always a pleasure to dialog with you and it is never a requirement of mine that you have to agree as i realize that the perspective i speak from is different than your experience to some degree. Yet I do hope any stimulation you do get from our conversations is positive for you.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Yet I do hope any stimulation you do get from our conversations is positive for you.

 

Likewise, Joseph.

 

Shalom,

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing.

 

Yes, BUT...(you know me) we first have to talk about what we mean by God. Again, philosophy enters the picture. The kind of God that I believed in at the age of 12 no longer makes sense to me. My understandings and experiences of God have changed since then.

 

This doesn't mean that I think God changes. He may or may not, I don't know. I just mean, primarily, that human perceptions and conceptions of God change. It is when we solidify our own perceptions into stone that we make idols.

 

So when somebody tells me, "I believe in God", I usually have to inquire into their understanding of God so that we can be on a similar wavelength in the discussion. This doesn't mean we agree, just that we understand each other.

 

If you'd like to start a new thread, have at it. But, like you, I try to keep things as simple as possible.

 

Was it Einstein who said, "Make things as simple as possible...but no simpler"? And also, "Anything that can be put into a nutshell probably belongs there."

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Here is a post that I wrote recently on another forum that pertains to this subject:

 

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

 

What does it mean to be Christian?

 

There are probably as many different answers to this question as there different Christian denominations or even different Christians. And the ironic thing about the label "Christian" is that those that use it of themselves are sure that they (and others who agree with them) are "true Christians" while others (especially those who don't agree with them) are not.

 

Whom do we look to for the answer to this question? Luther? Augustine? The Pope? Your pastor? Billy Graham? Your family?

 

To me, if we use the label "Christian" or aspire to be a Christian, then we need to look at what Jesus of Nazareth had to say about it.

 

Technically, Jesus did not speak of Christians or Christianity. Jesus was a Jewish reformer, not the starter of a new religion. So Jesus himself never defined Christians or Christianity. He did, however, talk about what it meant to follow him. In reality, Christians, if they are anything, should be followers of Christ. If someone doesn't follow Christ, then it is reasonable to assume that they are Christian in name only.

 

So Christians should be, first and foremost, followers of Jesus. This is not primarily believing things ABOUT Jesus, this is following what Jesus TAUGHT. If I claimed to be a follower of Billy Graham and could tell you when and where he was born, where he grew up, where he went to school, where and when his crusades were held, and what books he has written, BUT I couldn't tell you what Billy taught, then my claim to follow him would ring hollow. I might know alot about him, but would I really be justified to call myself a follower if I didn't know his central message and purpose? Likewise, if I did know Billy Graham's central message but never took his message to heart and tried to live by what he taught, my claim to be a follower would be disputable.

 

It is much the same with Jesus. If we claim to be Christians but don't know what Jesus taught or don't endeavor to put his teachings into practice, then our claim simply rings hollow. This is exactly what Jesus is saying in the verse above, Matthew 7:21 - Jesus is not so much concerned about WHAT you call him, he is concerned about whether you follow him in doing God's will.

 

And this raises the question: So what did Jesus teach? What was his central message?

 

In brief, we can summarize Jesus' teachings in the Great Commandments (loving God and loving others) found in Matthew 22:35-40, the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 5 through 7, and the Great Judgment found in Matthew 25:35-40.

 

If we read these key passages, we will notice some striking differences between what institutional Christianity says compared to what Jesus himself says. Central to Jesus' message is loving God and loving others, not doctrines of belief. Jesus doesn't mention Biblical inerrancy or salvation by faith. He doesn't even mention any requirement of believing in his impending death and resurrection. What Jesus focuses on is relationships - how we live with and treat each other. In fact, in Matthew 25, Jesus says that what determines our final destiny is not what we believe, but our actions, whether or not we have showed compassion to our fellow human beings.

 

Unfortunately, Jesus' message stands in opposition to much of what institutional Christianity says constitutes following Christ or being a Christian. Somewhere along the way, Jesus' teachings have been discarded for man-made doctrines and creeds that not only ignor what Jesus taught, but sometimes go directly against his teachings. The only way to counteract this is to get back to what Jesus said, to get back to following Jesus, not the religion that calls him 'Lord' but often has no use for what he taught.

 

At this point, we can say that a "Christian belief" is a belief that that is in keeping with Jesus' central message and focus. A "Christian belief" is a belief that is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, especially as pertaining to having compassion on others. This is what Jesus taught, plain and simple. But hard to do!

 

Now, some people will counter what Jesus said with the teachings of the apostle Paul or the apostle John. I would have done so at one time myself. But the Church is not "the Church of Paul" or "the Church of John", nor is it "the Church of the New Testament", it is "the Church of Jesus Christ".

 

If we claim to be Christians, then we MUST follow Christ. This is non-negotiable. This is why we MUST distinguish Jesus' teachings from the teachings of others, inspired and godly though they may be. None of them were Jesus! This doesn't mean that we can read only Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It doesn't mean that we can't read and incorporate the teachings of other godly and wise people. But it does mean that any addition to the message of Jesus MUST FIRST be consistent with the teachings of Jesus. If it is not, then it is not Christian, no matter who may be teaching it. This axiom applies to any belief, whether held to by you, or me, or by the apostle Paul. Jesus Christ is our standard.

 

So what does it mean to be Christian? Simple. It means to follow Christ. It means to know the thrust of what he taught and to put those teachings into practice. If we don't do that, then we may be members of a church, or we may be citizens of a "Christian country", or we may hold to institutional Christian teachings, but we are not following Jesus.

[JosephM]

(snip)

 

At this point, we can say that a "Christian belief" is a belief that that is in keeping with Jesus' central message and focus. A "Christian belief" is a belief that is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, especially as pertaining to having compassion on others. This is what Jesus taught, plain and simple. But hard to do!

 

Now, some people will counter what Jesus said with the teachings of the apostle Paul or the apostle John. I would have done so at one time myself. But the Church is not "the Church of Paul" or "the Church of John", nor is it "the Church of the New Testament", it is "the Church of Jesus Christ".

 

If we claim to be Christians, then we MUST follow Christ. This is non-negotiable. This is why we MUST distinguish Jesus' teachings from the teachings of others, inspired and godly though they may be. None of them were Jesus! This doesn't mean that we can read only Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It doesn't mean that we can't read and incorporate the teachings of other godly and wise people. But it does mean that any addition to the message of Jesus MUST FIRST be consistent with the teachings of Jesus. If it is not, then it is not Christian, no matter who may be teaching it. This axiom applies to any belief, whether held to by you, or me, or by the apostle Paul. Jesus Christ is our standard.

 

So what does it mean to be Christian? Simple. It means to follow Christ. It means to know the thrust of what he taught and to put those teachings into practice. If we don't do that, then we may be members of a church, or we may be citizens of a "Christian country", or we may hold to institutional Christian teachings, but we are not following Jesus.

 

Interesting that you mention we must distinguish Jesus's teaching from the teachings of others yet what makes what is reported that Jesus said any more accurate than what is reported Paul or John said. I would suggest that we really don't know if what is reported that Jesus said is really what he said.

 

Secondly if I do assume that Jesus said what it is reported in red letters in the Bible that he said, then one must take seriously what he said of his church. When he asked who men said he was to his disciples and Peter responded "thou art the Christ", Jesus told him "Flesh and Blood hath not revealed that unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven." Upon this rock (foundation) shall I build my church. In my view,

That foundation was hearing from God directly. Being one with Christ accomplishes this and if Jesus's church is Christianity then it is connecting with God directly. This is Christ and connecting with God directly by 'Christos' the anointing of God, not the reported teachings passed along through time and translations from man to man and church to church through the ages. Perhaps this is why Jesus wrote nothing of what he said?

 

Just something to consider.

 

Love Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Interesting that you mention we must distinguish Jesus's teaching from the teachings of others yet what makes what is reported that Jesus said any more accurate than what is reported Paul or John said. I would suggest that we really don't know if what is reported that Jesus said is really what he said.

 

Secondly if I do assume that Jesus said what it is reported in red letters in the Bible that he said, then one must take seriously what he said of his church. When he asked who men said he was to his disciples and Peter responded "thou art the Christ", Jesus told him "Flesh and Blood hath not revealed that unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven." Upon this rock (foundation) shall I build my church. In my view,

That foundation was hearing from God directly. Being one with Christ accomplishes this and if Jesus's church is Christianity then it is connecting with God directly. This is Christ and connecting with God directly by 'Christos' the anointing of God, not the reported teachings passed along through time and translations from man to man and church to church through the ages. Perhaps this is why Jesus wrote nothing of what he said?

 

Just something to consider.

 

Love Joseph

 

Good morning, Joseph. You are correct, we don't know EXACTLY what Jesus said. He never wrote anything (that we are aware of). We have his teachings as seen through the eyes and heard through the ears of others.

 

But from the witnesses of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we do have a high degree of reliability as to what Jesus said or the kinds of things he said. For instance, none of these three gospels say that Jesus taught we should hate God and kill our fellow human beings. They agree as to the general thrust and focus of Jesus' message - the kingdom of God and the great commandments. They don't disagree about these teachings. They are "synoptic" - seen as one. So while you are correct that we don't have any dictated media of Jesus' teachings, we do have reliable witnesses and these teachings have nourished Christians down through the ages. Of course, so have the teachings of Paul and John, I don't dispute that. I just don't find Paul and John to have much to do with the historical Jesus, that's all. They are NOT synoptic. They put their own spin on Jesus.

 

I don't think that Christianity is Jesus' church. Sorry, but Christianity has a history of violence and bloodshed and Jesus never sanctioned any such thing. But I do think, as you have said, that we have a "direct connection" with God. Fundamentalists would disagree. They would insist that the person of Jesus (but not his teachings) are the coupler between us and God. So I think that Paul and John had a direct connection also.

 

But having a direct connection does not make one infallible and inerrant. And, IMO, anything we receive from our direct connection should not go against the general teachings of Jesus. If it does, then it is not Christian.

 

Here is what TCPC has to say about this:

 

"By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus."

 

By their own admission, this is the life and teachings of Jesus, not of Paul, or John, or Billy Graham, or the Pope, or somebody's "Christ." This is about Jesus of Nazareth. If someone wants to add to this, fine. But their addition should be congruent with the message and lifestyle of Jesus. If it isn't, then it simply isn't Jesus-centered Christianity.

 

Hope this helps you see my point-of-view.

 

Have a good day.

 

bill

[JosephM]

(snip)

 

Hope this helps you see my point-of-view.

 

Have a good day.

 

bill

 

Yes. And very clearly.

 

Fundamental Christianity is as you portray it. When I spoke of Jesus's church, I was not speaking of fundamental Christianity but of ALL who follow Christ which is reflected in the recorded teachings of Jesus.

 

Now you mention the synoptics of the gospel and I have no bone to pick with their accuracy or inaccuracy yet I would say that they were given to us by the Roman Catholic church system for the most part and they were hidden from the eyes of the people for many many years. The point being that just because they seem to fit together so well does not mean they are totally accurate and were not manipulated by those in power. Now, I would agree that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in them is most excellent and deeper than the surface layer yet without a personal connection that is the foundation of Jesus's church (Math 16-13-18) as recorded he said. That church is, as you say, not fundamental Christianity as we know it today. Just a view to consider.

 

Love Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

When I spoke of Jesus's church, I was not speaking of fundamental Christianity but of ALL who follow Christ which is reflected in the recorded teachings of Jesus.

 

That's how it seems to me also. In light of that consideration, I think there are members of the church who have never heard the name of Jesus. They still follow his teachings because his teachings (or ones very similar to his) that come through different faith traditions and experiences that lead people to love God and to love each other. They may not be "Christians" in the technical sense of the word, but they do exhibit "the Spirit of Christ." So, to me, following Jesus is not about worshipping a person, it is about connecting to God and to others the same way that Jesus did.

 

But the connections will have a commonality, as butterflies have a commonality. If one person's connection says, "Go kill your enemies" and another's connection says, "Do good to your enemies," I would think it necessary and prudent to say that the first connection is not Christ-like. The second connection is.

 

Aren't I a mess?

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Now you mention the synoptics of the gospel and I have no bone to pick with their accuracy or inaccuracy yet I would say that they were given to us by the Roman Catholic church system for the most part and they were hidden from the eyes of the people for many many years. The point being that just because they seem to fit together so well does not mean they are totally accurate and were not manipulated by those in power.

 

Joseph, like you, I think the scriptures were manipulated by the church for their own purposes. I won't go into all my reasons for thinking so (no, it wasn't simply because I read "The DaVinci Code" ) but I am wondering what makes you think so.

 

Most Bible scholars, except for those on the extreme left, assert that Jesus was, in fact, a figure of history. In your opinion, does it even matter that we really can't get back to exactly what the historical Jesus said or did? Is the quest for the historical Jesus irrelevant as far as our faith "in Christ" goes? What do you think?

 

bill

[JosephM]

Joseph, like you, I think the scriptures were manipulated by the church for their own purposes. I won't go into all my reasons for thinking so (no, it wasn't simply because I read "The DaVinci Code" ) but I am wondering what makes you think so.

 

Most Bible scholars, except for those on the extreme left, assert that Jesus was, in fact, a figure of history. In your opinion, does it even matter that we really can't get back to exactly what the historical Jesus said or did? Is the quest for the historical Jesus irrelevant as far as our faith "in Christ" goes? What do you think?

 

bill

 

Hello Bill,

 

A couple reasons led me to that conclusion. In order of importance and relevance to me.....

1. It has been revealed to me through what some refer to as mystical experience and others as "knowing" .

2. Personal study of the Greek language and Bible translation in the NT writings confirm this to me.

3. Study of human behavior and knowing the self plus direct experience with organizations including organized churches and the like over the past 40+ years tell me that things happening like this are not far fetched.

4. Study of other historical references indicate it to be most probable and likely.

 

In my view, it really doesn't matter to me personally. My trust is not in a book or reported history. Yes, it seems to me that the quest for the historical Jesus is irrelevant as far as my faith is concerned.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

[davidk]

Yes, BUT...(you know me) we first have to talk about what we mean by God. Again, philosophy enters the picture. The kind of God that I believed in at the age of 12 no longer makes sense to me. My understandings and experiences of God have changed since then.

 

---

 

bill

Bill,

When I say God, I mean the personal origin of all else; as opposed to the impersonal (mass, energy, motion or whatever) as the first cause. That should be simple enough, I think.

 

"(I)t is how we approach truth and being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct. Like: God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing. Because which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to (your) questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all."

 

Dk

[Guest wayfarer2k]

When I say God, I mean the personal origin of all else; as opposed to the impersonal (mass, energy, motion or whatever) as the first cause. That should be simple enough, I think.

 

Okay, I understand. I think. I guess my only reservation or concern is that, though the Bible speaks of God as a person, when taking this literally, God stops making sense to us. In other words, no person that we know of is omnipresent...or omnipotent...or omniscient. No person that we know of has always existed or will always exist. No person that we know of is immutable. So, on a certain level, God's "personhood" falls apart.

 

While the Bible portrays God as a person, with a mind, a will, even with hands, eyes, ears, feet...Jesus makes this bold statement that God is spirit -- pneuma, breath. So while I find the language of God's personhood appropriate when it comes to worship, I think it falls apart when we try to anthropomorphize God too much.

 

At the same time, I would agree with you that God seems to have attributes that are more understood as a personality than as an impersonal force or energy. God, to me, seems more like a mind than anything else I know. Note that I said "mind", not brain. The brain is a physical reality. The mind is...well...nobody knows for sure. It seems related to the brain, but it also seems to transcend the brain. So I tend to think that God exhibits personal traits like a mind would and does, but I am reticent to make the jump that whatever "essence" God is took on human form in Jesus of Nazareth. Put simply, I believe that Paul is onto something when he says, "God was in Christ..." but I think that saying "Christ is God" opens up a world of ontological paradoxes that simply don't make sense to me.

 

That's kinda how I see it. But I do reserve the right to change my mind.

 

bill

[davidk]

OK.

Good post, even though I wasn't sure if you really got around to answering the question. You kinda said God's being personal didn't seem to make much sense in some ways but then came around and saw that His being personal did seem to make some sense in others.

 

It seems that the basic answer we need is to: A. God, the personal (mind/spirit) origin of all else, objectively exists; or B. He doesn't exist. ( the impersonal [mass/motion/energy/force] is the origin of all else)

 

Which of these two (A or B ) is the reality? It's how we determine the answer that reflects how it is that we approach truth and in "being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct." 'Cause the answer changes everything in the area of knowledge and morals and in the whole of life.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

It seems that the basic answer we need is to: A. God, the personal (mind/spirit) origin of all else, objectively exists; or B. He doesn't exist. ( the impersonal [mass/motion/energy/force] is the origin of all else)

 

Davidk, I'm not afraid of the answer, my friend, and I'm not afraid to answer; it's just that I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the questions is phrased. Nothing against you, I hear the question phrased this way ALOT.

 

God. "Objectively exist." I believe God exist. God is real to me. I have faith in God. But to say that God "objectively exists" changes God into an "object" and I just don't think that is the case. I don't think of God as an object, especially as "someone" or "something" that we can observe objectively. IMO, God always invites us into subjective experience. To treat God as an object outside of reality, to me, misses the point.

 

It is like two fish swimming in the ocean, having a philosophical conversation. One fish says to the other, "Do you think that Water exists?" The other replies, "Well, our fish culture and religion tells us Water exists and that if we do the right things or believe in Water, Water will reveal himself to us. Water is the biggest fish ever." The first fish responds, "Frankly, I don't believe Water exists. I've never seen it. Besides, my cousin got ate by a shark last week. If Water truly existed, he wouldn't have let that happen."

 

What both these fish don't understand is that they were born in Water. Water has been around them all their lives. They live in water. They even breathe water. They will die in Water. Water, for them, has always been there. And because it has always been there, they are oblivious to it's presence. One disbelieves in Water because he's never seen it and he expects that Water would protect him from all harm. The other believes in Water, but he views it objectively, as if Water were another fish instead of his very environment.

 

Now, all analogies fall short. Even in this "fish tale", the Water in which, according to the apostle Paul, "we live, and move, and have our being" doesn't really express a personality, yet it is personal because each fish is breathing and living in it all the time.

 

So I think there is a danger, or at least a short-sightedness, when we try to turn God into a human. It is like the fish thinking that Water is objectively the biggest fish in the world, a fish which he has never seen. In the fish world, both fish are surrounded by Water. Water, for them, is omnipresent. But they experience Water subjectively, as the Life in which they exist. They aren't even aware of it. But, yes, Water exists.

 

I think God is much the same way. To speak of God as a human is the best we can do because we envision God in our own image. But I don't think God is a man. God is spirit - breath - having something akin to personality, but not, strictly speaking, a person.

 

Does that help? Or does it muddy things even further?

 

bill

[JosephM]

Bill,

 

Most excellent post....

It seems there are always those who llive within a box and try keep us in their box also.

Kudos to you.

 

Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

A little more God-talk...

 

Marcus Borg, a popular liberal theologian, says, “If horses had gods, they would look like horses.”

 

I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. When we talk about or conceptualize God, we are limited to our own human language and conceptions. We have no “higher language” available to us, we have to rely on the tools that we do have. So we do the best that we can but we can’t help but anthropomorphize God when we speak of him/her/it. Some say, of course, that God and the spiritual is better described with symbols and metaphors. This is probably the case. But even symbols and metaphors require interpretation if they are to mean anything to us. And interpretation always begins with presuppositions about what we already believe to be true.

 

This doesn’t, I believe, leave us in a “no man’s land” where we cannot speak of God. If God is, and this is my suspicion, ultimate reality, then we must speak of God. Unlike the humanists, I do think that we need to look to something or Someone “higher than ourselves” for answers of meaning and purpose. So we must speak of God, but we must remind ourselves of our limitations of language and conceptualization when we do so.

 

And this is where I disagree with the conservative. The conservative would say that the God is God’s revelation of himself IN HIS WORDS, not human conceptions of God in human words. So some of them take it literally that God has eyes, hands, feet, a throne, etc. Where the fish in my “fish tale” thought of Water as a bigger, more powerful unseen fish, the conservative thinks of God as a bigger, more powerful unseen human. For the conservative, the central question is not “how is humanity like God”, but “how is God like humans?” And when we make God a human, we limit him in our perceptions just as a fish would make Water another fish.

 

So while we must talk of the reality of God, we need to be humble in doing so, realizing that God is not us. And, IMO, this applies to Jesus also. When the council of Nicea changed Jesus from “the son of God” to “God the Son”, they turned a fish into water. As a result, Jesus can no longer be followed (for whom amongst us is God), he can only be believed in or worshipped. This, again IMO, is a travesty. Jesus, for conservatives and many progressives alike, is not human. He is either God in a man-suit or he is a hybrid of God and man which, still, is not human. Any man who is God is not a man. It is that simple. And that is where I think Paul’s Christ is a significant departure from Jesus of Nazareth. The two seem to have little to do with each other. Paul’s central doctrine is not about following Jesus’ teachings as a man, but about believing in and worshipping Christ as God. Two different things in my book.

 

Modern Christianity says that fish is Water and that Water is a fish. It says that Jesus is God and that God is Jesus. In doing so, I think we lose our understanding of both.

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

The conservative would say that the God is God’s revelation of himself IN HIS WORDS, not human conceptions of God in human words.

 

Correction: The conservative would say that the BIBLE is God’s revelation of himself IN HIS WORDS, not human conceptions of God in human words.

[David]

Bill,

 

Very good series of posts. You start where you needed to start: “I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the question is phrased.” Your discomfort is elemental and foundational. DavidK’s questions imply the answers he needs to hear. Central to his concern is the meaning of “existence”. The fish/water analogy was a great response. I would just add that I am uncomfortable with “yes, water exists” if you use the concept of existence with the common understanding of “not existing”. But like Jesus you recognized the need to go to metaphor or parable in order to respond to the literalistic question. I like your statement: "When we talk about or conceptualize God, we are limited to our own human language and conceptions. We have no “higher language” available to us, we have to rely on the tools that we do have." DavidK is limited to the tools he is using. His questions and the necessary answers to those questions are limited by those tools. You have looked for and found the tools that Jesus used.

 

I had thought (and still think) that there was not much more to discuss with DavidK but I am impressed with your approach which is very much true to Progressive Christianity. Thanks for that.

 

David

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Very good series of posts. You start where you needed to start: “I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the question is phrased.” Your discomfort is elemental and foundational. DavidK’s questions imply the answers he needs to hear. Central to his concern is the meaning of “existence”. The fish/water analogy was a great response. I would just add that I am uncomfortable with “yes, water exists” if you use the concept of existence with the common understanding of “not existing”. But like Jesus you recognized the need to go to metaphor or parable in order to respond to the literalistic question. I like your statement: "When we talk about or conceptualize God, we are limited to our own human language and conceptions. We have no “higher language” available to us, we have to rely on the tools that we do have." DavidK is limited to the tools he is using. His questions and the necessary answers to those questions are limited by those tools. You have looked for and found the tools that Jesus used.

 

Thanks for the feedback, David. I consider Davidk to be a friend. We've had our agreements and our disagreements, but he has been cordial with me and has treated me like a brother. So I'm trying to keep the lines of communication open with him, not because I'm trying to convert or deconvert him to anything, but because I do believe that we are in this "water" together and, on some level, we really are talking about the same Reality. We may or may not see it the same way, but the Reality is there nonetheless.

 

I agree with what you said about "existence". Someone I read a couple years ago (sorry, I can't remember who) said something to this effect: "If we are asking whether or not God exists, then it is not really God that we are speaking of." I think what this person was alluding to is that God is existence itself or what some call "the ground of all Being." I'm still trying to wrap my head around that though I think my heart embraces it.

 

But, in my past experiences, God was, put crassly, an old man up in the sky who was watching what was going on down here, keeping records of sins, unapproachable, and sometimes breaking the laws of his universe in order to do miracles or effect his will. Again, supernatural theism. I'm not so foolish as to tell Davidk that the Bible doesn't contain supernatural theism, because it does. But it isn't the ONLY concept of God in the Bible or in cultural history and these other conceptions bear looking at. After all, the Bible says that God is spirit and that God is love. Love is not a person, but it is personal. Spirit is not, literally speaking, a person, but it is enveloping and influencial. When it comes to things like love and spirit, parables and metaphors do better, not as explanations, but as demonstrations than propositional statements do.

 

On another progressive forum where I'm active, there is a discussion about "militant atheists." What I find interesting about the militant atheists is this: they DON'T BELIEVE in the same exact kind of God that the conservatives DO BELIEVE in. Their arguments against God doesn't really come down to arguments against spirituality or love or compassion, just against the supernatural theistic view of God that doesn't hold up well against our modern or postmodern worldview of how the universe works or what gives meaning and purpose to our lives. So when they exclaim, "I don't believe that God exists!", it is, more often than not, the anthropomorphic concept of God that they don't believe in. These folks may be "militant atheists", but I suspect that deep down many of them had their supernatural theism shattered and they have no other ideas, concepts, images, or metaphors of God to put in that place. This is why I think progressive Christianity has something to offer. We don't have to make truth claims and go around proving everyone wrong. All we have to ask is, "Have you ever considered...?" That, to me, is the openness of PC.

 

bill

[David]

Well said.

 

Thanks,

David

[davidk]

It is how we approach truth and being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct. Like: God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing. Because which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of knowledge and morals and in the whole of life that addresses Bill's questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

 

My statement does not imply changing God into an object outside of reality or anthropomorphising Him or that you should respond the way I want you to, nor is there implication of making God like Humans rather than understanding how is man like God, nor did I make any reference implied or otherwise about Jesus Christ.

 

My statement only said that our approach to things like: "God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing.", will demonstrate the method by how we approach the truth and in being sure what we think we know of the world is correct.

 

I'm not implying a correct answer, just that there should be a realization that one must understand. Either response, as well as their methodologies, made about "God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing." is in direct opposition to the other. God either objectively exists, or he doesn't. Very basic.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

God either objectively exists, or he doesn't. Very basic.

 

Okay, let me come at this from another approach, even a "conservative" approach. If God "objectively exists", then there is no need for faith. I can email you a picture of my cat and, thereby, prove to you that my cat exists. It would require no faith on your part, then, to agree with me that my cat "objectively exists."

 

But God is not subject to this kind of proof. On some level, relating to God takes faith. Therefore, while I agree with you that God exists, I don't agree that he objectively does so nor do I see God through a supernatural theistic framework.

 

Okay, we may be talking past each other here, so, if it's okay with you. Let's move on...

 

God exists. We both agree.

 

What is your next point or consideration?

 

bill