 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What did, does, will Jesus do postmodernly for me?
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How did He postmodernly (have to) die for my sins? And what are they that I should have to die for then?
[disentangled thread title as requested]
[ 14. July 2015, 15:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
...them...
And move the 'postmodernly' to after the 'do'.
It's the heat and the phone.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't know about "postmodernly". It seems a mistake to me to attempt to squeeze Jesus into the philosophical and cultural flavour of the month.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole import of the Gospel message is about incarnation. God coming down into space and time and history and doing something at the cross and in Christ's resurrection, in our reality, that has achieved a cosmic victory over evil, even if that victory is still being worked through in the here and now.
If the incarnation didn't happen, I can't make sense of the Gospel message.
As to dying for my sins, in my current understanding the overarching sin is a refusal to trust God over oneself. The ultimate fruit of that choice is separation from the one who has the words of eternal life; the wages of sin is death in the sense that spiritual death is the logical counterpart to this choice.
While I don't think PSA is the whole story, I do think that Christ took sin and all its consequences on himself at the cross and in some way dealt with it all such that we do not have to face that ultimate consequence if we trust in him.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Fair enough. But what I think the OP is really asking is "What might the Cross mean in today's postmodern culture? In what ways does it relate to us?" If you like, we are trying to think how Christ is incarnated in contemporary society - he is eternal, but the aspects of his life, message and death that touch people will vary from time to time and place to place.
For instance: the idea of Christ as the One who has vanquished evil spirits resonates in an African contexts; the concept of Christ as Liberator spoke to many Latin Americans; the belief in Christ offering a better life in heaven appealed to the slaves in North America; and penal substitution possibly "spoke" to people within past British culture.
I'm not saying that there are many Christs or many Gospels; but I am suggesting that different facets of the Gospel might shine more attractively in some contexts than other. So: what aspect of the Gospel story will communicate best with postmodern men and women? More specifically, what might Christ's death - which, we must remember, is a highly repugnant or even "primitive" thought to many - have to say?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
My enduring perception of postmodernity is that of visiting a prayer labyrinth on a stand dedicated to postmodernism at an evangelical bunfight some years ago: I was roundly berated by the person manning the stand for starting at the wrong end...
This to me sums up the pointlessness of trying to rethink the message of the cross in contemporary cultural terms. We're forever one step behind the trend.
Paul was certainly good at thinking on his feet about how to make the gospel message relevant to his audience, but I somehow don't think he sat down with a consultant, Saddleback-like, to establish what typical "Athens man" might look like before heading to the Areopagus. He said his message was foolishness and left it to the Holy Spirit to draw people to Christ, or not.
At the risk of sounding like Nicky Gumbel, I think I try and introduce people to Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. They will pick up on what speaks to them the most.
I really don't play up the gory aspects of the crucifixion and don't like it when people do, but if people want Jesus without that bit (I recall one memorable instance of this) then I think it's a deal-breaker. It's part of the incarnation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
I think that even in a PM culture, where your truth is as good as mine, there are still offences to be avoided or recompensed (if you get caught)...so even in the PM world, you can be indicted for speeding, whether or not you think the speed limit is reasonable, justifiable or even in existence. So there might just be some offence against God (if s/he exists) that may need sorting out, even if there is no sense of guilt or shame. This is not a very satisfactory way of sharing the gospel in PM culture, and concentrates on only a small aspect of the gospel of the whole Christ event.
Perhaps it would be far better to explore the experience of relationship with Jesus, which quite possibly is simply the best way of life to enjoy complete self fulfilment. (I know that's a bit upside-down when Jesus calls us to deny ourselves, but he also said whoever loses her life will find it). It seems to me that before a PM mind can get its head around sin and salvation, there needs to be this experiential aspect...if it works for you, then it could work for me? Not very 'evangelical', but then perhaps the gospel is richer and deeper than a doctrine of sin and salvation?
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I tend to agree with felafool that there are still some objective things out there. I would put the incarnation among them ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That said, felafool's suggested "postmodern" approach sort of proves my point about working on an individual, not cultural basis:
I am pretty sure my late great-uncle was born in the 19th century, or at the dawn of the 20th at the latest. He was Swiss, and a staunch member of the Plymouth Brethren. His favourite approach to testimony was to say of Christianity "I've tried it, and it works". So this is hardly new!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There are some postmodern philosophers who have got interested in Christianity, for example, Zizek and Derrida. I would say that the key here is non-realism, and also ideas such as weak theology, i.e. a God who is weak. But this is not peculiar to pm.
I realized with a shock a while ago, that when I was a Christian I was a kind of pm one, that is, its realism was not really interesting to me. Thus, whether or not the resurrection 'actually' 'occurred' seems a minor issue to me. It is a dazzling symbol in any case, and one which surely helps people to go through life.
There is also (for me) the importance of not knowing, but again this is not exclusively pm. Well, I don't know about God or myself, which is a blessed relief. My not knowing increases day by day!
I suppose also there is a kind of emphasis on negation - as my old Zen teacher used to say, neither I nor the world exist. Oh, crikey, see where philosopheazing can get you - although actually this is the abandonment of philosophy.
Anyway, I still find it exciting, but I guess it invites distaste in some Christians. I suppose it leads to pluralism inevitably also.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it is a mischaracterisation of postmodernism to suggest that it is about saying "your truth is as equally valid as mine". It is much more about refusing to accept received wisdom and questioning.
Well that's my truth anyway (Chomsky famously said something about post-modernism being a device created by academics to keep themselves employed..)
I think where the Christian story has contemporary resonance is that a large number of people feel that they are drifting through life, never finding meaning or purpose. It isn't so much that these people have questions, they are not even in a position where the standard modernist questions make any sense.
So talk of the atonement being a sacrifice for sin makes little sense when you have no concept of sacrifice or sin.
But I think it does make more sense to more contemporary people (for the sake of argument - who are post-modern) when offered as a framework of healing for broken, lost people.
The downside of this approach is that arguably other philosophies and religions also offer this structure and framework.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I am never sure what is meant by "postmodern". It sounds as if it logically must refer to the future.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I don't know if it helps, but for me the core message of the gospel is that, in some way, Jesus died for my sins. But what this means, in terms of what any of the words actually mean in real terms, I have no idea.
I know that Jesus patched up the relationship between me and God, which I had broken, and that is a good thing. But I am acknowledging that putting this into specific terms is a way of my interpreting something that is beyond my understanding.
Is that postmodern enough for you?
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thus, whether or not the resurrection 'actually' 'occurred' seems a minor issue to me. It is a dazzling symbol in any case, and one which surely helps people to go through life.
Paul said that if Christ didn't rise from the dead, our faith is in vain and we are deluded.
This has been discussed here many times before, and I understand other christians disagree with me about this, but I personally can't make any sense of the resurrection if it is nothing more than a symbol.
The human condition requires more than inspiring ideas to fix; it requires something objective to have happened, i.e. as I believe, the incarnation, the cross and Christ's ensuing resurrection.
Paul described the resurrection as such to the Athenians even though he doubtless knew it would be the most ridiculous-sounding part of his argument to them. Why bother if it was just a normally uplifting piece of rhetoric that would inevitably fall flat with that audience?
quote:
There is also (for me) the importance of not knowing, but again this is not exclusively pm. Well, I don't know about God or myself, which is a blessed relief. My not knowing increases day by day!
I don't think that's incompatible with Christianity at all. Our hope is that one day we will know as we are known. Anyone who thinks they know it all already is a fool.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
Post modernism gives another way of accepting the paradoxes of faith, that God is three in one, just and loving. The bible is written by God and man. That there are many truths that make up the way we live in our faith that is based on Good Friday, Easter Saturday and resurrection Sunday
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'd say that the magic bits of the Jesus story, and adherence to the gospel and biblical accounts are the the parts rejected in a post-modern perspective. Also bits about fulfilling any predicted OT history. This all would be seen as within a historical context and cosmology, and a creation within the times, not true except as mythology is true. Heaven, eternal life, sacrificial stories, angels and all of that are stories and fables.
So what are we left with? Probably Jesus is an example of how to live a decent and moral life. As a good guy, maybe the goodest ever for some. But mostly, Jesus would also been seen as yet another example of many good people, not as unique. An example to aspire too if Jesus is your focus.
Post mod we can draw ideas such as recognizing that offences/sins against other people are wrong because we are supposed to recognize god within each human being. That kindness and charity to others are the primary values we should aspire to live by.
We are also left with the message that ideas are dangerous enough that people will kill you for them, and that there are times when that risk may warrant death. But the resurrection story and anything about God wanting a sacrifice etc is merely a historical context dependent story, created by people for particular reasons.
Finally, I think we are left in a post mod perspective with the lesson that people will often over-zealously promote their peculiar belief system and be willing to persecute, deny rights to, and kill others who disagree with them. With the lesson that violating the principles of the founding person is normal for religions, and shouldn't we try to avoid that.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm no literalist, but again to me this is so at odds with how, say, the Acts and the epistles deal with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the meaning they ascribe to it.
I find it hard to understand how people can hold on dearly to the fluffy bits of Jesus and simultaneously jettison the attendant difficult-to-explain-in-today's-terms bits as historical contextualisation*. To me, if those bits aren't reliable - specifically, the death/resurrection bits - then the fluffy bits make no sense at all either.
Reducing the Gospel to "one man [was] nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change" may be amusing, but it's hardly the kind of thing to stake your life on.
==
*I understand that people do seem to take a smorgasboard approach to beliefs these days, but I don't think it's something to be encouraged.
[ 14. July 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Hi Martin. Jesus saves humans doesn't he? So why do you need to ask? Is the deal different because of a linguistic label? ISTM that if you want a postmodern saviour then you have to do the usual PM thing and redefine all the concepts but even then you will in that very fact deny the PM premise, viz that reality defies objective definition. Could it be that you are not a post modernist in spirit and in truth?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This has been discussed here many times before, and I understand other Christians disagree with me about this, but I personally can't make any sense of the resurrection if it is nothing more than a symbol.
I do agree with this, to an extent, but to my view, everything is a symbol. As I have argued before, I tend to argue that reality is really just a symbolic way of interpreting our senses. Having said that, I would agree that if the resurrection was not a real event, in these terms, then it is meaningless. But to take it the other way and say "this is precisely what occurred" is also meaningless.
quote:
Originally posted by Full Circle:
Post modernism gives another way of accepting the paradoxes of faith, that God is three in one, just and loving. The bible is written by God and man. That there are many truths that make up the way we live in our faith that is based on Good Friday, Easter Saturday and resurrection Sunday
I also agree with this, that the resurrection, the meaning, the interpretation of it, the physical events and the all-encompassing reality of what it meant, how it had an impact on me I cannot say. That is a paradox, a puzzle, something that I cannot comprehend, and cannot expect to comprehend.
Any yet, pomo tells me that it is perfectly possible to live in a world with paradox, with incomprehensible reality. In fact, I have come to accept that this is the only way of understanding and explaining reality. All of which makes a mystical understanding of the resurrection something that fits perfectly well.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
As I have argued before, I tend to argue that reality is really just a symbolic way of interpreting our senses. Having said that, I would agree that if the resurrection was not a real event, in these terms, then it is meaningless. But to take it the other way and say "this is precisely what occurred" is also meaningless.
I'm by no means sure I know what precisely occurred, but I believe something happened that was more than a "symbolic way" of some people "interpreting their senses".
I may be misunderstanding you, but the latter seems to me to be a supremely hubristic and human-centric way of understanding reality. "Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?" and so on.
[ 14. July 2015, 20:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
I think the cross is a sign of God experiencing death with us. It is a radical identification with humanity. The only way for God to continue to know us (and allow us to know him) is to die with us. "Yes I really do know the full shitty experience of hell on earth".
God immerses himself in the human story. He knows death. He knows the hate and evil that causes death. His death becomes part of our story. Just a bum like one of us.
Forget the penal substitution theory. That don't make sense. (Two wrongs don't add up to a right and all that).
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't really get what postmodernism is. I'm not even clear what a modern is. But one of the things about Jesus which might make him simultaneously a blessing and a curse to C21 culture is that he is true independently of what that means or how we understand him. Indeed, not only is he more true and more real than we are, but that is so irrespective of whether or how we understand that. He is the rock however much our sand may feel as though it is shifting.
Incidentally, if we're also on the subject of atonement theories, the atonement 'works' and we can believe it irrespective of whether we understand. All we have to do is to be thankful.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm no literalist, but again to me this is so at odds with how, say, the Acts and the epistles deal with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the meaning they ascribe to it.
I find it hard to understand how people can hold on dearly to the fluffy bits of Jesus and simultaneously jettison the attendant difficult-to-explain-in-today's-terms bits as historical contextualisation*. To me, if those bits aren't reliable - specifically, the death/resurrection bits - then the fluffy bits make no sense at all either.
Reducing the Gospel to "one man [was] nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change" may be amusing, but it's hardly the kind of thing to stake your life on.
==
*I understand that people do seem to take a smorgasboard approach to beliefs these days, but I don't think it's something to be encouraged.
I hear people saying that yoga, vegetarianism, certain 'looks' or even brandnames, particular types of music etc, is their belief system, all of which is suggested to be "community" for them, and is sufficient for their "spirituality". I think it is ultimately a self-centred approach where mere facebook liking of something and smorgasbord approaches as you note provides meaning.
I think it is encouraged to be uncritical, not examining one's life and certainly not spending effort to truly understand things. In my lifetime, it has accelerated. We thought it was rather extreme in the 1980s. However, I had a long talk with a 92 year old who discussed the way they behaved in the late 1940s, and he related how his father discussed the 1920s.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
He didn't. A God without wrath brought humans without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross. It's all good.
[ 15. July 2015, 01:18: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How did He postmodernly (have to) die for my sins?
Personally, I like the idea that the only way for Christ to break the power of evil without doing any violence to those who espouse it was to allow evilness to show itself for what it truly is.
quote:
And what are they that I should have to die for then?
Choosing self to the detriment of others.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I hear people saying that yoga, vegetarianism, certain 'looks' or even brandnames, particular types of music etc, is their belief system, all of which is suggested to be "community" for them, and is sufficient for their "spirituality". I think it is ultimately a self-centred approach where mere facebook liking of something and smorgasbord approaches as you note provides meaning.
I think many can see the shallowness of this. But then much of the time Christianity is as shallow.
quote:
I think it is encouraged to be uncritical, not examining one's life and certainly not spending effort to truly understand things. In my lifetime, it has accelerated. We thought it was rather extreme in the 1980s. However, I had a long talk with a 92 year old who discussed the way they behaved in the late 1940s, and he related how his father discussed the 1920s.
Some philosopher (I've forgotten which - maybe Aristotle?) talked about the "unexamined life not being worth living".
It seems to me that there is a familar idea from philosophy that there is a difference between "being alive" and "living" - and that it is possible to be so wrapped up in the normal every-day things of life that you never get around to discovering who you really are and finding purpose and direction in life.
So I don't accept that this is a new idea. I think throughout history people have struggled to find meaning in the drudgery of ordinary things, the only difference today is that we have fewer jobs to fill our lives, so we find other things to fill up the space - which turn out to be unsatisfying as well.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How did He postmodernly (have to) die for my sins?
Personally, I like the idea that the only way for Christ to break the power of evil without doing any violence to those who espouse it was to allow evilness to show itself for what it truly is.
This. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
If the resurrection had not happened, we wouldn't know that Jesus was God, would we?
A Rabbi told me, Jesus was just another prophet, only this time one who thought he was God, but he died, like all the others. The Resurrection didn't happen.
Yes, he showed us evil for what it is. But he triumphed over it, evil will not win, when he "rose from the tomb" however that happened.
And for that, I am totally thankful and in awe of God/Jesus.
And Holy Spirit, of course.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Excellent. Bein' pomo don't make me no materialist rationalist. I'm creedal. Can't come back atch yorl much on the phone. But can that be taken into account in the next Heraclitean loop? The gospels are 110% gospel.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I'd say that the magic bits of the Jesus story, and adherence to the gospel and biblical accounts are the the parts rejected in a post-modern perspective. Also bits about fulfilling any predicted OT history. This all would be seen as within a historical context and cosmology, and a creation within the times, not true except as mythology is true. Heaven, eternal life, sacrificial stories, angels and all of that are stories and fables.
So what are we left with? Probably Jesus is an example of how to live a decent and moral life. As a good guy, maybe the goodest ever for some. But mostly, Jesus would also been seen as yet another example of many good people, not as unique. An example to aspire too if Jesus is your focus.
Post mod we can draw ideas such as recognizing that offences/sins against other people are wrong because we are supposed to recognize god within each human being. That kindness and charity to others are the primary values we should aspire to live by.
We are also left with the message that ideas are dangerous enough that people will kill you for them, and that there are times when that risk may warrant death. But the resurrection story and anything about God wanting a sacrifice etc is merely a historical context dependent story, created by people for particular reasons.
I don't agree that a postmodern perspective rejects all those things, and that as a result we're left with very little. The whole notion of postmodernism is that it's a both/and persective. There is lots of space for believing supernatural and mysterious things. The development from modernism is that person A can hold onto certain beliefs and experiences without that nullifying person B's beliefs and experiences. There is more space for uncertainty, relativism and paradox. But I don't see postmodernism as rejecting heaven, eternal life, angels etc. etc. at all. That would be the result of a more uber-scientism viewpoint.
However, a postmodernist who believes in heaven, or angels, or whatever, would be less quick to dismiss someone else's belief that is different, and even seemingly incompatable with theirs.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Absolutely goperryrevs. God continues to meet us all where we're at, as with Abraham, Moses, Samuel and inextricably from conception in the man Jesus. Who believed in PSA. As He believed the myths of His ancestors. How could a man of that culture not? His playing fast and loose in recognizing Himself was inspired. Not a problem.
He faithfully, i.e. in ignorance believed that He had to die to save us from death. He obviously DIDN'T. He had to die to be resurrected to give us hope. Without Him there could be none.
No-one deserves to die. No-one.
And yes we do need forgiveness and we all have it. From the beginning. That's from two hundred thousand years ago at the very least, when sapience emerged in us. WE need forgiveness. Need to know that we have it. Unconditionally but for the ONE condition. In all my affliction, weakness and ignorance I am loved. Like my Neanderthal cousins.
And God saw that it was GOOD. And good as our collective and individual development is, it ends in death.
No more.
So yes, thank you Jesus for dying, for being punished by my feckless, innocent, contingent, necessary alienation.
Truly with tears again.
And thank you for coming back to make that death truly inspirationally meaningful.
Amen.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
goperryrevs wrote:
I don't agree that a postmodern perspective rejects all those things, and that as a result we're left with very little. The whole notion of postmodernism is that it's a both/and persective. There is lots of space for believing supernatural and mysterious things. The development from modernism is that person A can hold onto certain beliefs and experiences without that nullifying person B's beliefs and experiences. There is more space for uncertainty, relativism and paradox. But I don't see postmodernism as rejecting heaven, eternal life, angels etc. etc. at all. That would be the result of a more uber-scientism viewpoint.
However, a postmodernist who believes in heaven, or angels, or whatever, would be less quick to dismiss someone else's belief that is different, and even seemingly incompatable with theirs.
This is very good. Ironically, postmodernism provides a breathing space for religion, and quite often you find that atheists don't like it, and attack it, of course, because some postmodernists see a religious narrative as valid as a non-religious one.
I suppose the downside for the devout Christian is that this applies to other religious narratives as well. But then, we can dance in the market-place of ideas, you and I, mon cher. But we can also choose a particular dance.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He faithfully, i.e. in ignorance believed that He had to die to save us from death.
Jesus didn't do anything in ignorance, Martin.
quote:
No-one deserves to die. No-one.
Probably most people don't. Some do, IMO. But it's not my right, or my business, to say who, or when, or how.
quote:
And yes we do need forgiveness and we all have it. From the beginning. That's from two hundred thousand years ago at the very least, when sapience emerged in us.
The offer is there, certainly. Not convinced that everyone will actually want to partake of it.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So He wasn't FULLY human.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What type of some in the impersonal?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And how would, could anyone be untreatably reprobate? How will they resist? Just join with Satan in chanting 'My will be done.'? Again, no names, no pack drill of course, what type of person?
And Eutychus, thanks doubly, for amending the OP, which I certainly wasn't expecting in my frustration at myself, and for your robust response.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So He wasn't FULLY human.
He was. And even in the considerable limitations imposed by the incarnation, He knew more than you or I do.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And how would, could anyone be untreatably reprobate? How will they resist? Just join with Satan in chanting 'My will be done.'? Again, no names, no pack drill of course, what type of person?
A person who doesn't repent. Jesus said it, not me. Not up to me to judge, that is way above my paygrade.
Do I believe people are redeemable? - absolutely. Does that mean everyone will be redeemed? - I would like to think so, but I don't know. And neither do you.
All we can do is show people love. We have no right to pronounce on their eternal destiny.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, He knew that Adam and Eve and Abraham and Moses were mythical? That God did not drown the world? Plague Egypt and Israel? Command the Amalekite genocide? He knew that He HAD to die to save us?
What types of thing did He know that we don't?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What, He knew that Adam and Eve and Abraham and Moses were mythical? That God did not drown the world? Plague Egypt and Israel? Command the Amalekite genocide? He knew that He HAD to die to save us?
What types of thing did He know that we don't?
He had more wisdom, and more compassion, about the human race than either you or I contain in our little fingers.
I'm not into deconstructing Jesus to fit post-modern thinking. He will always slip loose of whatever definitions we try to fit Him into, and that goes for the 'pomo' box.
Something else will come along and replace 'pomo' in time.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What, He knew that Adam and Eve and Abraham and Moses were mythical? That God did not drown the world?
Wait, Martin. You're arguing in favour of postmodernism because science??
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Jesus didn't do anything in ignorance
Kenosis/Incarnation put limitations upon his knowledge not even the Son knows...
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Ha, now we get to the really hard stuff. If Jesus was divine, how could he also be man? Does not being divine also mean having faculties which are not available to being mortal (eg knowing everything, having full knowledge of past and future events etc)?
And if one is saying that the human nature of Jesus somehow limited his access to divine powers, have we not redefined the nature of the godhead and created a "superman" - someone higher than a man but less than a god?
If indeed it turned out that [some aspects of] Jewish history were myth, and Jesus used these as the basis of his teaching (apparently unaware that these were mythical), would that mean that he was not divine - given that he did not exhibit full foreknowledge?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
My main answer to that question would be to ask "what's the big deal about being Divine?". If, as you say, it's all about Superpowers, then yes, we hit a problem. But Trinitarian doctrine says that divinity has very little to do with 'omni' words. It's about character & nature.
Apparently the man Jesus 'emptied himself' of the divine power parts of his godliness. So, although he could do some amazing things, he wasn't omniscient, he couldn't be in lots of difference places at once etc.
But he didn't empty himself of wisdom, love, patience, grace, kindness, humility, the capacity to forgive... and so on. So, through him we discover that these are what REAL Godliness is about. Not some simplistic superman abilities, but having the very nature and character of God. These are the characteristics that the divine persons share that ultimately define divinity. Yes, they all have the 'omni' attributes now, but that's not what defines them as divine.
So yeah, we have redefined the nature of the Godhead. That's exactly what the incarnation and the doctrine of the trinity does. God revealing God's very nature through a man. Lovely paradox, lovely mystery.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Apparently the man Jesus 'emptied himself' of the divine power parts of his godliness. So, although he could do some amazing things, he wasn't omniscient, he couldn't be in lots of difference places at once etc.
But he didn't empty himself of wisdom, love, patience, grace, kindness, humility, the capacity to forgive... and so on. So, through him we discover that these are what REAL Godliness is about. Not some simplistic superman abilities, but having the very nature and character of God.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My main answer to that question would be to ask "what's the big deal about being Divine?". If, as you say, it's all about Superpowers, then yes, we hit a problem. But Trinitarian doctrine says that divinity has very little to do with 'omni' words. It's about character & nature.
Apparently the man Jesus 'emptied himself' of the divine power parts of his godliness. So, although he could do some amazing things, he wasn't omniscient, he couldn't be in lots of difference places at once etc.
Well said. But then we are maybe not so far from Martin's points above. Maybe Jesus was mistaken on factual points - whilst still being divine.
quote:
But he didn't empty himself of wisdom, love, patience, grace, kindness, humility, the capacity to forgive... and so on. So, through him we discover that these are what REAL Godliness is about. Not some simplistic superman abilities, but having the very nature and character of God. These are the characteristics that the divine persons share that ultimately define divinity. Yes, they all have the 'omni' attributes now, but that's not what defines them as divine.
I agree, nicely put.
quote:
So yeah, we have redefined the nature of the Godhead. That's exactly what the incarnation and the doctrine of the trinity does. God revealing God's very nature through a man. Lovely paradox, lovely mystery.
I agree again, but have we not left ourselves with a God who can be factually wrong?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The divine emptying doesn't mean he was imperfect or wrong--it is possible to be both perfect and limited. Perfection is judged based on what you're supposed to be at that place and point in time. An egg, for example, is not an imperfect bird because it can't fly. It is exactly what it is supposed to be at that point in time.
Similarly, laying aside one's divine omni-stuff for a while doesn't mean that power/knowledge/ability etc. ceases to exist. It simply means you are deciding not to use it at the mo. For instance, from a purely human standpoint, I have the ability to sing, read Greek, and stand on my head, but I am exercising none of those powers at the moment. I have chosen not to use them.
I am also possessed of knowledge I'm not accessing right now--such as the details of next week's schedule. They exist in my memory, and I could shut my eyes, sit still, and pull them up for pondering--but I've chosen not to do that right now. Later, if I see the need.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, as He was as quantitatively as wrong as a pre-modern Jew could be, whilst being and in the LIGHT of being qualitatively perfect, His eschatology, His theology, just like any other's, will have been heterodox. Wrong. If taken literally.
Whatever absorbs postmodernism cannot be as qualitatively better as it is than modernism.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And Eutychus, yes, OF COURSE science is a bleedin' narrative, that's not the point. Science and faith together can easily show that God is not Killer. Jesus didn't have our luxury.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think science has been affected by the postmodern turn, since it is much less common today to hear the view that science is after truth and reality. But then this shift occurred a long time ago, possibly, with people like Bacon. Of course, there is great disagreement about this, since scientific realists argue that science does describe reality, and its success confirms this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
As I have argued before, I tend to argue that reality is really just a symbolic way of interpreting our senses. Having said that, I would agree that if the resurrection was not a real event, in these terms, then it is meaningless. But to take it the other way and say "this is precisely what occurred" is also meaningless.
I'm by no means sure I know what precisely occurred, but I believe something happened that was more than a "symbolic way" of some people "interpreting their senses".
I may be misunderstanding you, but the latter seems to me to be a supremely hubristic and human-centric way of understanding reality. "Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?" and so on.
What I mean is that for those who were there, they experienced something.
Hubristic? Maybe. But the Light Cone concept does mean that us as the observer does play a central role in our experiences, our knowledge of reality. Most importantly, it means that my understanding of reality is not total - in response to your bible quote, it means that no, I haven't seen these things, because my reality is not total.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And Laurelin. His little finger 'vs' humanity is what you meant I realise. But where did He say that the impenitent and sorry-too-late deserve annihilation or worse? And where He figuratively, hyperbolically did, He meant the wooden deconstruction? He wasn't using a culture against itself and perhaps was more than a little trapped by it Himself? He was speaking absolute eschatological truth? Dives burns?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
