Thread: Is power (or its misuse) the essence of sin? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029625
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Over on the Discrimination thread in Dead Horses, I mused as follows: quote:
I have been wondering, partly as a result of this thread, whether the essence of sin is not actually power (or wrongful use thereof).
That's sparked a bit of debate which I thought could be exported back here.
I'm still quite taken with this idea, although I'm not convinced it applies evenly across all forms of sin.
What do Purg denizens think?
[fixed link]
[ 13. January 2016, 21:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You KNOW what I think.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The link seemed to take me to the anthem thread rather than dead horses....?
I do think that power and status, desire for it and misuse of it, are certainly motivators for sin, but its essence is deception. We are deceived into embracing the temptation to put ourselves in first place rather than to place God first and all humanity second.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The link seemed to take me to the anthem thread rather than dead horses....?
Thanks, I've made the most of the infinite editing time I enjoy as Purgatory host to correct it.
Hopefully that is neither a misuse of power nor a sin...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You KNOW what I think.
No I don't.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Power merely exposes the flaws already within. Unfortunately, very few are free of flaws.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
I've said this before but I sincerely believe the essence of sin to be self-deception. Once you can convince yourself that evil is good, then it is a doddle to deceive others similarly.
If one is in a position of power then I suppose the effect is magnified.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I do tend to think power is at the heart of sin. But it's probably the lust for power, rather than power itself. Power ("privilege") is something some of us are born with, others less. But what we do with that power-- and even more what we do to keep/hold/steal power-- does seem to me to be closely connected to sin in all it's variations. It also seems to be key to the temptations of Jesus. Perhaps that's why so much of Jesus' teachings seem to focus on elevating the powerless.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
No, I don't think power is the essence of sin. The desire for power is perhaps sinful, as is its misuse. Could both be more clearly seen as symptoms of greed? Perhaps I'm unduly limiting power.
I can see greed as not only sinful but as a path to other sinful conduct.
Another path, it seems to me, is addiction. That's certainly been the case in my life - nothing too suss though ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Well, not much anyway.
Surely there are plenty of other pathways. I don't think there's an essence. The notion seems too easy somehow.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I've said this before but I sincerely believe the essence of sin to be self-deception. Once you can convince yourself that evil is good, then it is a doddle to deceive others similarly.
If one is in a position of power then I suppose the effect is magnified.
I agree, but I would go a step further. I believe the essence of sin is a craving that is combined with self-deception. Not all craving is evil, but all evil originates with a craving (e.g. for power, pleasure, riches, or fame) that becomes sin when it's combined with the self-deception that's necessary to give the craving license to put itself above everything else.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think the problem is that in any given situation there are a range of different outcomes leading to a range of different impacts on different people. So if the "powerful" person is defined as someone who is in a position to decide and make change, then "misuse" (or "correct use") surely depends on perspective.
It might sound like sense to take Aristotle's advice and look for the Golden Mean between the wrong extremes, but how does one in a situation determine what the extremes are, never mind where the Golden Mean lies in the spectrum? Surely nobody wants to believe that they are at the extreme, self-rationalism says that they are in the correct, centre, normal position.
As for power and sin, I think the difficulty is being able to identify sinful actions unambiguously outwith of the personal. How are we defining the "misuse of power"? If it is just that a particular choice is harming someone else, is there not always someone who is harmed by almost any choice? If it is about a considerable number who are harmed, is there no situation where a choice between "sins" is made for the greater good?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think I'd vote for pride as the essential ingredient, with lust for, and abuse of, power as two of its many "children".
Which would make humility the virtuous antidote. Humble people do get into positions of leadership and responsibility for exercising power, but IME those who do are genuinely accountable and not given to abuse of power. Regardless of what the constitution may, or may not, say. Checks and balances are far better administered by people conscious of their own fallibility and the need to listen to others.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Why the strong desire to find one element which is the "essence" of sin? Most problems, be they psychological, physical or spiritual, are multi-determined, and I don't think it helps to try and reduce the causes to one "essential" cause.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I wasn't thinking so much in terms of reducing all sin to a question of power as in terms of seeing that what makes a lot of instances sinful is an element of power.
One oft-quoted example is that of rape being first and foremost about exercising power and not sexual gratification.
On the other hand, a lot of "white-collar" sins (such as the type of behaviour KLB referred to on the Bacon Butties thread as microagression) seem to go unrecognised because they don't tick the more sordid boxes; they are however all about power.
Perhaps I mean that power factors might be a good yardstick for discerning (some) sin.
[ 14. January 2016, 07:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the other hand, a lot of "white-collar" sins (such as the type of behaviour KLB referred to on the Bacon Butties thread as microagression) seem to go unrecognised because they don't tick the more sordid boxes; they are however all about power.
I don't know. I'd have thought that the person who erred by forgetting to provide for vegetarians or the person who wilfully decided not to purchase vegetarian sausages was rather more at fault than the pastor who made a crass joke about it. Of course, that might easily be the same person.
As we're trading anacdotes:
When I was temporarily in a Baptist church many years ago, the minister had a habit of trying to "ram through" changes. On one occasion he asked members to stay behind after a Sunday service for an unscheduled member's meeting, where he asked everyone just to "go with it" so we could all go home quickly and avoid spoiling our Sunday dinner.
Which has all kinds of moral and possibly legal implications.
To me this is an example of a wilful abuse of power.
Together with an experience of seeing a Minister hounded out of a job/house/income by a spiteful elder with no recourse to any kind of complaints procedure or proper process was one of the major reasons why I have avoided churches arranged in this way since.
Of course I appreciate that there are other problems in other kinds of church model.
[ 14. January 2016, 08:07: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I've been reading about theologies that think in terms of Love vs Power. What I like about them is the way they include my neighbour. It isn't just about what power does to me, it's much more about what my power does to someone else.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't think it helps to try and reduce the causes to one "essential" cause.
Agreed. Which doesn't invalidate consideration of primary or secondary causes. That's not, or not necessarily, a reductionist process, nor does it rule out multiple causation.
[ 14. January 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... Once you can convince yourself that evil is good, then it is a doddle to deceive others similarly.
A variant on this perhaps. Power enables us to act upon decisions and we can easily justify our decisions. To take a very old example, Aeschylus' Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter to get wind to take the fleet to Troy. In Greek terms he made the right decision, but the Chorus criticize him for assuming that he is therefore excused the guilt of murdering his daughter.
Even the best choice can have bad consequences. Ignoring the bad consequences because you made the right decision is an insidious danger of power. Soon the end justifies the means.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
In the Taoist tradition, all emotions come in lower and higher forms, the higher forms being all expressions of Love. Anger can transform into a feeling of ability to act - empowerment, which is a necessary aspect of any Love. Love that is not given physical expression through action has rather limited use. I think there are other ways that love can express in action than through alchemised anger, but they are not usually experienced as "power".
Most criticisms of power are focussed on the way that it is mis-used to express reptile/hindbrain urges (sex, food/money, territory) rather than something a bit more human (or even mammalian).
I'm still getting to grips with this. But at the moment my understanding of sin is that it arises when our thoughts or actions are not according to divine order - they are not an expression of our best possible potential in this specific moment. As such, we sin all the time through not loving/believing in ourselves enough and not loving/believing in God enough. Most of that for most people is due to an expression of powerlessNESS rather than being a positive abuse of power. The very next moment, the sin is forgiven (by God) and we start again with the same opportunity. So do the seconds of the day tick by.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
quote:
anteater:
I don't think it helps to try and reduce the causes to one "essential" cause.
B62:
Agreed. Which doesn't invalidate consideration of primary or secondary causes. That's not, or not necessarily, a reductionist process, nor does it rule out multiple causation.
One of the useful things about the '7 deadlies' (or, if you want to go back in time a little further, the '8 thoughts') is that they provide a kind of decomposition of our faults into separate axes of 'sin space'.
Unlike Cartesian (3D xyz) space, colour (rgb), taste (sweet, sour etc) and Fourier (!) decomposition, sin space does not seem to have very orthogonal axes - there seems to be some overlap or redundancy between them. But still, it can be useful to consider what proportions of rgb comprise your personal shade of brown, without needing to think that red (for example) somehow caused green and blue - which would be reductionism, not simply useful decomposition.
For my money, the 'body' ones (lust, gluttony) sit a little apart, but could be considered as types of bodily greed (itself often reserved for issues of wealth). And I agree with B62 - pride makes me angry, greedy, vain, and even slothful - 'why *should* I do ** when my talents are so woefully unappreciated?'.
I'm making prayer for humility a big thing - I really need it. Most of this post was me exercising a bit of redundant-engineer pride. B62 said it first.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'd like to see a Fourier transform of my sins. I'm sure it would look interesting
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Just take the stuff you do, multiply it by e^j(fuckery_n *t) where 0<n<8, and integrate dt from the dawn of time to the end of all ages. Or truncate at your birth and death if you prefer, or estimate over one waking day if you tend to do the same old shit.
Try to avoid being mid-sin as you wake or go to sleep; truncation errors may be improved by using a window function, at the cost of explicit spiritual guidance smearing across sin space and giving only generalised impressions of undifferentiated wankery.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mark_in_manchester: Try to avoid being mid-sin as you wake or go to sleep
This is going to be difficult.
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
Not power, I'm with the Fathers and the Buddha: ignorance and greed. There's an element of greed and ignorance in every other sin, always, but not necessarily a power dimension. How does power cause or help pride for instance? You can even feel proud of your humility. Or despair? Or laziness?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Mark, you're going in the Quotesfile!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... Once you can convince yourself that evil is good, then it is a doddle to deceive others similarly.
A variant on this perhaps. Power enables us to act upon decisions and we can easily justify our decisions. To take a very old example, Aeschylus' Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter to get wind to take the fleet to Troy. In Greek terms he made the right decision, but the Chorus criticize him for assuming that he is therefore excused the guilt of murdering his daughter.
Even the best choice can have bad consequences. Ignoring the bad consequences because you made the right decision is an insidious danger of power. Soon the end justifies the means.
Pride is the root of that problem, not an unintended result of a "best" choice.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've been reading about theologies that think in terms of Love vs Power. What I like about them is the way they include my neighbour. It isn't just about what power does to me, it's much more about what my power does to someone else.
I like that. I relates to the (better) conversations we're having these days re "privilege". If you're born white, or male you have disproportionate power compared to some of your neighbors-- but it's not power you chose and it's not power you can shed. But we can become more conscious of these aspects of hidden privilege/ power and be more thoughtful re how we use that power, and to use it in aid of those with less privilege/power.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
If you're born white, or male you have disproportionate power compared to some of your neighbors-- but it's not power you chose and it's not power you can shed.
Oooh, I don't know about that last bit. I've gone from being a white male lecturer to a white (well, vaguely-oil-coloured) male lab technician, and many of the brown-ish students treat me with mighty distain ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Certainly within the Church, the misuse of power is a great source of - or opportunity for - sin. Some of the wisest words ever given to me on priestly ministry were "Realise the power you have - and don't use it."
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Eutychus.
I completely agree with the proposition. Sin is always about abuse of power. I can't think of an exception. I've been sinning like a good 'un this evening. And it's all been about power; responsibility, control, grace under fire. And not coping. The root of which means to strike back. Which one way or another I HAVE been doing. And not with grace and peace and understanding and acceptance.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus.
I completely agree with the proposition. Sin is always about abuse of power. I can't think of an exception.
Then you imagination is limited.
If sin is deed, then you would have a point. But don't your own scriptures speak of sinning in one's heart?
I can assure you that the powerless and the fearful are not automatically pure in heart.
Power and adversity are the forged by which our mettle is tested. With no test, you virtue is undemonstrated.
By you definition, the weak are automatically saints, the timid are angels.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Indeed it is. Is that a sin? Is weakness and ignorance sin? I have no idea at what point finding women unfathomably attractive crosses over in to lust. But I do know what helpless lust is. And it doesn't take even a look. The power of it, like anger, is phenomenal. Fantasizing; planning to act and beginning to act on lust and anger are obviously 'sin'. Abuses of power. Of freedom. They do harm.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Seems to me that if sinning is knowingly choosing wrongdoing, and we have the power of freewill, then there is a sense in which sin is always an abuse of that power.
But that's a true-by-definition thing that doesn't tell us anything about what actions are sinful and why. If you believe that sin is painting your face blue and dancing widdershins around the fire (*) then choosing to do that is an abuse of your power of freewill...
To make a case that it is true in the stronger sense - that something is sinful precisely to the extent that it is an abuse of power - then I guess we need to be a bit clearer about what power is and what the right and wrong uses of power are.
The sin of Satan was to choose power rather than love. I tend to agree that those who look at a situation and ask whether those involved have power, rather than whether those involved are loved, have the wrong end of the stick.
But that's a long way short of a coherent theory...
(*) rather than painting your face white and dancing clockwise...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed it is. Is that a sin? Is weakness and ignorance sin? I have no idea at what point finding women unfathomably attractive crosses over in to lust. But I do know what helpless lust is. And it doesn't take even a look. The power of it, like anger, is phenomenal. Fantasizing; planning to act and beginning to act on lust and anger are obviously 'sin'. Abuses of power. Of freedom. They do harm.
There is no such thing as helpless lust. That is an excuse.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Then you've never experienced it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Bullshit. Lust isn't spontaneous. One simply doesn't wander around with a virtuous heart and suddenly lust uncontrollably when the right combination of body parts walks by.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Nobody walked by. I know a man ... who dreads visiting his stepson, whom he loves dearly and who positively wants to see him, because he lives in the same complex as the man's ex-wife. The man dreads encountering his ex-wife. Because he never stopped loving her. Nor she him. Because life is complicated beyond mere belief including merest rationalization.
He dreads her vulnerability. And his own.
This same man has an above board but complex relationship with his former minister and his wife. These are all people in their 60's. When the former minister was stricken, his wife reached out broadly for support. She had reached out to support our man in his troubles and share some of her own some years before. Always on neutral ground. Although it was once at a hotel restaurant after a mutual close friend's funeral with our man's ex-wife present.
Do you know what unspoken question was going through the man's mind?
Subtle, restrained, British nitro-glycerine. Nothing EVER happened. But it would have taken NOTHING. It should be in the novel. There's more of course.
Along with another extra-ordinary encounter with a woman desperately looking for her dangerously missing son.
If it were in a novel, nobody would believe it. Apart from Woody Allan. This is a man who avoids porn like the plague yet occasionally finds himself transfixed with gay hypnopompic reveries.
One just can't legislate for the human heart can one?
So who's talking about looking?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I know a man ...
Is that... are you... being... Pauline?
... to ask it delicately.
And do I want to know? Maybe not. I must be mellowing, as I find myself thinking... perhaps it's best to be... cryptic.
Just... oh.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
We so need a slow-clap smilie, if only for your posts, Martin60.
You've not only moved the goalposts, but put a puppy in between them as well. Nice. I'll address your examples when I get to a proper computer, but I can bend the shot round the cute wee beast.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
I'm inclined to think that identity is the source of sin.
Somehow, identity is inextricably entwined with some painful experience or narrative, giving rise to the belief that there was some kind of "lesson to be learned" that's only imperfectly learned and the pain of which is never discharged.
Pain and the lesson imperfectly learned, all balled up together to create some kind of eternally recurring impulse to repeat a painful experience, and to derive a sense of identity from the role one plays in the drama.
Bleh. An impossible tangle in a hall of mirrors. Until the id-entity is sent to Christ for healing.
LAFF
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You can only curve that stone, lilBuddha, if you can show me how you overcame helpless longing, desire, lust, without sin.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And Cliffdweller, I'm Martine at the weekend. Not Paulene.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You can only curve that stone, lilBuddha, if you can show me how you overcame helpless longing, desire, lust, without sin.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Attraction is natural. What we do with it is our responsibility. You follow the road on your own volition.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Whatever you say lilBuddha.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Cliffdweller, I'm Martine at the weekend. Not Paulene.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Whatever you say lilBuddha.
This is cute, Martin60. But as you present only hazy scenarios and fail to actually build an argument, not much to really say.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Whatever you say lilBuddha.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The Lutheran position is AFAIK that all sin is at heart idolatry-a putting of someone or something else in the place where God should be. If you like, screwed up priorities.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Hmmm. I don't know what that means. And I don't think I can know. Does it mean anything to anyone here?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
It makes a lot of sense to me.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's nice.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hmmm. I don't know what that means. And I don't think I can know. Does it mean anything to anyone here?
Sure.
In essence, when we sin, we're putting your trust in something other than God.
Sin does not make sense if we truly believe the orthodox Christian beliefs that:
a. God is good and loves us, wants only good for us
b. God knows all things and therefore knows what is good
If both those propositions are true, then sin is an illogical choice, since logically, it cannot be in our best interests to sin if both a & b are true. Therefore, when we knowingly sin, we are implicitly demonstrating doubt in one of those two propositions-- either we doubt that God is good and loving and wants good for us; or we doubt that God knows what he is doing and knows what is good.
So, if you choose sin, you're demonstrating lack of faith in God's goodness and/or sovereignty, and elevating something else instead. You (I) are saying implicitly, "I doubt that serving God/ following Christ will really bring joy or fulfillment in my life, instead or in addition I think I need... (insert favored sin here)". Whatever that other thing is that you are choosing that is contrary to what you know to be God's will then, is idolatry-- you are implicitly trusting in that other thing to bring you joy/ fulfillment/ security/ whatever, rather than God.
Something of course we all do everyday. For me it's usually about security, for someone else it might be something else, but bottom line is placing trust in something other than God.
.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's nice.
It's always nice when things make sense, and when I can answer one of your questions! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 19. January 2016, 22:26: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
But only to yourself. As usual, such things aren't transferable. Communicable. They have no meaning beyond evoking an undifferentiated feeling.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
cliffdweller. We can believe all that, along with all manner of nonsense, because and but we are ignorant and weak. We constantly abuse our power, our responsibility, our freedom by commission and omission.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
In essence, when we sin, we're putting your trust in something other than God.
Sin does not make sense if we truly believe the orthodox Christian beliefs that:
a. God is good and loves us, wants only good for us
b. God knows all things and therefore knows what is good
Do you really and literally believe that first line? For example, I trust my wife, I trust bridge engineers to build a good bridge, I trust my own judgment in the main, about people.
Well, I could go on, but here you are saying that these things are sinful? I can see that it's quite Biblical, 'whatever does not proceed from faith is sin'. This sounds quite bonkers to me, and in fact, dangerous.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm with quetzalcoatl here. For example, when God chided Israel for trusting on Egypt rather than on Him, in my interpretation the problem was not that Israel trusted on someone else. The problem was that they trusted on power.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
In essence, when we sin, we're putting your trust in something other than God.
Sin does not make sense if we truly believe the orthodox Christian beliefs that:
a. God is good and loves us, wants only good for us
b. God knows all things and therefore knows what is good
Do you really and literally believe that first line? For example, I trust my wife, I trust bridge engineers to build a good bridge, I trust my own judgment in the main, about people.
Well, I could go on, but here you are saying that these things are sinful? I can see that it's quite Biblical, 'whatever does not proceed from faith is sin'. This sounds quite bonkers to me, and in fact, dangerous.
The problem is not that you trust your wife. The problem is if you trust in your wife instead of God. We will trust in all sorts of things from gravity to spouses and everything in between. But our ultimate trust is to be in God alone. Of course, we will fall short of that frequently, which is why we need a savior.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: But our ultimate trust is to be in God alone. Of course, we will fall short of that frequently, which is why we need a savior.
Well, I disagree with this Trusting in God is an invitation, not a requirement.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I would agree it's an invitation not a requirement. We're defining terms here (sin) not setting forth protocols for inclusion. I think trust, whether in a spouse or in God, is something we grow into thru experience. It requires taking escalating risks. It is impacted by our past experiences. There is grace.
But the reason its an invitation is because life is better when we are able to trust in God. So he invites us into that sort of relationship. And to the growing degree we are able to trust in God, we are able to let go of some of the temporal things we have been clinging to instead.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I agree until the last sentence. There is nothing wrong with temporal things. They're not in competition with God.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I agree until the last sentence. There is nothing wrong with temporal things. They're not in competition with God.
Of course-- God created a material, temporal world and declared it good. There's nothing wrong with temporal things-- in fact, they are quite good (chocolate! sex! wine! Yes, more, please!) as long as they continue to hold the proper place in our hearts. Again, the problem is when we are putting out absolute trust in those things rather than in God. The point is that they shouldn't be in competition with God. Sin happens when they are.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Cliffdweller, you Lutheran, you! (no, no, I repent ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--but you did such a great job unpacking that!!!!)
Here's the point where I trot out Luther's great explanation from the Large Catechism:
quote:
What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and believe Him from the [whole] heart; as I have often said that the confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol. If your faith and trust be right, then is your god also true; and, on the other hand, if your trust be false and wrong, then you have not the true God; for these two belong together, faith and God. That now, I say, upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god.
Therefore it is the intent of this commandment to require true faith and trust of the heart which settles upon the only true God and clings to Him alone. That is as much as to say: "See to it that you let Me alone be your God, and never seek another," i.e.: Whatever you lack of good things, expect it of Me, and look to Me for it, and whenever you suffer misfortune and distress, creep and cling to Me. I, yes, I, will give you enough and help you out of every need; only let not your heart cleave to or rest in any other.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: Again, the problem is when we are putting out absolute trust in those things rather than in God. The point is that they shouldn't be in competition with God. Sin happens when they are.
I'm sorry but I disagree. There is no way they can be in competition with God.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
cliffdweller: Again, the problem is when we are putting out absolute trust in those things rather than in God. The point is that they shouldn't be in competition with God. Sin happens when they are.
I'm sorry but I disagree. There is no way they can be in competition with God.
hmmm... I've certainly experienced it in my own life. As I mentioned, for me it's often about security. In order to be secure, I need to be accomplished/ capable/successful in my field, have money in the bank, be in a secure relationship... etc. All of which are good things but when they are the source of my ultimate security-- to the extent that w/o those things I live my life anxiously grasping for them in my own power and strength-- things get seriously effed up. When (in my better days) I am able instead to put my ultimate trust and security in God alone, I'm able to hold those things much more lightly, to appreciate them when they come, even mourn them when they are lost, but not depend on them. Which makes it a whole lot easier to choose right when they are in competition (e.g. if doing what is right means risking job or $$).
If you can't think of anything in your life that holds that sort of power over you, then perhaps you are a far better and more moral person than I. But in my life, yes, definitely, I can see far too many times when temporal things are in competition with God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
In essence, when we sin, we're putting your trust in something other than God.
Sin does not make sense if we truly believe the orthodox Christian beliefs that:
a. God is good and loves us, wants only good for us
b. God knows all things and therefore knows what is good
Do you really and literally believe that first line? For example, I trust my wife, I trust bridge engineers to build a good bridge, I trust my own judgment in the main, about people.
Well, I could go on, but here you are saying that these things are sinful? I can see that it's quite Biblical, 'whatever does not proceed from faith is sin'. This sounds quite bonkers to me, and in fact, dangerous.
The problem is not that you trust your wife. The problem is if you trust in your wife instead of God. We will trust in all sorts of things from gravity to spouses and everything in between. But our ultimate trust is to be in God alone. Of course, we will fall short of that frequently, which is why we need a savior.
Well, you are setting up all sorts of dualities which baffle me. For example, trusting in my wife, instead of God - but it's through that trust that I know God. Or if you like, via love, and sometimes, its absence.
Also 'ultimate' trust and God alone, sound odd for me. God participates in all things.
Still, I guess we will continue to disagree!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
It's sounds to me like we have a semantic problem at this point, rather than a true theological disagreement.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Possibly. I don't think it matters really.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Let's try this: can you envision, perhaps even think of someone in particular, for whom the pursuit of money has become sinful? Where they might choose the most economically profitable course of action, even if it is morally wrong? If so, then you've seen a situation where trust in one temporal thing (money) is in competition with the ultimate thing (God). It's not that money is inherently wrong-- it's a necessary part of our temporal world. It's that it become sinful when we love/trust in money more than God. And the remedy is not to get rid of all money or to stop working or refuse to participate in the economic system. The remedy is to return God to his rightful place in our lives-- the place where we place our ultimate trust. That's sorta what the "treasure hidden in a field/ pearl of great price" parable is about-- the treasure-seeker is not upset or anxious about getting rid of all his possessions, he is joyful because the treasure he is receiving is so much greater.
We're simply saying the same thing can happen with other temporal things besides just money.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: As I mentioned, for me it's often about security. In order to be secure, I need to be accomplished/ capable/successful in my field, have money in the bank, be in a secure relationship... etc. All of which are good things but when they are the source of my ultimate security-- to the extent that w/o those things I live my life anxiously grasping for them in my own power and strength-- things get seriously effed up.
I have all these things. I accomplish things in my work, I have money (not a lot by Western standards but enough to get by), and I have the love and support of family and friends.
And you know what? I wouldn't be able to do without these things. I'd be exactly as you describe it: anxiously grasping for them.
In fact, I know a lot of people who need to do without these things. My kind of work means that I meet them on a daily basis? Not all of them believe in God, but some do. And you know what? They are just as anxiously grasping for these things.
To me, the question "who do you trust more, God or temporal things?" is meaningless. It makes no sense. I don't know what the word "more" means here. I think this is the duality that quetzalcoatl is talking about
I hate flying. Every time I board an airplane, I say a little prayer. But I trust very much on the technical capacities of the plane, the people who designed and built it, and the pilot who flies it. Who do I trust more, them or God? What does that question even mean?
In mathematics, there is a concept called ordered sets. For some kinds of sets like the set {1,2,3} there is an symbol called >; so we can say 3>1 and that makes sense. The set {apple,graph,talkative} doesn't have such an operator. Is apple>talkative? The symbol > has no meaning here.
To me, the set {trust in God,trust in temporal things} is non-ordered. The symbol > (or the word "more") has no meaning on that set. By introducing the word "more", you are putting these things in competition with each other. Not me, you. They are not.
So suppose that I would be completely focussed on my career. This is what gives me security. I push my colleagues aside elbowing my way to the top. I stop paying attention to my family ... The problem here isn't that I don't trust in God enough. The problem is that when I push colleagues aside, I harm them. When I don't pay attention to my family, I harm them.
And we're back to my pet peeve: I refuse to talk about sin if my neighbour isn't involved in it. Not as a side remark, but as a priority above me. Sin is not between me and God.
Of course, you will say: you push your colleagues aside because you don't trust in God. No. I push my colleagues aside because I don't give a fuck about them, about their security, about what they want in their work.
This is why sin relates to power. It isn't about what power does to me. Far more important should be: what does power do to my neighbour?
[ 20. January 2016, 17:06: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And why are atheists often easily more moral, decent, kind, caring, loving than theists?
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Are they? I don't think they are.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And why are atheists often easily more moral, decent, kind, caring, loving than theists?
Doubtful if you can establish that! But if we say that they're just as virtuous as theists, I suppose they have the advantage that they're not straining for effect. I mean that they have no supernatural goal, what a blessed relief.
I suppose this is often seen as a deficit by theists, but then many of them are haunted by a false self, and no, I can't establish that either.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This is why sin relates to power. It isn't about what power does to me. Far more important should be: what does power do to my neighbour?
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Upthread I argued with the OP that power is intrinsically related to sin. I would agree with you as well about the relational nature of sin.
As I grow in my trust for God, I become less concerned about power. If I trust in God, I am not as anxious about grasping power and being able to control things. Thus, I am less likely to misuse power in ways that harm my neighbor.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Let's try this: can you envision, perhaps even think of someone in particular, for whom the pursuit of money has become sinful? Where they might choose the most economically profitable course of action, even if it is morally wrong? If so, then you've seen a situation where trust in one temporal thing (money) is in competition with the ultimate thing (God). It's not that money is inherently wrong-- it's a necessary part of our temporal world. It's that it become sinful when we love/trust in money more than God. And the remedy is not to get rid of all money or to stop working or refuse to participate in the economic system. The remedy is to return God to his rightful place in our lives-- the place where we place our ultimate trust. That's sorta what the "treasure hidden in a field/ pearl of great price" parable is about-- the treasure-seeker is not upset or anxious about getting rid of all his possessions, he is joyful because the treasure he is receiving is so much greater.
We're simply saying the same thing can happen with other temporal things besides just money.
Well, I don't use terms such as 'sinful' really, so it's hard for me to move in parallel with you. If someone misuses money, or exploits people, then I would describe it differently, say, as an addiction. At the same time, they might be quite devout, it happens quite a lot. We call this a contradiction, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking of Graham Greene here, but I'm off for a drink. Hee hee.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Upthread I argued with the OP that power is intrinsically related to sin. I would agree with you as well about the relational nature of sin.
Yet, no-one talks about my neighbour. It's all about me. What does power do to me? I need a Saviour … The priorities are wrong here.
quote:
cliffdweller: As I grow in my trust for God, I become less concerned about power. If I trust in God, I am not as anxious about grasping power and being able to control things. Thus, I am less likely to misuse power in ways that harm my neighbor.
It's still the wrong way around. "My security is guaranteed by God. I don't need to worry about that, so I don't need to grasp power and control things; I can cede this promotion to my colleague." This still puts my security first. This is is guaranteed, so I can think about my neighbour's. The radical thing is to think about your neighbour's first.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's very good, LeRoc. A lot of Christianity strikes me as me-me-me, my God, my God, my God, my vocation. Well, this is normal behaviour and not sinful!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]Well, I don't use terms such as 'sinful' really, so it's hard for me to move in parallel with you.
Well, the topic under discussion is how to define/understand "sin". If you don't resonate with the term itself, it goes w/o saying that you probably don't resonate with my or anyone else's definitions/understandings. Perhaps you want to start a separate discussion re whether "sin" is a useful construct.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's very good, LeRoc. A lot of Christianity strikes me as me-me-me, my God, my God, my God, my vocation.
True. And I see how my construct plays into that. I'm gonna blame our (American, primarily) rampant individualism which I think has so skewed our (my) view of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, this is normal behaviour and not sinful!
Was this intended tongue-in-cheek? Or a defense of individualism/ selfishness?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]Well, I don't use terms such as 'sinful' really, so it's hard for me to move in parallel with you.
Well, the topic under discussion is how to define/understand "sin". If you don't resonate with the term itself, it goes w/o saying that you probably don't resonate with my or anyone else's definitions/understandings. Perhaps you want to start a separate discussion re whether "sin" is a useful construct.
That seems rather severe to me. Isn't part of the joy of discussion the deconstruction of the topic? I did suggest an alternative - addiction - but OK, it's a Christian gaff, so your rools.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's very good, LeRoc. A lot of Christianity strikes me as me-me-me, my God, my God, my God, my vocation.
True. And I see how my construct plays into that. I'm gonna blame our (American, primarily) rampant individualism which I think has so skewed our (my) view of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, this is normal behaviour and not sinful!
Was this intended tongue-in-cheek? Or a defense of individualism/ selfishness?
It's also post-Renaissance and post-Reformation individualism, isn't it? T. S. Eliot used to rail against it, as he became more traditional and classical (and royalist).
I meant that me-me-me is a necessary and healthy stage for most people in their lives; hence to call it sinful is dangerous. Of course, some people move on to something else; some don't.
[ 20. January 2016, 18:29: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Pursuit of power, self-delusion, pride etc, are all forms of sin, but they aren't its essence. The essence of sin is selfishness, in the sense of making oneself and one's own needs more central than the needs of others. The result is always exploitation of one sort or another. The Golden Rule is an almost perfect guide to whether we are sinning in any particular situation. I say almost, because some moral issues can be incredibly complicated, for example doing evil to prevent a greater evil. Would you have been willing to assassinate Hitler, given the chance.
Even putting ourselves before God doesn't really count, as the only way we can show our love of God in this world is to show love to each other. Jesus' mandatum novum, "love one another as I have loved you" and his claim that love of God and neighbour is the totality of Moses and the prophets says the same thing. People, states and religious institutions can make laws and prohibitions, and violating them may get us in trouble with those institutions, but they don't constitute real sin unless we do to our neighbour something that is hateful to ourselves.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
PaulTH*: The Golden Rule is an almost perfect guide to whether we are sinning in any particular situation.
I see the Golden Rule as a minimum. In a sense, it still appeals to our selfishness ("You wouldn't like it if someone did that to you either.") Jesus stated the Golden Rule of course, and He wasn't the first to do that. But He also went beyond it.
quote:
PaulTH*: the only way we can show our love of God in this world is to show love to each other.
I can think of no other meaningful definition of "loving God".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So the average atheist is less decent, humane, caring, charitable, tolerant, patient, honest than the average theist?
Or it can't be proven that they are at least the same, it can't be assumed, therefore it's safe to assume that they're not?
I find it astounding that it's not obvious that many atheists are more Christian than many Christians.
As obvious that historically to date Christians are among the worst of sinners. Of abusers of power.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, a bunch of responses.
First, the average atheist vs average Christian argument is a lot of hooey, because human beings don't start off at the same place morally, and neither are atheists and Christians random samples of the human population. For all we know, God could be picking the hardest cases to become his Christians--he seems to have a pleasure in doing the impossible--and the average Christian may be starting considerably worse than the average atheist. Or you could argue that the average atheist starts off a paragon of virtuous light, which is why he recognizes the dismal truth about the universe. :twoface:But we don't know either way, do we? We can't even measure it. And anecdata does no good, because nobody (but God) has full experience of either population. So it's talking through our hats, and the argument is unusable.
Second, with regard to trusting a temporal good more than God--
It isn't so much that they are in competition (temporal good have no personalities), but rather that people have a tendency to put their emotional, spiritual, social, physical, etc. eggs in breaking baskets. There is only one "basket" that can safely hold all those concerns without breaking at last, which is God. As Jesus said, "the people of this world run after all these things [shelter, clothing, food] and your heavenly Father knows you need them. But seek first God's kingdom (=kingship) and all these things will be added to you...." He is not promising we will have everything we want, or that we will never suffer. Rather he promises that if we put God first in our hearts, God will deal with the rest. Not always as we want him to do, but then, when was that ever in question?
The trust thing. What this refers to is ultimate trust--as Luther says, "A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and believe Him from the [whole] heart." This means, when chaos and trouble come into your life and you start having major anxiety, where do you turn for help?
Do you hunker down at your job and do your damndest to earn more money, because money represents security for you? Do you do this even at the expense of family, friends, God, health? If so, money is your god.
I live among Asians, for whom education is often their god. Their standard answer to any worry is "get more education," and they find it almost inconceivable that a PhD is not living a perfectly easy, blissful life. Heh.
You could write similar scenarios for people who place all importance on physical health (the extreme exercise and health food nuts, also the doctor groupies), on being socially popular, on being an "insider" in some power group. These are their gods, and they make unreasonable sacrifices for them.
And inevitably they get let down by these gods--their health fails (or does them no good in some other area, like trying to save a marriage); their money cannot fix a cancer diagnosis; their power and popularity disappear with a layoff, firing, or simple age and retirement; and so on, and so on. Education can be erased at a stroke. Alzheimer's will take fucking everything.
The true God says, "Put that ultimate trust in me. I will not lose you. You will still have losses, yes--but you will not lose me, and in the end I will redeem all your loss and suffering. Trust me to be your safety, cry out to me in bad times, and I will care for you."
I've been through a lot of shit (who hasn't?) and I haven't found him a liar yet. Though I'm certain there are plenty of people who consider me a deluded fool. Hey, but a happy one, yah?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yeah, what Lamb said.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
]Well, I don't use terms such as 'sinful' really, so it's hard for me to move in parallel with you.
Well, the topic under discussion is how to define/understand "sin". If you don't resonate with the term itself, it goes w/o saying that you probably don't resonate with my or anyone else's definitions/understandings. Perhaps you want to start a separate discussion re whether "sin" is a useful construct.
That seems rather severe to me. Isn't part of the joy of discussion the deconstruction of the topic? I did suggest an alternative - addiction - but OK, it's a Christian gaff, so your rools.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound snarky. I guess it just seemed to me to be moving the goal posts-- first you seemed to be disputing my definition of "sin" (the topic of the OP) but then when I explained it further you seemed to fall back on "but I don't resonate with the notion of sinfulness". Maybe I missed a step in the progression there.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
All that happens to atheists, happens to Christians. All the false gods ... of health and education. And the lack of it. I don't see Christianity as a recipe for happiness. Which is contingent.
True Christianity is its own reward.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Equating sin with selfishness - well, I can see how people get to that, but I think it's risky. I mean, that there are plenty of people who aren't selfish enough. I met them in my work (therapy), people who have insufficient ego-strength to face life, and face other people.
So they have to build up their ego strength, until they can face such challenges, and they are not blown away like powder puffs by every argument.
A bit earlier, I said that selfishness or egotism is healthy when one is young, when there is a drive for self-realization; but clearly, quite a few people begin to see a change as they get older.
You could say that the egotism begins to run dry; it becomes arid. People look for something deeper maybe - having said that, many people don't.
I do fear that introducing the notion of sin into this trajectory is dangerous.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Equating sin with selfishness - well, I can see how people get to that, but I think it's risky. I mean, that there are plenty of people who aren't selfish enough. I met them in my work (therapy), people who have insufficient ego-strength to face life, and face other people.
I think this a very good point, and it touches on my discomfort with some assertions up-thread along the lines that the only way we can show love of God is to show love to each other. It is certainly true that if we don't love each other, we don't love God, but I don't think it's the only way we can show love of God.
Let me try it from this angle and see if it gets any closer: Perhaps the essence of sin is not selfishness (thought exactly what is meant by that could be defined in different ways), but a distorted sense of self. In some, this distorted sense of self can lead to an inflated impression of one's own needs and desires, to the exclusion of others. Abuse of power can definitely come into play here, as can a distortion of who we are in relation to God—the ultimate trust issue some have raised. In others, the distorted sense of self may be manifest as an undervaluing of ones own worth as a child of God and of ones own needs.
Maybe I'm just trying to balance Lamb Chopped's Lutheranism ( ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
), but throughout this thread my mind has turned back to age 11, when I memorized the Westminster Catechism. I keep hearing: "What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God."
To my 11-year-old mind, that certainly translated into "don't do the things God said not to do." But I see it differently now, just as I see sin more as a condition—a disease even—than as a specific act.
"Want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God" it says. And what is the law of God? Jesus said it boils down to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." Implicit in that second commandment is that you will love yourself. You will recognize your value as a child of God, as part of the creation that God called good, and as one created in the image of God. To do less is to reject that which God created and loves. Can we really honor the image of God in others if we don't acknowledge it in ourselves? If we are to love others as we love ourselves, and yet we don't really love ourselves, then what does that say about how we will love others?
I'm well aware that it's rarely a conscious choice to reject ones own self-worth and value. It's something that has been taught, explicitly and by thousands of implicit ways, often by people who suffer from the same problem. Perhaps it's the sins of the fathers being visited upon the fourth and fifth generations? I certainly think it plays into how sin, in its essence, isn't an act or series of acts, but rather is a condition that affects all of human experience.
I guess given this, when I say the "essence" of sin, I don't so much mean what all sinful acts have in common as I mean how sin, at its most basic, works alienate us from God and neighbor—and from ourselves.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Nick Tamen - that's a much greater refinement on what selfishness means. Even here, I would advise caution - for example, it's certainly true that examples of over-inflation or under-valuation of oneself are not all that uncommon. But again, I'm not sure how much we gain by calling either one sinful. Often, they arise out of our environment, the way we were brought up and taught, and so on.
An obvious example is excessive guilt, which can cripple people, and even lead to suicide. Hopefully, here it's possible to restore a sense of self-worth, but premature talk of sin can crush it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Nick Tamen - that's a much greater refinement on what selfishness means. Even here, I would advise caution - for example, it's certainly true that examples of over-inflation or under-valuation of oneself are not all that uncommon. But again, I'm not sure how much we gain by calling either one sinful.
I don't think anyone here is calling someone else "sinful" or advocating that we do so. Nick is advocating a "right view of self"-- an accurate view of self-- as the key to a life lived right.
Whether the under/over view of self is "sin" or not does depend on the context, as you note. And when it comes to other people, it's God's business, not ours. But just like having an accurate view of your personal appearance is useful (a mirror to show you the spinach in your teeth) it's useful to have an accurate view of your self-- including facing sin when it exists.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But again, I'm not sure how much we gain by calling either one sinful. Often, they arise out of our environment, the way we were brought up and taught, and so on.
Yes. See discussion upthread re: the relative morality of non-Christians vs. Christians-- something we cannot assess because we don't know each person's starting point. The relevant question, then, is not whether Christians are more or less moral than non-Christians, but whether I am more moral today with Christ than I was yesterday w/o Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
An obvious example is excessive guilt, which can cripple people, and even lead to suicide. Hopefully, here it's possible to restore a sense of self-worth, but premature talk of sin can crush it.
I find it's helpful to distinguish between guilt and shame. Shame takes the knowledge of our sin and makes it fatal by crippling our identity. Shame says "you're no good"-- so that there is no hope, no possibility of change. Shame is paralyzing, it keeps you stuck. Shame is what led Judas to hang himself (in one version).
Instead of "you're no good", guilt says "you can do better." Like shame, guilt is painful, but unlike shame, it is a temporal pain. Rather than keeping you stuck, guilt is motivating-- it propels you forward. Guilt is what moves Peter forward after the denial of Jesus.
[ 21. January 2016, 14:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Even here, I would advise caution - for example, it's certainly true that examples of over-inflation or under-valuation of oneself are not all that uncommon. But again, I'm not sure how much we gain by calling either one sinful. Often, they arise out of our environment, the way we were brought up and taught, and so on.
I agree, and I think that's one reason why in instances such as these I typically tend not think about them as "sinful," which suggests a choice of some sort on the part of the "sinner," and instead tend to think about them as some of the ways that sin, as a human condition, manifests itself.
[ 21. January 2016, 14:32: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Even here, I would advise caution - for example, it's certainly true that examples of over-inflation or under-valuation of oneself are not all that uncommon. But again, I'm not sure how much we gain by calling either one sinful. Often, they arise out of our environment, the way we were brought up and taught, and so on.
I agree, and I think that's one reason why in instances such as these I typically tend not think about them as "sinful," which suggests a choice of some sort on the part of the "sinner," and instead tend to think about them as some of the ways that sin, as a human condition, manifests itself.
Which I think is why Jesus talks about sin as "slavery" as opposed to a choice.
I like drawing from the 12-step program: sin (like addiction) begins with a choice. But very quickly we become enmeshed in a way that becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get out of. Habits become entrenched, we get trapped in our own lies or delusions. Jesus comes to set us free not only from the penalty of sin but from the enslaving power of sin.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which I think is why Jesus talks about sin as "slavery" as opposed to a choice.
Exactly.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So people choose the wrong parents?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So people choose the wrong parents?
Where in the world did you get that from anything that's been said?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
27 lines of text up from your question.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So people choose the wrong parents?
The consensus here seems to be away from thinking of sin exclusively as choice. But I don't think seeing it entirely as hereditary works either.
Sin, like so many things, is complex. Just like heart disease could have multiple factors-- diet, exercise, heredity-- so with sin. Often there is, indeed, an element of choice-- at least initially. Other times it's ignorance or error or just plain inattention (how many times am I snarky and unloving just because I'm not paying attention to my words and how they'll effect others?) As noted, it may be the natural outgrowth of some crappy experience-- whether that's at the hands of your parents or someone else or just sheer bad luck.
Once you venture further past the initial choice/ non-choice of a single incident of a any particular sin, though, I think is where the "slavery" part comes in. The sin becomes habit (perhaps I just have a habit of speaking in a snarky or unloving way...). It becomes part of your identity (e.g. if you say something false, you've lied, but if you do it enough times, you're a liar). The habit becomes a pattern which those closest to you anticipate and start treating you accordingly (e.g. not treating you as trustworthy if you frequently tell lies) which, in turn, draws that undesirable behavior from you (see Systems Theory for the interrelation). The stories you tell yourself to rationalize away your sin become embedded in your consciousness in a way that is self-reinforcing so that you come to believe them yourself. And then you're trapped-- you can't challenge those rationalized assumptions without your whole world falling apart (shame in particular may play a part here).
All of which may or may not be at play in any one particular sin. But it's a familiar pattern that leads to sin as "slavery" rather than just a choice.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
27 lines of text up from your question.
Well, I've tried counting (even though I know that lines of text can show up differently on different screens, and even though I don't know things like whether you're including quotes in your count) but I still can't figure out what you're referring to. Maybe you can simply quote what you're talking about?
[ 21. January 2016, 23:22: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
27 lines of text up from your question.
Martin60, this post appears to be designed purely and simply to annoy and obfuscate. You have already been warned about this behaviour by the admins. Don't think you can keep on posting like that with impunity.
(Even if the admins choose to exercise mercy for now, continuing thus will simply make more people ignore your posts altogether).
/hosting
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which I think is why Jesus talks about sin as "slavery" as opposed to a choice.
If we are slaves to sin, as Jesus said, this raises a point I've often thought about. How can it be right for us to be punished for something beyond our control? I have little doubt that our sinfulness is largely due to our genetic conditioning as predatory creatures, and I see original sin as a metaphor to describe this condition. Why would a God who placed us here in this sinful milieu then require punishment for being what He made us? This is probably why I could never be other than a universalist. God sorted it out for us at the Incarnation because for Him all things are possible wheras for us not much is possible.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Anyone interested in the idea of 'healthy selfishness' should have a look at Bud Harris's book, 'Sacred Selfishness', which is partly a self-help book, but also has some interesting stuff on tapping into inner resources and sources. Fairly Jungian, which might not be to everyone's taste! Available on Kindle.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004O4D8AW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Quite a lot to mull about with regards to selfishness. Thank you all.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I mentioned this discussion to my wife, and she got very angry, and was practically shouting, as she has been working recently with clients who are very prone to guilt, and the idea of sin is like petrol on fire. Ah well, she is calming down now. I think she would argue that the real sin is the notion of sin, which has traumatized many people.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
My apologies.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I like drawing from the 12-step program: sin (like addiction) begins with a choice ...
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which I think is why Jesus talks about sin as "slavery" as opposed to a choice.
If we are slaves to sin, as Jesus said, this raises a point I've often thought about. How can it be right for us to be punished for something beyond our control? I have little doubt that our sinfulness is largely due to our genetic conditioning as predatory creatures, and I see original sin as a metaphor to describe this condition. Why would a God who placed us here in this sinful milieu then require punishment for being what He made us? This is probably why I could never be other than a universalist. God sorted it out for us at the Incarnation because for Him all things are possible wheras for us not much is possible.
Well, I'd say two things in response. The first is that God didn't make us sinful. God allowed us to be born in a fallen world, which is different.
The second is that this is why I resonate more with the scriptural descriptions of sin as something to which we are enslaved, or as a disease. In this frame of reference, sin is not something for which we need a savior so we won't be punished, as much as it's something from which we need freedom and healing.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mentioned this discussion to my wife, and she got very angry, and was practically shouting, as she has been working recently with clients who are very prone to guilt, and the idea of sin is like petrol on fire. Ah well, she is calming down now. I think she would argue that the real sin is the notion of sin, which has traumatized many people.
Sadly (and dare I say, sinfully), it has. Too often, the concept of sinfulness has been distorted and abused, with terrible wounding consequences for many people.
I am convinced that sin/sinfulness is real and serious. I am equally convinced that sin and sinfulness are not what too many Christians over the centuries have made them out to be, in their sometimes abusive efforts to control others.
Which brings us back to the OP.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think it is possible to talk about sin in a non-abusive way. The trouble is, so many people seem to have been wounded by unhelpful uses of it.
I suppose therapy has secularized all this to a degree, in the sense that it takes one's sins and redeems them, not through a saviour, but through contact with another. This isn't salvation, but human help.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which I think is why Jesus talks about sin as "slavery" as opposed to a choice.
If we are slaves to sin, as Jesus said, this raises a point I've often thought about. How can it be right for us to be punished for something beyond our control? I have little doubt that our sinfulness is largely due to our genetic conditioning as predatory creatures, and I see original sin as a metaphor to describe this condition. Why would a God who placed us here in this sinful milieu then require punishment for being what He made us? This is probably why I could never be other than a universalist. God sorted it out for us at the Incarnation because for Him all things are possible wheras for us not much is possible.
Agreed. Which is why the "Satanward"* (ransom and Christus victor) understandings of the atonement make far more sense to me than the "Godward"* (satisfaction and substitution) understandings.
*(i.e. the two terms refer to the direction the force of the atonement is directed. Satanward theories envision the force of the atonement directed at Satan/evil-- to break the hold of sin and death. Godward theories envision the force of the atonement directed towards God-- to appease God's wrath).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mentioned this discussion to my wife, and she got very angry, and was practically shouting, as she has been working recently with clients who are very prone to guilt, and the idea of sin is like petrol on fire. Ah well, she is calming down now. I think she would argue that the real sin is the notion of sin, which has traumatized many people.
Again, I think the problem here is not excessive guilt, but rather shame. Guilt is not a destructive notion-- all of us should feel remorse when we realize we have done something, whether inadvertently or deliberately, that harms another. If we didn't, we'd be something like a sociopath. Such guilt is not harmful because it is temporal-- we feel guilty, we repent-- decide to behave differently to avoid causing others harm. Then we go on with our lives.
Shame, otoh, is not a temporary emotion, it's a permanent state. It's not so much remorse for a single act as an identity. It causes us to feel unworthy, unloveable. It keeps us stuck forever in our worst moments. It also tends to lead to putting up false images, facades to hide our true selves, which only amplifies the destructive power of shame.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
cliffdweller
I don't really agree with that distinction - for example, I see shame as to do with exposure to others, but anyway, probably o/t.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And why are atheists often easily more moral, decent, kind, caring, loving than theists?
My suspicion is that there are, by nature, some people who are more rule-oriented and some who are more people-oriented.
And that there's a caricature of Christianity - God the Lawgiver, the Church/Bible as the Institution/Book that tells you how to live - that's particularly attractive to some of the most unsympathetic, the most extreme of the rule-oriented people.
Who become some of the most vocally, explicitly, in-your-facedly Christians.
Those same people can equally become the most fundamentalist of Marxists.
And whether you see Christians or atheists as on balance more humane depends on how many of each type you've come across.
Rule-oriented people have their strengths. It's just that when they go bad they go bad in a particular way...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Look at history. Look around. The conspicuously humane, humanitarian are randomly scattered, almost invariably, on the edge of and beyond Christianity, in the vaguely Christianized imperial West. Yes there are twenty great names in the history of the Social Gospel. Even the odd English archbishop could be tacked on. Generations ago.
There are spectacular Muslim exceptions like A Good Man in Rwanda
But the mainstream of all our religious subcultures is noticeable by its lack of humanity. By its silence. Irrelevance. And worse. Its all too human inhumanity. Its sin.
[ 22. January 2016, 23:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Nice thread, wanted to join but didn't know where I could pipe up and jump in .
Looks to me like a problem of the blind men standing near different parts of the elephant. I may be near the tail, so forgive me if I don't come up roses.
For the essence of sin to be power, every sin should look like a power grab, just as the essence of the elephant should be something that shouts loudly, "ELEPHANT" !
At its most basic level, sin is breaking rules. Without rules there is no sin. Does all breaking of rules look like power grabs? Some do. Like Saul performing sacrifices that only Samuel was certified for.
Does all sin look like breaking of rules. They do. So the essence of sin is breaking of rules.
I'll go into how sin developed, before I critique the orthdox doctrine of how sin developed, and how common sense understanding of sin went to hell in a handcart.
There are basically two states: sinlessness and sinfulness. Compliant and non compliant.
Adam was compliant. He became noncompiant. Now he must become compliant again.
The reason he was compliant was because he was unable to comprehend. This is not an isolated view. Criminal courts assign innocence to people who are minors or who are insane. That is, they cannot be criminally prosecuted.
Adam was warned, not commanded, not to become culpable by eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. A command is a rule, and to be able to obey a command, one should be aware of good and evil. A warning on the other hand doesn't need comprehension to follow.
A warning is a caution, advice on not doing something without being given the reason. Just as you would tell a child not to play in traffic.The consequnces of not heeding the advice is harm, so Adam suffered harm when he ate of the fruit. because he had not yet subdued his body. What?!
We are noble spirits in an ignoble body. The plan was to subdue the body, a microcosm of Creation. Just as a horse is beautiful in the untamed state, is good like all the rest of creation, but unprodcutive when not subdued , the body is good, but unfruitful when not subdued .
The Jewish sages teach that God would have allowed Adam the knowledge of good and evil, a good thing, if he had only waited till the Sabbath.
A comprehending mind matched with an untamed body? A fatal combination. A sound mind makes you culpable, an unrestainable body makes sin, non compliance, infraction, inevitable.
As long as Adam was sinless, not culpable, he could walk with God in the cool of the day, could work with him to subdue the body. Out of fellowship, separated, he was dead in the water. He needed union with God to subdue that body.
Only the pure can see God. Adam couldn't be in the same room as God without perishing. He had to leave for his own safety.
Did God abandon His project?
Does a gardener give up on a plant that doesn't grow or give fruit? No. He waters it, nourishes it with fertiliser , and prunes it, gives it another chance, and yet another chance, and... till it recovers.
Adam's descendants face the same problem. Noble mind in ignoble body. Now they share the same separation too, from that which could have helped the normal development of God's plan: the Garden, the Land, the Kingdom, the Lamb which was slain before the foundation of the world. Well if man can't come to the Lamb then the Lamb must go to man, yes?
Nothing happens without being in the Garden, in the camp of Israel, in the tabernacle, in the Promised Land, in the temple, in the Kingdom, in Christ.
Quote
We may return to the same conclusion that we reached before: the sacrifice of animals is inadequate to achieve final cleansing, nor can it cleanse anything more than the copies of heavenly things. Then who will bring the definitive sacrifice? A man must do it. A similar point is made indirectly in Num. 35:33-34: “Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.” When a man had shed blood, the man must die. But there is one exception, when the blood of the death of the high priest releases a manslaughterer to return home (Num. 35:25-28). The blood of the high priest has special value. In agreement with this principle, Zech. 3 uses all the symbolism of a defiled human high priest Joshua and then speaks mysteriously of the Branch in connection with which “I will remove the sin of this land in a single day” (Zech. 3:9).
http://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-shadow-of-christ-in-the-law-of-moses/
2 Kings 17:25At the beginning of their living there, they did not fear the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them which killed some of them. 26So they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying, “The nations whom you have carried away into exile in the cities of Samaria do not know the custom of the god of the land; so he has sent lions among them, and behold, they kill them because they do not know the custom of the god of the land.”
27Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, “Take there one of the priests whom you carried away into exile and let him go and live there; and let him teach them the custom of the god of the land.” 28So one of the priests whom they had carried away into exile from Samaria came and lived at Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.
This is why Land is so important for the People of God. In my next post, I'll try to explain why we become compliant, rest, in Christ.
Oh yes, I'd promised to let you know how the doctrine of sin went all pear shaped.
Quote
Though Augustine was convinced by the arguments of his earlier patristic peers, he made use of the apostle Paul’s letters, especially the one to the Romans, to develop his own ideas on original sin and guilt. Today, however, it is accepted that Augustine, who had never mastered the Greek language, misread Paul in at least one instance by using an inadequate Latin translation of the Greek original.
In Romans 5, Paul addresses the matter of sin. In verse 12 he states, “Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (NRSV). Later in the chapter, Paul juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the righteousness of Christ: “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). In contrast to his contemporary theologians, Augustine drew from his reading of these scriptures that sin was passed biologically from Adam to all his descendants through the sexual act itself, thus equating sexual desire with sin. But why should he have reached this interpretation when marital sexual relations in Jewish society at the time of Christ and Paul were considered honorable and good?
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=227
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What rules?
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What rules?
All dogs go to heaven! Because they are not under the jurisdiction of law! Anyone with a sound mind, a functioning conscience, is under the jurisdiction of the rules of the conscience.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But the mainstream of all our religious subcultures is noticeable by its lack of humanity. By its silence. Irrelevance. And worse. Its all too human inhumanity. Its sin.
I had thought that you were talking about religion-fuelled acts of inhumanity. With Muslim terrorist acts inevitably uppermost in mind, but referencing also the crusaders and inquisitors in the history of our own tradition.
But this sounds like you're asking a different question - something like why religious leaders are so hands-off about the many works of mercy that their followers undertake (soup kitchens, Christian Aid, whatever) and so hands-on about doctrines and disciplines. So that the media, focused on what the leaders say and do, reflect religious organisations as having their heart in the wrong place.
Part of the answer may be in power and what it does to those that wield it.
And part may be that, in this post-modern post-Christendom society, the good works have become secularised - opened up to believers and non-believers equally. Held in common. Whilst the identity of each religious group is defined by how it differs from all the other fragments.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What rules?
All dogs go to heaven! Because they are not under the jurisdiction of law! Anyone with a sound mind, a functioning conscience, is under the jurisdiction of the rules of the conscience.
I'm curious as to how you would establish or demonstrate that there are such rules. Obviously, you could do it via pure assertion - there are rules, because I say so - but presumably, you have some other method in mind. I suppose we might infer rules from watching human behaviour, but maybe not, since it is not particularly consistent.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What rules?
All dogs go to heaven! Because they are not under the jurisdiction of law! Anyone with a sound mind, a functioning conscience, is under the jurisdiction of the rules of the conscience.
I'm curious as to how you would establish or demonstrate that there are such rules. Obviously, you could do it via pure assertion - there are rules, because I say so - but presumably, you have some other method in mind. I suppose we might infer rules from watching human behaviour, but maybe not, since it is not particularly consistent.
Obviously one could point to the OT laws as the "rules". But it seems to me that in so doing-- in making sin all about "rule-breaking"-- you are making the same error the Pharisees made. It seems to me that Jesus' encounters with the Pharisees show how very much they had missed the point of the Law. The problem with "rule-breaking" in regards to the OT Law or any other set of "rules" is not that "you've broken the rules!" it is that you have broken trust, you have broken relationship. If your spouse has an affair, the offended spouse doesn't cry "you broke the rules!" nor is s/he satisfied if the cheating spouse is able to demonstrate some loophole ("it was only an online flirtation", "we only had oral sex", etc). The problem with adultery is not that it "breaks rules" it's that it breaks hearts, breaks families, breaks relationships. That seems to be what Jesus is doing throughout the Sermon on the Mount-- reframing the Law to get at the root of sin-- the human heart-- rather than making it all about "rule-breaking".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Very good post. Legalism really doesn't work in human relationships.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What rules?
All dogs go to heaven! Because they are not under the jurisdiction of law! Anyone with a sound mind, a functioning conscience, is under the jurisdiction of the rules of the conscience.
I'm curious as to how you would establish or demonstrate that there are such rules. Obviously, you could do it via pure assertion - there are rules, because I say so - but presumably, you have some other method in mind. I suppose we might infer rules from watching human behaviour, but maybe not, since it is not particularly consistent.
Romans 2:14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
So there are rules of conscience because the Bible says so? Hmm. Ah well, I don't think this discussion has legs really.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So there are rules of conscience because the Bible says so? Hmm. Ah well, I don't think this discussion has legs really.
Umm, the idea is that a person's conscience establishes a set of rules that he or she is held accountable to.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Even if those rules of conscience make us unkind?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And both, Russ, both. The extreme of pious violence which is utterly institutionalized, exceptionalized in ALL major religions and their denominations. Covers BOTH. They, WE, ALL sin. ALL abuse power. Are ALL violent. ALL the time.
The exceptions have no voice at all. No hearing. No conversation. Not in mainstream religion. Outside it yes.
10,000 years.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What rules?
All dogs go to heaven! Because they are not under the jurisdiction of law! Anyone with a sound mind, a functioning conscience, is under the jurisdiction of the rules of the conscience.
I'm curious as to how you would establish or demonstrate that there are such rules. Obviously, you could do it via pure assertion - there are rules, because I say so - but presumably, you have some other method in mind. I suppose we might infer rules from watching human behaviour, but maybe not, since it is not particularly consistent.
Romans 2:14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
See, I read that passage the exact opposite way you do. I hear Paul in Rom. 2 to be pointing AWAY from your argument re: seeing sin as a "rule breaking problem" and TOWARD what I see Jesus doing in the Sermon on the Mount. Pointing to "the law written on your hearts" seems to me to be saying that sin is NOT about whether or not you keep the rules. If it were, then the Pharisees shoulda been Jesus' favorite people because they were ALL about keeping the rules. Rather, Jesus-- and Paul, I think-- are seeing the point of the Law and the problem of sin to be about human hearts. Which is how Paul can suggest that a Gentile could have "the Law written on his heart"-- i.e. could understand the point of the Law even if they don't keep every letter of the OT Law. Because, in the end, the OT Law, as Jesus taught-- is the shema-- loving God, loving others.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What rules?
All dogs go to heaven! Because they are not under the jurisdiction of law! Anyone with a sound mind, a functioning conscience, is under the jurisdiction of the rules of the conscience.
I'm curious as to how you would establish or demonstrate that there are such rules. Obviously, you could do it via pure assertion - there are rules, because I say so - but presumably, you have some other method in mind. I suppose we might infer rules from watching human behaviour, but maybe not, since it is not particularly consistent.
Romans 2:14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
See, I read that passage the exact opposite way you do. I hear Paul in Rom. 2 to be pointing AWAY from your argument re: seeing sin as a "rule breaking problem" and TOWARD what I see Jesus doing in the Sermon on the Mount. Pointing to "the law written on your hearts" seems to me to be saying that sin is NOT about whether or not you keep the rules. If it were, then the Pharisees shoulda been Jesus' favorite people because they were ALL about keeping the rules. Rather, Jesus-- and Paul, I think-- are seeing the point of the Law and the problem of sin to be about human hearts. Which is how Paul can suggest that a Gentile could have "the Law written on his heart"-- i.e. could understand the point of the Law even if they don't keep every letter of the OT Law. Because, in the end, the OT Law, as Jesus taught-- is the shema-- loving God, loving others.
It's almost universally accepted now that the Jews were in infraction because they were banking on their election for salvation. What is termed covenantal nomism. The view which was understood as : Jews are saved because they possessed the law, a direct gift from God, and you know you are clean, kosher, if you observe those rituals that are distinctively Jewish: tithing, wearing tassels, etc.
Christ differed: God could raise children of Abraham from rocks. The important points of the Law were mandatory too, in addition to the minor points, tithing mint and cummin. Loyalty to God's nature, the God who was love, long suffering, forgiving, not wishing any should perish.
Paul differed: Gentiles had conscience, Jews had the Law ( quite redundant, because they had conscience too: God allowed them to have Law to reveal sin faster). Both Jew and Gentile had sufficient proof of God's existence and His demands on their loyalty. To conform to His expectations, adhere to justice , mercy and love. Both Jew and Gentile were on equal footing, had no advantage, no matter what the Jews thought: none was righteous not even one of either group.
Shema is agreeing there is only one God...
[ 25. January 2016, 04:35: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even if those rules of conscience make us unkind?
How does this, common to both Torah and conscience, make you unkind?
Matthew 7:12"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You tell me mate. The Old Covenant is riven with, founded on, violence. We are motivated by fear, i.e. 'conscience' to implement unkind, violent religion. ALL of us. Jew, Christian, Muslim.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You tell me mate. The Old Covenant is riven with, founded on, violence. We are motivated by fear, i.e. 'conscience' to implement unkind, violent religion. ALL of us. Jew, Christian, Muslim.
If Christ says His version is the right interpretation,that's good enough for me.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
If Christ says His version is the right interpretation,that's good enough for me.
Ah good - footwasher has the mind of Christ, therefore if we're arguing with footwasher, we're actually arguing with God. Good to know.
Meanwhile the rest of us fallible humans are struggling with the contradictions of a) differences in perceiving conscience (presumably there are some IS people who believe that their conscience is telling them to kill unbelievers) and b) the contradictions of a revealed religion.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
If Christ says His version is the right interpretation,that's good enough for me.
Ah good - footwasher has the mind of Christ, therefore if we're arguing with footwasher, we're actually arguing with God. Good to know.
Meanwhile the rest of us fallible humans are struggling with the contradictions of a) differences in perceiving conscience (presumably there are some IS people who believe that their conscience is telling them to kill unbelievers) and b) the contradictions of a revealed religion.
Let's put it to the test.
Terrorist: my conscience is telling me to kill those who won't convert. My conscience also tells me that it won't be nice to do to others what wouldn't be nice if done to me. Ergo, the first wasn't my conscience!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Terrorist: my conscience is telling me to kill those who won't convert. My conscience also tells me that it won't be nice to do to others what wouldn't be nice if done to me. Ergo, the first wasn't my conscience!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Seriously, what on earth is that supposed to mean?
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Terrorist: my conscience is telling me to kill those who won't convert. My conscience also tells me that it won't be nice to do to others what wouldn't be nice if done to me. Ergo, the first wasn't my conscience!
Seriously, what on earth is that supposed to mean?
You claimed that IS terrorists have consciences that tell them to kill non believers, if I understood you right.
Is that conscience or is that bad religion?
The conscience seems to be a good thing, in the sense that it identifies bad religion.
The conscience is that little voice that says, "Dont do that bad stuff! How would you like it if someone did it to you?"
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
You claimed that IS terrorists have consciences that tell them to kill non believers, if I understood you right.
Is that conscience or is that bad religion?
Are you inside their heads?
quote:
The conscience seems to be a good thing, in the sense that it identifies bad religion.
The conscience is that little voice that says, "Dont do that bad stuff! How would you like it if someone did it to you?"
It seems fairly clear to me that different people's consciences are telling them widely different things. It is only you that think everyone's conscience is really telling them to consider empathy at all times.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
You claimed that IS terrorists have consciences that tell them to kill non believers, if I understood you right.
Is that conscience or is that bad religion?
Are you inside their heads?
quote:
The conscience seems to be a good thing, in the sense that it identifies bad religion.
The conscience is that little voice that says, "Dont do that bad stuff! How would you like it if someone did it to you?"
It seems fairly clear to me that different people's consciences are telling them widely different things. It is only you that think everyone's conscience is really telling them to consider empathy at all times.
I think conscience is foundational. It's the litmus test for right interpretation, right choice of religion. It's what men possess, the image of God, His DNA.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I don't doubt the purity of Andrew, Justin and Georges' consciences. And Kirill's. Which tell them to bless the bombing of ISIS. Their consciences are seared.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You tell me mate. The Old Covenant is riven with, founded on, violence. We are motivated by fear, i.e. 'conscience' to implement unkind, violent religion. ALL of us. Jew, Christian, Muslim.
If Christ says His version is the right interpretation,that's good enough for me.
Christ's version seems to me to be AWAY from the sin-as-rule-breaking that you favor. In the Sermon on the Mount he consistently points away from a wooden reading of the Law as rules, and towards a deeper, broader reading of the Law as heart-attitudes. See the repeated phrase throughout the sermon, "you have heard it said... (some OT Law) followed by "... but I say". We also have Jesus' example of breaking rules but not sinning-- because he is understanding the true point of the Law, which is not at all about rule-keeping.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You tell me mate. The Old Covenant is riven with, founded on, violence. We are motivated by fear, i.e. 'conscience' to implement unkind, violent religion. ALL of us. Jew, Christian, Muslim.
If Christ says His version is the right interpretation,that's good enough for me.
Christ's version seems to me to be AWAY from the sin-as-rule-breaking that you favor. In the Sermon on the Mount he consistently points away from a wooden reading of the Law as rules, and towards a deeper, broader reading of the Law as heart-attitudes. See the repeated phrase throughout the sermon, "you have heard it said... (some OT Law) followed by "... but I say". We also have Jesus' example of breaking rules but not sinning-- because he is understanding the true point of the Law, which is not at all about rule-keeping.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You tell me mate. The Old Covenant is riven with, founded on, violence. We are motivated by fear, i.e. 'conscience' to implement unkind, violent religion. ALL of us. Jew, Christian, Muslim.
If Christ says His version is the right interpretation,that's good enough for me.
Christ's version seems to me to be AWAY from the sin-as-rule-breaking that you favor. In the Sermon on the Mount he consistently points away from a wooden reading of the Law as rules, and towards a deeper, broader reading of the Law as heart-attitudes. See the repeated phrase throughout the sermon, "you have heard it said... (some OT Law) followed by "... but I say". We also have Jesus' example of breaking rules but not sinning-- because he is understanding the true point of the Law, which is not at all about rule-keeping.
I don't think any commentary reads the way you put it. You are basically imposing your legalophobic theology on every text. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The sermon on the mount is not an attack on rule keeping but a raising of the bar of rule keeping. "You have heard that you should not kill, but I say that even to hate is sin".
As for breaking of rules, when two rules, mitzvot, must be observed, the Jewish sages teach that the more important requirement must have preference. Healing the sick must have preference over observing Sabbath. He pointed out the HYPOCRISY in their observance of the Sabbath, when they rescued expensive cattle from ditches, without even having the excuse if doing a good work, since they were not serving God but mammon. As for not stoning the women caught in adultery, nothing prevented them from doing a better mitzvah, showing mercy.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This seems to be going beyond 'rules of conscience' towards matters decided by the community, as one might expect.
One big problem is that individuals come up with different conscientious decisions, as others have said. One person believes that all killing is wrong, another one, that it is legitimate in some circumstances, another, that it should be done widely.
A question of interpretation, no doubt. There's the rub.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
me:
Christ's version seems to me to be AWAY from the sin-as-rule-breaking that you favor. In the Sermon on the Mount he consistently points away from a wooden reading of the Law as rules, and towards a deeper, broader reading of the Law as heart-attitudes. See the repeated phrase throughout the sermon, "you have heard it said... (some OT Law) followed by "... but I say". We also have Jesus' example of breaking rules but not sinning-- because he is understanding the true point of the Law, which is not at all about rule-keeping.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:I don't think any commentary reads the way you put it. You are basically imposing your legalophobic theology on every text. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The sermon on the mount is not an attack on rule keeping but a raising of the bar of rule keeping. "You have heard that you should not kill, but I say that even to hate is sin".
As for breaking of rules, when two rules, mitzvot, must be observed, the Jewish sages teach that the more important requirement must have preference. Healing the sick must have preference over observing Sabbath. He pointed out the HYPOCRISY in their observance of the Sabbath, when they rescued expensive cattle from ditches, without even having the excuse if doing a good work, since they were not serving God but mammon. As for not stoning the women caught in adultery, nothing prevented them from doing a better mitzvah, showing mercy.
I'm not saying that Jesus is advocating doing away with the Law or "breaking the rules", I'm saying he's doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way that you and the Pharisees advocated. I would very much agree that Jesus is "raising the bar" in the Sermon on the Mount, but he is raising it by going to the heart of the matter, which is, actually, the heart. He is going after the inner, hidden attitudes and dispositions that are the root of sin, rather than focusing only on external "rule keeping" as the Pharisees (and you, if I'm reading you correctly) advocated.
Contrary to this being entirely my own invention, sorry I'm not that clever. Many-- perhaps most-- commentators read it this way. Two in particular (among many) who have been influential in my understanding of the Sermon on the Mount:
Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy
Glen Stassen, Living the Sermon on the Mount
[ 25. January 2016, 17:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You're on top form cliffdweller.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
me:
Christ's version seems to me to be AWAY from the sin-as-rule-breaking that you favor. In the Sermon on the Mount he consistently points away from a wooden reading of the Law as rules, and towards a deeper, broader reading of the Law as heart-attitudes. See the repeated phrase throughout the sermon, "you have heard it said... (some OT Law) followed by "... but I say". We also have Jesus' example of breaking rules but not sinning-- because he is understanding the true point of the Law, which is not at all about rule-keeping.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:I don't think any commentary reads the way you put it. You are basically imposing your legalophobic theology on every text. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The sermon on the mount is not an attack on rule keeping but a raising of the bar of rule keeping. "You have heard that you should not kill, but I say that even to hate is sin".
As for breaking of rules, when two rules, mitzvot, must be observed, the Jewish sages teach that the more important requirement must have preference. Healing the sick must have preference over observing Sabbath. He pointed out the HYPOCRISY in their observance of the Sabbath, when they rescued expensive cattle from ditches, without even having the excuse if doing a good work, since they were not serving God but mammon. As for not stoning the women caught in adultery, nothing prevented them from doing a better mitzvah, showing mercy.
I'm not saying that Jesus is advocating doing away with the Law or "breaking the rules", I'm saying he's doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way that you and the Pharisees advocated. I would very much agree that Jesus is "raising the bar" in the Sermon on the Mount, but he is raising it by going to the heart of the matter, which is, actually, the heart. He is going after the inner, hidden attitudes and dispositions that are the root of sin, rather than focusing only on external "rule keeping" as the Pharisees (and you, if I'm reading you correctly) advocated.
Contrary to this being entirely my own invention, sorry I'm not that clever. Many-- perhaps most-- commentators read it this way. Two in particular (among many) who have been influential in my understanding of the Sermon on the Mount:
Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy
Glen Stassen, Living the Sermon on the Mount
Apples and oranges. The exchanges with the Pharisees and the sermon on the mount.
Lemme see, the Pharisees keep harping on observing the Sabbath, but Jesus is advocating doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way? By saying
Matthew 12:7“But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
He is "advocating doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way"?
Or is He teaching "that the more important requirement must have preference"?
As for the books you referenced, they look like the typical self help books found in your garden variety Christian book shop. Pep talk, endorsed by Richard Foster, himself criticised for his new age leanings.
Breaking news, self help is no help. The Kingdom of God is a believer entering rest from his own labours.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Lemme see, the Pharisees keep harping on observing the Sabbath, but Jesus is advocating doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way? By saying
Matthew 12:7“But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
He is "advocating doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way"?
Yes-- good example. That is precisely what he is doing in that passage. The Pharisees were interpreting the Sabbath laws in a wooden, legalistic, external way-- you can do x, y, and z, but you cannot do a, b, and c. If you walk 1 mile you're fine, but if you walk 1.1 mile you're a vile, dirty sinner.
Jesus was pointing them to a different way of looking at the law-- looking at the heart, the intent. The intent of the Sabbath law was that it is a gift for us-- it's not something we do to serve God, but rather a gift from God to serve us. ("man was not made for Sabbath, but Sabbath was made for man.") The Pharisees are looking at it as an obligation-- and a boundary marker between the good people and the bad people. Jesus is pointing to the intent and purpose-- the Sabbath is for our good-- for us to be healed, to be renewed, to rest and know we can trust in our God. Jesus actions in Matt. 12 (plucking a bit of wheat to sustain him) all point to that-- even as he was breaking the legalistic "letter of the law". It wasn't that he was obeying some "higher" law, it was that he was understanding the spirit and intent-- the purpose of the Law.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
As for the books you referenced, they look like the typical self help books found in your garden variety Christian book shop. Pep talk, endorsed by Richard Foster, himself criticised for his new age leanings.
Seriously? That's your take on Dallas Willard, Glen Stassen-- and Richard Foster? "New age"?!?
OK, I have a better understanding who I'm talking to then. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
So who exactly are the authors of these supposed commentaries that you are so sure all disagree with my take on the sermon on the mount?
[ 26. January 2016, 00:29: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Lemme see, the Pharisees keep harping on observing the Sabbath, but Jesus is advocating doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way? By saying
Matthew 12:7“But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
He is "advocating doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way"?
Yes-- good example. That is precisely what he is doing in that passage. The Pharisees were interpreting the Sabbath laws in a wooden, legalistic, external way-- you can do x, y, and z, but you cannot do a, b, and c. If you walk 1 mile you're fine, but if you walk 1.1 mile you're a vile, dirty sinner.
Jesus was pointing them to a different way of looking at the law-- looking at the heart, the intent. The intent of the Sabbath law was that it is a gift for us-- it's not something we do to serve God, but rather a gift from God to serve us. ("man was not made for Sabbath, but Sabbath was made for man.") The Pharisees are looking at it as an obligation-- and a boundary marker between the good people and the bad people. Jesus is pointing to the intent and purpose-- the Sabbath is for our good-- for us to be healed, to be renewed, to rest and know we can trust in our God. Jesus actions in Matt. 12 (plucking a bit of wheat to sustain him) all point to that-- even as he was breaking the legalistic "letter of the law". It wasn't that he was obeying some "higher" law, it was that he was understanding the spirit and intent-- the purpose of the Law.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
As for the books you referenced, they look like the typical self help books found in your garden variety Christian book shop. Pep talk, endorsed by Richard Foster, himself criticised for his new age leanings.
Seriously? That's your take on Dallas Willard, Glen Stassen-- and Richard Foster? "New age"?!?
OK, I have a better understanding who I'm talking to then.
So who exactly are the authors of these supposed commentaries that you are so sure all disagree with my take on the sermon on the mount?
Over and over again Jesus tells the Pharisees that they have observed the minor points of the law, rules, but they should have obeyed the more important requirements too.
You see that? No dodging obeying the rules. No advocating thinking of the law in wooden external legalistic ways.
In Matthew 7, He does the SAME thing:
Over and over again Jesus tells the Pharisees that they have observed the minor points of the law, rules, but they should have obeyed the more important requirements too. RULES!
It was more important for David to feed his men than to observe Sabbath ( which by the way is not a gift from God, it was an oracle, a revelation of what He was going to do, by giving Jesus as our real Sabbath rest, which the Jews had to proclaim, just as they did with sacrifices, which were again not a gift from God as the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin, etc etc ).
It was more important for the priests to heal the souls of the people on the Sabbath than for THEM to observe the Sabbath, just as it was more important for Jesus, when given the opportunity to heal the WHOLE man on the Sabbath, and make the SPIRITUALLY blind Pharisees see, than for Him to observe the Sabbath.
Again, observing one rule over another. NOT,
"not advocating thinking of the law in wooden external legalistic ways".
You know what? The written word has a powerful effect on people. You find children not following the rules for a game at a birthday party? You pull out the rule book, and everybody falls in line.
So when a person writes a book, it seems to have a mesmerising effect on its readers. They are held in thrall over it, EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
Jesus isn't:
"advocating doing away with thinking of the Laws in the wooden, external, legalistic way"
He is telling them to obey the more important RULE...
[ 26. January 2016, 13:04: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Over and over again Jesus tells the Pharisees that they have observed the minor points of the law, rules, but they should have obeyed the more important requirements too.
You see that? No dodging obeying the rules. No advocating thinking of the law in wooden external legalistic ways.
In Matthew 7, He does the SAME thing:
Over and over again Jesus tells the Pharisees that they have observed the minor points of the law, rules, but they should have obeyed the more important requirements too. RULES!
You have a habit of saying things in a "just so" sort of way, but the "just so" isn't as obvious as you seem to think it is, at least not to me.
In Matt. 12 there is no "higher law" that Jesus refers to. Not one. What would it be: "don't get too hungry because you'll get grumpy?"
The Pharisees claim to be meticulous in keeping the Law and Jesus seems to agree with them. His charge against them is not that they are keeping the wrong laws and ignoring the higher laws. Rather, his charge is that they are "whitewashed sepulchers"-- that they are good and pure on the outside, but dead and rotten inside. iow-- that they are looking at the Law as an external, legalistic set of rules. Jesus is telling them instead-- over and over and over again (particularly in the Sermon on the Mount)-- that what he cares about is the inner heart attitudes that are the root of sin-- he wants to eliminate the lust that leads to adultery, the greed and covetousness that least to theft or hoarding, the anger and bitterness that leads to violence. He is looking for a change of heart prior to a change of action. It's not that our actions aren't important-- they are-- but if all they are is an external compliance with "rules" w/o a change of heart, they are-- a whitewashed sepulcher.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
It was more important for David to feed his men than to observe Sabbath ( which by the way is not a gift from God,
Then what does Jesus mean when he explains his actions by saying "man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was made for man".
Sabbath rest IS a gift. It was a radical gift in the ancient world-- a people who took an entire 24 hours to rest from their labors. It was a radical witness to their trust in Yahweh to provide for them without their having to bust their butts making it happen. And in our 24/7 world we are beginning to see precisely why it is a gift-- that we NEED this sort of rest. That we need to stop and spend a good chunk of time like this in rest, in reflection, in restoration. We are beginning to see what a valuable and precious gift it is. And that is precisely what Jesus is saying in Matt. 7-9.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
You know what? The written word has a powerful effect on people. You find children not following the rules for a game at a birthday party? You pull out the rule book, and everybody falls in line.
So when a person writes a book, it seems to have a mesmerising effect on its readers. They are held in thrall over it, EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
This seems to be an allusion to the books I cited that I found helpful in interpreting the Sermon on the Mount. Remember, this was a response to your claim that I was "making all this up"-- that the notion of Jesus calling us to focus more on the heart attitudes than external actions was my own invention/ eisegetical way of reading Scripture. You claimed that NO commentators read Matt. 7-9 that way, so I was offering up at least 2 that do.
So I ask you again (2nd time): who are the commentators who are reading the Sermon the way you interpret it? Which commentaries are you reading that interpret the Sermon as calling for a wooden, legalistic adherence to the letter of the law-- the "rules"?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
...my guess is that the answer is "John McArthur"
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Over and over again Jesus tells the Pharisees that they have observed the minor points of the law, rules, but they should have obeyed the more important requirements too.
You see that? No dodging obeying the rules. No advocating thinking of the law in wooden external legalistic ways.
In Matthew 7, He does the SAME thing:
Over and over again Jesus tells the Pharisees that they have observed the minor points of the law, rules, but they should have obeyed the more important requirements too. RULES!
You have a habit of saying things in a "just so" sort of way, but the "just so" isn't as obvious as you seem to think it is, at least not to me.
In Matt. 12 there is no "higher law" that Jesus refers to. Not one. What would it be: "don't get too hungry because you'll get grumpy?"
The Pharisees claim to be meticulous in keeping the Law and Jesus seems to agree with them. His charge against them is not that they are keeping the wrong laws and ignoring the higher laws. Rather, his charge is that they are "whitewashed sepulchers"-- that they are good and pure on the outside, but dead and rotten inside. iow-- that they are looking at the Law as an external, legalistic set of rules. Jesus is telling them instead-- over and over and over again (particularly in the Sermon on the Mount)-- that what he cares about is the inner heart attitudes that are the root of sin-- he wants to eliminate the lust that leads to adultery, the greed and covetousness that least to theft or hoarding, the anger and bitterness that leads to violence. He is looking for a change of heart prior to a change of action. It's not that our actions aren't important-- they are-- but if all they are is an external compliance with "rules" w/o a change of heart, they are-- a whitewashed sepulcher.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
It was more important for David to feed his men than to observe Sabbath ( which by the way is not a gift from God,
Then what does Jesus mean when he explains his actions by saying "man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath was made for man".
Sabbath rest IS a gift. It was a radical gift in the ancient world-- a people who took an entire 24 hours to rest from their labors. It was a radical witness to their trust in Yahweh to provide for them without their having to bust their butts making it happen. And in our 24/7 world we are beginning to see precisely why it is a gift-- that we NEED this sort of rest. That we need to stop and spend a good chunk of time like this in rest, in reflection, in restoration. We are beginning to see what a valuable and precious gift it is. And that is precisely what Jesus is saying in Matt. 7-9.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
You know what? The written word has a powerful effect on people. You find children not following the rules for a game at a birthday party? You pull out the rule book, and everybody falls in line.
So when a person writes a book, it seems to have a mesmerising effect on its readers. They are held in thrall over it, EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
This seems to be an allusion to the books I cited that I found helpful in interpreting the Sermon on the Mount. Remember, this was a response to your claim that I was "making all this up"-- that the notion of Jesus calling us to focus more on the heart attitudes than external actions was my own invention/ eisegetical way of reading Scripture. You claimed that NO commentators read Matt. 7-9 that way, so I was offering up at least 2 that do.
So I ask you again (2nd time): who are the commentators who are reading the Sermon the way you interpret it? Which commentaries are you reading that interpret the Sermon as calling for a wooden, legalistic adherence to the letter of the law-- the "rules"?
I've already stated that the exchanges with the Pharisees and the Sermon on the mount were apples and oranges.
Exchanges with Pharisees
Do the Sabbath keeping and the sacrifices rules, these are the oracles God has given you to proclaim, to explain what Messiah will do, but don't avoid manifesting the justice, mercy and love rules, they are the more important ones. David skipped Sabbath keeping for the more important rule, caring for his men. The Jewish sages teach that when two rules clash, doing the more important rule is the way to go.
As for "rest", serious scholars are agreed that "rest" denoted "usage". God completed His house, and took up residence. Creation was going to do exactly what He built it for. You don't think He made a mistake, do you?
It's like when I went to the junk yards near the Rose Bowl looking for the hard to find part for the Mustang a Fuller student had given me. I waited two hours for the owner as he polled the airwaves on his cb radio until he got a roger from another yard and got me my part. I fixed it in my rod and I rested: dang, I took it out on the 101 and let rip!
Sermon on the mount
You received rules from Moses, but it was not so in the beginning. Moses allowed you a lesser rule, a lowered bar, because of your hardness of heart.
I don't understand your reference to Matthew 12. Are you describing the problem expressed here where Wright claims the Sermon is a list of rules, and requires a raising of the bar. IOW, how do you raise the bar for those who hunger?
Quote
Like many commentators on Matthew and even some NT translations, N.T. Wright takes the Beatitudes as a list of virtues. He doesn’t so much argue as assume this in his book. For him, Jesus’ moral teaching begins right at the outset of the Sermon, setting forth how those who enter the Kingdom may now live.
So then, “poor in spirit” means “humble,” and “meek” is seen as a positive character quality (perhaps something like “gentle”).This interpretation appears to work seamlessly with “pure in heart,” “the merciful,” and “peacemakers.”It doesn’t work so well with “those who mourn,” “those hungry for righteousness,” and “those who are persecuted.”
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-beatitudes-virtues-or-proclamations
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
cliffdweller, you don't know when you've won hands down. There is NOTHING more that you can say. Any more than footwasher can say anything to reduce your dialectical triumph. They can only flog their dead horse. The one thing that you cannot win is a change in another's thinking. Even kindness can't do that and, in this case, and there's always one on the go, I don't see how it would even be noticed, felt.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Thanks Martin that's kind. Still I'm foolish and/or stubborn enough to try at least once more
Foot washer, yes I heard you say the two are "apples and oranges". Clearly I disagree
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make re NT Wright (one of my favorites). As your link demonstrated, Wright is following the same line of thinking I am advocating re the sermon and re the Law. His thinking there (especially re the beatitudes) is very similar to Willards. I'm in agreement with the author of the review.
Was that your point -- that wright is yet another author you dismiss as "new age"? Or did you not notice that the author/ wright was supporting my point?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I'm going to ask you a 3rd time: who are these commentaries you think unanimously disagree with my point? Who are the "serious scholars" who say "rest" equals "usage"?
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
Foot washer, yes I heard you say the two are "apples and oranges". Clearly I disagree.
What's to disagree? The exchange with the Pharisees is about not avoiding the more important points of the law, justice mercy and love.
The Sermon on the Mount is about what the original standards were. It was not so in the beginning, Moses allowed divorce because of hardness of heart. Jesus is reinstating the original standards.
If you think the contexts are the same then you have to show it is so. Else you are making claims you can't substantiate. Just disagreeing is pointless. How ARE the two situations the SAME?
Cliffdweller wrote quote:
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make re NT Wright (one of my favorites). As your link demonstrated, Wright is following the same line of thinking I am advocating re the sermon and re the Law. His thinking there (especially re the beatitudes) is very similar to Willards. I'm in agreement with the author of the review.
Was that your point -- that wright is yet another author you dismiss as "new age"? Or did you not notice that the author/ wright was supporting my point?
Wright and Willard are being portrayed as having opposite views in that article.
As for rest,
Quote
The exact meaning of God's "rest" on the seventh day has proven difficult for biblical interpreters to understand. God does not grow tired as we humans do, so interpreters are right to point out that God's "rest" cannot mean the same thing as human rest. But then what exactly does it mean? It is here that Walton's close study of both the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern literature helps us out immensely. Walton points out that for an ancient audience, divine rest always happens in a temple, and a temple itself is seen as a place of divine rest. Furthermore, this rest is not simply a disengagement from the now-completed world, but rather a continual involvement with its normal operations. - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/creation-is-the-temple-where-god-rests#sthash.PcYUFtYo.dpuf
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
Foot washer, yes I heard you say the two are "apples and oranges". Clearly I disagree.
What's to disagree? The exchange with the Pharisees is about not avoiding the more important points of the law, justice mercy and love.
The Sermon on the Mount is about what the original standards were. It was not so in the beginning, Moses allowed divorce because of hardness of heart. Jesus is reinstating the original standards.
If you think the contexts are the same then you have to show it is so. Else you are making claims you can't substantiate. Just disagreeing is pointless. How ARE the two situations the SAME?
I've already been over this, but for the point of clarity I will repeat myself: Jesus' point in the Sermon on the Mount was not to "reinstate the original standards" (Law). Rather, his point was to correct our understanding/ relationship to the Law. He doesn't just restate the OT Law, rather the consistently, over and over again, points to the OT Law (repeated phrase "you have heard it said...") and then challenges us to go deeper (raises the bar) by not just adhering to wooden, external rules but rather changing the heart attitudes that lead to sin. So, for example, he tells us that instead of "don't commit adultery" we should "not lust." That's not because he doesn't care about adultery or the law against it is null and void-- far from it! Rather, it is because if we stop looking at people as objects to be used for our sexual pleasure, we won't commit adultery-- because the heart attitude of lust is the prelude to adultery. He tells us that instead of "don't murder" we should "not disparage others"-- again, not because murder isn't bad or is now OK-- of course not! But because before we can murder another human being, we must first nurture anger and hatred to the point that we have dehumanized in our own minds that other person. If we change our hearts-- approach every human being with love, we don't have to worry about "not murdering" because murder is an outgrowth of hatred and bitterness, not love.
This is absolutely central to his discussions with the Pharisees. The Pharisees sought righteousness thru rigid adherence to the Law. And they succeeded-- they were scrupulous in keeping the Law. And yet, their hearts were unchanged. Their external actions were in complete 100% compliance to the Law, yet their hearts were not the heart of God. This is precisely why Jesus calls them a "whitewashed sepulcher"-- because externally they look good and righteous and perfect-- they DO all the right things. But inside they are dead and rotting because they don't have the transformed hearts that is the purpose and intent of the Law.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Cliffdweller wrote quote:
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make re NT Wright (one of my favorites). As your link demonstrated, Wright is following the same line of thinking I am advocating re the sermon and re the Law. His thinking there (especially re the beatitudes) is very similar to Willards. I'm in agreement with the author of the review.
Was that your point -- that wright is yet another author you dismiss as "new age"? Or did you not notice that the author/ wright was supporting my point?
Wright and Willard are being portrayed as having opposite views in that article.
[/QB]
No, they are not. Willard is not mentioned in the article. It does give an excellent overview of Wright's theology/understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. Having read both Wright and Willard, I am saying they are very similar in the way they are understanding the sermon. The argument I am attempting to express here is pretty much the same. If you think there is a difference between Willard and Wright or myself and Wright, where do you think that difference lies? What do you see either in the article or from any of Wright's numerous books (the man IS prolific!) that you think is contrary to the way I have been explaining the Sermon and Jesus' teachings re the Law.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Quote
The exact meaning of God's "rest" on the seventh day has proven difficult for biblical interpreters to understand. God does not grow tired as we humans do, so interpreters are right to point out that God's "rest" cannot mean the same thing as human rest. But then what exactly does it mean? It is here that Walton's close study of both the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern literature helps us out immensely. Walton points out that for an ancient audience, divine rest always happens in a temple, and a temple itself is seen as a place of divine rest. Furthermore, this rest is not simply a disengagement from the now-completed world, but rather a continual involvement with its normal operations. - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/creation-is-the-temple-where-god-rests#sthash.PcYUFtYo.dpuf [/QB]
I'm not entirely in agreement with Walton's article, although he makes some interesting points I'd like to explore further. But I would point out that what Walton is arguing in the article is not at all what you described previously (that "rest" = "usage"). It seems similar to the previous post-- where you provide a link as "evidence" for your position, but the link doesn't say at all what you are saying. (Surely there's a name for that-- some rhetorical fallacy?)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Ack! Hoisted by my own petard. Rereading your link, I see it IS contrasting Willard and Wright. (I had read it previously on my iphone, not the best format for reading comprehension). So scratch my comment there-- I'm going to have to reread the article and probably reread some Wright as well and get back to ya.
I do notice though that the author of your article is favoring Willard over Wright. That doesn't undermine your point, of course, but is interesting in that you had previously wanted to marginalized Willard as a "new age" outlier.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
see, Martin, had I followed your advice I wouldn't be in this embarrassing situation. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm sorry, but your high stock rises yet further with your handling of this.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
But nice doesn't bring home the bacon!
Just kidding, I agree, his conduct has been exemplary. It's good to knew we can be talking without getting our heads bitten off.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
I'm not entirely in agreement with Walton's article, although he makes some interesting points I'd like to explore further. But I would point out that what Walton is arguing in the article is not at all what you described previously (that "rest" = "usage"). It seems similar to the previous post-- where you provide a link as "evidence" for your position, but the link doesn't say at all what you are saying. (Surely there's a name for that-- some rhetorical fallacy?)
Quote
In the ancient Near East, when they dedicated a temple, they almost inevitably used a 7-day dedication ceremony, after which the deity would come and "rest" in the temple, meaning that he would take up residence there, to engage with his people, do his work as a deity, and be their god. It was a time of celebration because the deity was no longer "remote," but present and involved.
http://www.the3rdchoice.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10472
The city your canyon overlooks must be Pasadena, which could explain a few things. When I lived there, the buzz was Missiology, and everybody flocked to the talks by Ted Engstrom (Lake Avenue Congregational Church), Ralph Winter (USCWM), Peter Wagner (Fuller) for the interesting and innovative approaches they taught.
It seems like Willard and Stassen are scratching the perfection itch. Everybody wants to be found faithful, so it's not surprising that we apply so much interest and effort to the task. However, the techniques they teach are suspiciously close to the self actualization techniques taught in transcendental meditation.
[ 28. January 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
I'm not entirely in agreement with Walton's article, although he makes some interesting points I'd like to explore further. But I would point out that what Walton is arguing in the article is not at all what you described previously (that "rest" = "usage").
Quote
In the ancient Near East, when they dedicated a temple, they almost inevitably used a 7-day dedication ceremony, after which the deity would come and "rest" in the temple, meaning that he would take up residence there, to engage with his people, do his work as a deity, and be their god. It was a time of celebration because the deity was no longer "remote," but present and involved.
http://www.the3rdchoice.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10472
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your previous point re "rest" = "usage" because again, I'm not seeing how this link supports that reading. Nor am I seeing how the understanding of Sabbath rest in this article refutes the understanding I was advocating.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
It seems like Willard and Stassen are scratching the perfection itch. Everybody wants to be found faithful, so it's not surprising that we apply so much interest and effort to the task.
I can't imagine what in the world makes you say that. Nothing there that strikes me as "perfectionism". Indeed, I would suggest that your approach (which I'm guessing is drawn from John McArthur)-- a rigid, literal, external, and complete adherence to the Law-- is more likely to lead to perfectionism than the inner transformation that Willard and Stassen (and, I would argue, Jesus) are arguing for.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
However, the techniques they teach are suspiciously close to the self actualization techniques taught in transcendental meditation.
If contemplative prayer is "transcendental meditation", then yeah, sure.
Learn from my mistake of yesterday: give their work a read before jumping to such conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems similar to the previous post-- where you provide a link as "evidence" for your position, but the link doesn't say at all what you are saying. (Surely there's a name for that-- some rhetorical fallacy?)
After my faux pas yesterday I decided the name for the rhetorical fallacy just might be "cliffdwellism".
(fyi: "she", not "he")
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
The city your canyon overlooks must be Pasadena, which could explain a few things.
Nope. California is a very big place, and it is full of canyons, both large and small.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
The city your canyon overlooks must be Pasadena, which could explain a few things.
Nope. California is a very big place, and it is full of canyons, both large and small.
What Southern California call a canyon is almost as laughable as what they call a river.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Hi Cliffdweller, you wrote,
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your previous point re "rest" = "usage" because again, I'm not seeing how this link supports that reading. Nor am I seeing how the understanding of Sabbath rest in this article refutes the understanding I was advocating.
If I build a car my usage, enjoyment , would be to drive it. If I build a house my usage, enjoyment, would be resting in it. Genesis is the description of God building His temple , His house. How do people use/enjoy houses? They stay in them
See Wright on the view:
quote:
The Significance of the Sabbath
By N. T. Wright
In the opening of the Bible…When God made the world, he “rested” on the 7th day. This doesn’t just mean that God took a day off. It means that in the previous 6 days God was making a world — heaven & earth together — for his own use. Like someone building a home, God finished the job & then went in to take up residence, to enjoy what he had built.
http://churchintoronto.blogspot.in/2012/10/the-significance-of-sabbath.html?m=1
Cliff dweller wrote:
quote:
It seems similar to the previous post-- where you provide a link as "evidence" for your position, but the link doesn't say at all what you are saying. (Surely there's a name for that-- some rhetorical fallacy?)
After my faux pas yesterday I decided the name for the rhetorical fallacy just might be "cliffdwellism".
The fallacy you are looking for is called linking to authority. The nature of the fallacy is to link to some arbitrary source which may not contain evidence supporting the claim or may even be contradicting the claim. The intention is to hope the link will not be checked or will confuse. I just told you what to look for. You decide if the fallacy has been committed.
Hint: my explaination of rest given above is proof that the link supports my view.
Cliff dweller wrote:
quote:
(fyi: "she", not "he")
Mea culpa. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
I can't imagine what in the world makes you say that. Nothing there that strikes me as "perfectionism". Indeed, I would suggest that your approach (which I'm guessing is drawn from John McArthur)-- a rigid, literal, external, and complete adherence to the Law-- is more likely to lead to perfectionism than the inner transformation that Willard and Stassen (and, I would argue, Jesus) are arguing for.
The question is why was the Sermon on the mount preached? The answer may be:
1. A raising of the bar to defeat reliance on self and turn the believer to Jesus (Luther):
quote:
Quote
The Repentance View. This view, as held primarily by Lutheran and Reformed thinkers, sees the Sermon as basically Law in nature and is therefore designed, as Paul described inGalatians 3:24, to lead unto Christ; to repent of their sins and believe on Christ. Though this be one of the functions of the Sermon it does not appear to be all that the Sermon was designed for. This view can be sustained only when one sees repentance as an alternative to obedience. But, one may question the validity of that assumption.
https://bible.org/article/summary-understanding-sermon-mount
The problem with this view is that this was the acceptable way to justification in the old covenant, as seen in the case of the publican in the temple. Jesus specifically teaches that in the old covenant, humility was all that was required to be justified.
2. A teaching of how to attain the listed virtue through transformation, changing the heart through contemplative , centering prayer (Willard).
quote:
Quote
One of the standard things that misleads people in approaching Christian mystics is how they frequently mention the loss of consciousness of themselves in their most ecstatic experience of God. Loss of self awareness is in fact a common human phenomenon, and not one that occurs only in religious or mystical experiences. But this loss never implies, to Christian mystics, that they cease to exist as individuals or that they are absorbed into the Absolute. Theirs is a different metaphysics, which is one of persons in relationship, not of an illusory separate being dissolving into the "All."
Now of course there are many forms of mystical experience and mysticism. Even atheists have mystical experiences. But there is a clear distinction between the enduring and powerful mysticism implicit in the Christian tradition and that in the non-theistic world religions. Here we do not even raise the question of which is best. But the idea that there is a mystical life that stands free from the specific forms found among human cultures, and that one can actually live such a life in the course of routine human affairs, is simply a fanciful ideal that cannot support the weight of the personal and ethical heroism life requires of us. One can no more live a life of effectual devotion to good from the resources of "the timeless, perennial mystical tradition" than you can paint with color but no specific color.
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=131
The problem with this view is that it not taught in Scripture. Moreover for this to be valid, Christ need not have died on the cross, since old covenant believers could have resorted to contemplative prayer, as practiced in the religions of the east, Hinduism and Buddhism. Now consider the third possibility:
3. Transformation through confession. The text says that if we confess, God is faithful to forgive and cleanse us of unrighteousness. What unrighteousness? Not the habit of murder. The habit of hating. Moreover, perfection is not the destination, confession, con fess, same talking, being of one mind, agreeing with God is.
Agreeing with God results in grace, approval, and approval is sufficient for fulfillment, empowerment to be a blessing to the world, which is the real destination. Don't leave the promise to Abraham out of the Gospel!
2 Corinthians 12:9And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
As you can see, there is no need to go to contemplative prayer or repentance unto humility now that the kingdom of God has arrived amongst men. The correct way forward is to see the requirement, not despair at the higher standard, but to agree with God your need to attain to that standard. Clearly stated in the text.
Cliffdweller wrote:
quote:
If contemplative prayer is "transcendental meditation", then yeah, sure.
Learn from my mistake of yesterday: give their work a read before jumping to such conclusions.
Please research the link between contemplative prayer and new age centerinh.
[ 29. January 2016, 06:37: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Footwasher: have you ever read the Psalms???
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Footwasher: have you ever read the Psalms???
Sure, and did a comparative study of John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart and practicioners of TM and Kundalini yoga.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
How do they compare?
Which of those sources said "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Footwasher: have you ever read the Psalms???
Sure, and did a comparative study of John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart and practicioners of TM and Kundalini yoga.
So when you read a psalm, what do you do when you hit a "selah"?
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
So when you read a psalm, what do you do when you hit a "selah"?
The same thing I do when I read any Scripture other than Psalms:
SELAH (see-la) is a Hebrew word meaning 'a musicalinterlude; to pause and think about what was just said or sung; or to pause and watch for a visual demonstration of what was said or sung.'
https://bible.org/question/song-or-psalm-what-does-word-selah-mean
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
So when you read a psalm, what do you do when you hit a "selah"?
The same thing I do when I read any Scripture other than Psalms:
SELAH (see-la) is a Hebrew word meaning 'a musicalinterlude; to pause and think about what was just said or sung; or to pause and watch for a visual demonstration of what was said or sung.'
https://bible.org/question/song-or-psalm-what-does-word-selah-mean
iow, when you read the Psalms, you read them meditatively. One of those types of contemplative prayer advocated by Willard & Foster, as well as those ancient mystics you find so syncretistic.
Namaste. ; P
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
iow, when you read the Psalms, you read them meditatively. One of those types of contemplative prayer advocated by Willard & Foster, as well as those ancient mystics you find so syncretistic.
Namaste. ; P
Everyone mediates on the Scripture they read. It is a cognitive exercise. Information is received.
Contemplative prayer is an experiential act. Spiritual forces are received. It is dangerous. I know personally of things going terribly wrong for people engaging in this activity.
quote:
Quote
Contemplative prayer presupposes that the Christian must seek outside of Scripture to hear all that God is saying, thus Scripture loses its position as the final, authoritative Word from God. The following quotes are from Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, respectively, who are both leading teachers of contemplative prayer:
Many discussions about hearing God’s voice speak of three points of reference, also called ‘three lights’ that we can consult in determining what God wants us to do. These are circumstances, impressions of the Spirit and passages from the Bible. When these three things point in the same direction, it is suggested that we be sure the direction they point is the one God intends for us.15
Only the Bible as a whole can be treated as the written Word of God…. In any case we must certainly go beyond, though never around, the words of the Bible to find out what God is speaking to us.16
Yet, Scripture itself informs us of its sufficiency (2 Tim. 3:16–17), and of God’s final word and revelation to us in Christ (Heb. 1:1–2).
While one may indeed “hear” from an entity in the spiritual realm, the voices heard, or impressions received, may not always be from God:
There are other ‘spiritual voices,’ too…. Satan … too will speak in our heart once he sees he no longer holds us in his hand. Only if we learn to recognize this voice as well can we … correctly identify and firmly resist him and make him flee from us (1 Pet. 5:9; Eph. 6:11).17
I also want to give a word of precaution. In the silent contemplation of God we are entering deeply into the spiritual realm, and there is such a thing as a supernatural guidance. While the Bible does not give us a lot of information on that, there are various orders of spiritual beings, and some of them are definitely not in cooperation with God and his way! … But for now I want to encourage you to learn and practice prayers of protection.18
The Christian, however, is told to resist the devil (Jas. 4:7). This would necessarily include rejecting any practice which may engage one in direct communication with the Enemy and his servants.
http://christianresearchnetwork.org/topic/contemplative-prayer/#footnote_14_42750
Selah and Namaste. That must exceed the daily recommended dose of foreign words for an average human being, yes? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ignorance making itself worse.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
iow, when you read the Psalms, you read them meditatively. One of those types of contemplative prayer advocated by Willard & Foster, as well as those ancient mystics you find so syncretistic.
Everyone mediates on the Scripture they read. It is a cognitive exercise. Information is received.
Contemplative prayer is an experiential act.
Meditation on Scripture is never purely a cognitive act. Meditation on Scripture IS a form of contemplative prayer. It just is. In fact, it's probably the most common form of contemplative prayer. And yes, it is experiential. The "selah" found throughout the Psalms is just one of many indications in Scripture itself that this is a good and worthwhile thing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Contemplative prayer is an experiential act. Spiritual forces are received. It is dangerous. I know personally of things going terribly wrong for people engaging in this activity.
This makes me think of a series of books by Fuller's president, Mark Labberton, which includes The Dangerous Act of Worship and The Dangerous Act of Loving Your Neighbor. Or Mr. Beaver's answer to Lucy about whether or not Aslan is safe: "of course he is not safe! But he is good." Or Wm. Shedd's famous quote, "a ship is safe in harbor but that's not what ships are for."
So sure, anything we do spiritually is "dangerous". It will change you. That's the point. And yes, there are forces at play here that are bigger than us, so we need to be thoughtful and not careless-- "wise as serpents". But we also are instructed by Jesus to go forth boldly in the power of the Spirit-- to "take back territory from the enemy" (Matt. 16:18).
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
(quoting):
Contemplative prayer presupposes that the Christian must seek outside of Scripture to hear all that God is saying, thus Scripture loses its position as the final, authoritative Word from God. The following quotes are from Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, respectively, who are both leading teachers of contemplative prayer:
Many discussions about hearing God’s voice speak of three points of reference, also called ‘three lights’ that we can consult in determining what God wants us to do. These are circumstances, impressions of the Spirit and passages from the Bible. When these three things point in the same direction, it is suggested that we be sure the direction they point is the one God intends for us.15
Only the Bible as a whole can be treated as the written Word of God…. In any case we must certainly go beyond, though never around, the words of the Bible to find out what God is speaking to us.16
Yet, Scripture itself informs us of its sufficiency (2 Tim. 3:16–17), and of God’s final word and revelation to us in Christ (Heb. 1:1–2).
While one may indeed “hear” from an entity in the spiritual realm, the voices heard, or impressions received, may not always be from God:
There are other ‘spiritual voices,’ too…. Satan … too will speak in our heart once he sees he no longer holds us in his hand. Only if we learn to recognize this voice as well can we … correctly identify and firmly resist him and make him flee from us (1 Pet. 5:9; Eph. 6:11).17
I also want to give a word of precaution. In the silent contemplation of God we are entering deeply into the spiritual realm, and there is such a thing as a supernatural guidance. While the Bible does not give us a lot of information on that, there are various orders of spiritual beings, and some of them are definitely not in cooperation with God and his way!
I would agree that Scripture is our final and ultimate authority. I would agree that there are "other voices"-- both in the supernatural sense described here, as well as in the more mundane, natural sense just of our own agenda, and those of parents and friends and culture who send us "messages" that may or may not compete with the words of the Spirit.
But to suggest that we ONLY seek God in Scripture is to ignore the pattern we see throughout Scripture-- especially the NT. The apostles, particularly post-Pentecost, are always seeking God's leading in prayer. That is held up in Acts and the rest of the NT as a very good thing. Indeed, we would not have most of the NT at all if the early church did not value and honor the practice of "listening prayer" (yet another form of contemplative prayer). And the record of the gospels is that Jesus, too, made a habit of regularly engaging in the precise contemplative practices that Willard & Foster (and centuries of mystics before them) advocate: solitude, silence, extended contemplative prayer.
I would argue that the way that we do precisely what your quote is suggesting-- learn to differentiate the voice of God from the "other voices" (both supernatural and natural) is precisely through contemplation. Through meditating on Scripture enough to know the voice of God, the heart of God. And listening to God in prayer enough to distinguish between God's agenda and mine.
The Quakers (like Foster, so I guess one of those "new age" groups you're so afraid of) have some good wisdom on how to "test your leadings"-- including, of course, does it align with Scripture? We need to "test and see." That's the pattern we see throughout Scripture.
But more than that, I think the sort of fear-based spirituality you are advocating is a dead end. That's probably why I"m still flogging what is rapidly becoming a dead horse and veering waaay off topic. Because this is important. We are to be wise and discerning, yes, but we are not created for a life of fear. There is no life there. It seems to be precisely everything that the Pharisees were about, that Jesus has come to correct: he has come to give us life and give it abundantly. He has come to show us that God is with us-- and is available with and to us, with all that that implies.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
]Selah and Namaste. That must exceed the daily recommended dose of foreign words for an average human being, yes?
Hopefully you got that I was teasing you re your phobia re Eastern spirituality.
[ 30. January 2016, 22:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Contemplative prayer is an experiential act. Spiritual forces are received. It is dangerous. I know personally of things going terribly wrong for people engaging in this activity.
Hence the importance of spiritual directors.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And psychiatrists.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
And beer.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Oh yes. And full bodied red.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]This makes me think of a series of books by Fuller's president, Mark Labberton, which includes The Dangerous Act of Worship and The Dangerous Act of Loving Your Neighbor. Or Mr. Beaver's answer to Lucy about whether or not Aslan is safe: "of course he is not safe! But he is good." Or Wm. Shedd's famous quote, "a ship is safe in harbor but that's not what ships are for."
So sure, anything we do spiritually is "dangerous". It will change you. That's the point. And yes, there are forces at play here that are bigger than us, so we need to be thoughtful and not careless-- "wise as serpents". But we also are instructed by Jesus to go forth boldly in the power of the Spirit-- to "take back territory from the enemy" (Matt. 16:18).
I would agree that Scripture is our final and ultimate authority. I would agree that there are "other voices"-- both in the supernatural sense described here, as well as in the more mundane, natural sense just of our own agenda, and those of parents and friends and culture who send us "messages" that may or may not compete with the words of the Spirit.
But to suggest that we ONLY seek God in Scripture is to ignore the pattern we see throughout Scripture-- especially the NT. The apostles, particularly post-Pentecost, are always seeking God's leading in prayer. That is held up in Acts and the rest of the NT as a very good thing. Indeed, we would not have most of the NT at all if the early church did not value and honor the practice of "listening prayer" (yet another form of contemplative prayer). And the record of the gospels is that Jesus, too, made a habit of regularly engaging in the precise contemplative practices that Willard & Foster (and centuries of mystics before them) advocate: solitude, silence, extended contemplative prayer.
I would argue that the way that we do precisely what your quote is suggesting-- learn to differentiate the voice of God from the "other voices" (both supernatural and natural) is precisely through contemplation. Through meditating on Scripture enough to know the voice of God, the heart of God. And listening to God in prayer enough to distinguish between God's agenda and mine.
The Quakers (like Foster, so I guess one of those "new age" groups you're so afraid of) have some good wisdom on how to "test your leadings"-- including, of course, does it align with Scripture? We need to "test and see." That's the pattern we see throughout Scripture.
But more than that, I think the sort of fear-based spirituality you are advocating is a dead end. That's probably why I"m still flogging what is rapidly becoming a dead horse and veering waaay off topic. Because this is important. We are to be wise and discerning, yes, but we are not created for a life of fear. There is no life there. It seems to be precisely everything that the Pharisees were about, that Jesus has come to correct: he has come to give us life and give it abundantly. He has come to show us that God is with us-- and is available with and to us, with all that that implies.
Hopefully you got that I was teasing you re your phobia re Eastern spirituality.
quote:
Quote
But if your gospel focuses on the gospel of the kingdom, that we are invited to live in the kingdom of God then the basis for discipleship becomes clear. The new birth should be seen as an entrance into the kingdom of God. John Chapter 3 is not a 'forgiveness of sins' passage but a new life from above passage. Forgiveness from sins is essential - but it is not the whole package. One of the main barriers is that people see the teachings of Christ as laws that they have to obey. They are not. They are expressions of the life that comes to you, through the new birth and is naturally disposed to develop a new kind of person inside.
So when many look at the teachings of Christ, they are demoralised. They say, "I have to do these as I now am?" Of course it's impossible, but if you say instead that this is the sort of person I can become, then they open up and appear as things that are good and not an imposition.
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=92
The Sermon on the mount is to be approached with contemplative prayer?
The requirement of not committing adultery is met by contemplating on the image of what a person in the kingdom looks like, does not even lust?
Self actualization in transcendental meditation is visualising yourself as an elevated being. This leads to a state of joy, some say, ecstasy.
How does it make a person not think lustful thoughts about a desirable human being of the opposite gender passing through your field of vision?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Meditation makes you horny? (I should do it more often).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
"The Sermon on the mount is to be approached with contemplative prayer?"
Why not?
"The requirement of not committing adultery is met by contemplating on the image of what a person in the kingdom looks like, [in which the contemplator?] does not even lust?"
Why not?
"Self actualization in transcendental meditation is visualising yourself as an elevated being. This leads to a state of joy, some say, ecstasy."
Not my cup of tea. Me Stendhal's holds me in good stead in the face of art and nature. And a cup of tea. That and ... shared activity.
"How does it make a person not think lustful thoughts about a desirable human being of the opposite gender passing through your field of vision?"
I don't know how a cup of tea does that, but certainly does. Even mr cheesy wouldn't disagree with that.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"The Sermon on the mount is to be approached with contemplative prayer?"
Why not?
"The requirement of not committing adultery is met by contemplating on the image of what a person in the kingdom looks like, [in which the contemplator?] does not even lust?"
Why not?
"Self actualization in transcendental meditation is visualising yourself as an elevated being. This leads to a state of joy, some say, ecstasy."
Not my cup of tea. Me Stendhal's holds me in good stead in the face of art and nature. And a cup of tea. That and ... shared activity.
"How does it make a person not think lustful thoughts about a desirable human being of the opposite gender passing through your field of vision?"
I don't know how a cup of tea does that, but certainly does. Even mr cheesy wouldn't disagree with that.
Because the text teaches the right way. Confess your sin to God and He is faithful to forgive AND cleanse you of unrighteousness. Confessing is right and confessing is good. Just the act of confessing leads to approval, favour, grace, which is sufficient to land you in Christ, so that in him you can be the righteousness of God, a blessing to the world.
But then, you knew that.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: Because the text teaches the right way. Confess your sin to God and He is faithful to forgive AND cleanse you of unrighteousness. Confessing is right and confessing is good. Just the act of confessing leads to approval, favour, grace, which is sufficient to land you in Christ, so that in him you can be the righteousness of God, a blessing to the world.
Once again, I'm impressed by the deneighbouring of it all. It is between me and God. My neighbour doesn't figure in it.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: Because the text teaches the right way. Confess your sin to God and He is faithful to forgive AND cleanse you of unrighteousness. Confessing is right and confessing is good. Just the act of confessing leads to approval, favour, grace, which is sufficient to land you in Christ, so that in him you can be the righteousness of God, a blessing to the world.
Once again, I'm impressed by the deneighbouring of it all. It is between me and God. My neighbour doesn't figure in it.
Then this should knock your socks off:
Psalm 51:4Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.
[ 31. January 2016, 18:00: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: Then this should knock your socks off:
I don't react very well to people throwing Bible verses at me. It is disrespectful, not towards me but towards the Bible.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: Then this should knock your socks off:
I don't react very well to people throwing Bible verses at me. It is disrespectful, not towards me but towards the Bible.
Then you must disprove of Christ for throwing BIBLE verses at Satan.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: Then you must disprove of Christ for throwing BIBLE verses at Satan.
I'm not Satan. Do you want a discussion about Psalm 51:4? I'm all up for it. But stop this bullshit.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: Then you must disprove of Christ for throwing BIBLE verses at Satan.
I'm not Satan. Do you want a discussion about Psalm 51:4? I'm all up for it. But stop this bullshit.
Hey! If the Calvinists are right, all human beings deserve hell fire and worse.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I guess that's a no.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess that's a no.
1 John 4:20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
Your brother is only a foil, a canvas , a page on which you manifest your love FOR God.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: 1 John 4:20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
Your brother is only a foil, a canvas , a page on which you manifest your love FOR God.
So, we're going to discuss 1 John 4 now? Oh well. First, the Bible isn't a rulebook for me. I don't base my opinion on prooftexting.
But having said that, this text exactly makes my point: it is not between God and me. It is between God, my brother and me.
My brother isn't "only" anything here. Loving him means exactly that I don't reduce him to an "only". Loving my brother doesn't mean "yeah I love you, but my love for you is only a means get to what's really important for me: my relationship with God." That's not love.
Loving my brother means that my brother is important. And that implies that I can't make things between me and God; I have to include him.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: 1 John 4:20If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
Your brother is only a foil, a canvas , a page on which you manifest your love FOR God.
So, we're going to discuss 1 John 4 now? Oh well. First, the Bible isn't a rulebook for me. I don't base my opinion on prooftexting.
But having said that, this text exactly makes my point: it is not between God and me. It is between God, my brother and me.
My brother isn't "only" anything here. Loving him means exactly that I don't reduce him to an "only". Loving my brother doesn't mean "yeah I love you, but my love for you is only a means get to what's really important for me: my relationship with God." That's not love.
Loving my brother means that my brother is important. And that implies that I can't make things between me and God; I have to include him.
But your brother deserves non stop rotisserie action in eternal fire!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: But your brother deserves non stop rotisserie action in eternal fire!
I have no idea what you're on (about). Do you think that I'm a Calvinist?
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: But your brother deserves non stop rotisserie action in eternal fire!
I have no idea what you're on (about). Do you think that I'm a Calvinist?
Dunno about you, but David thought Uriah deserved hell fire:
Psalm 143:2Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you.
And he was reputed to be in the habit of speaking by the Holy Spirit.
But then, that would only matter to you if you valued the Bible as evidence.
[ 31. January 2016, 18:46: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
So we're back to Psalm 51, with a bit of Psalm 143 thrown in? I'm not going to play that game.
[ 31. January 2016, 18:49: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So we're back to Psalm 51, with a bit of Psalm 143 thrown in? I'm not going to play that game.
You can check out any time you like, but you just can't leave...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: But your brother deserves non stop rotisserie action in eternal fire!
I have no idea what you're on (about). Do you think that I'm a Calvinist?
Dunno about you, but David thought Uriah deserved hell fire:
Psalm 143:2Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you.
And he was reputed to be in the habit of speaking by the Holy Spirit.
But then, that would only matter to you if you valued the Bible as evidence.
What?
If anyone deserved hellfire (and NO ONE does of course), it was David for his multiple foul betrayals of Uriah.
THOU art the man.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
] quote:
Quote
But if your gospel focuses on the gospel of the kingdom, that we are invited to live in the kingdom of God then the basis for discipleship becomes clear. The new birth should be seen as an entrance into the kingdom of God. John Chapter 3 is not a 'forgiveness of sins' passage but a new life from above passage. Forgiveness from sins is essential - but it is not the whole package. One of the main barriers is that people see the teachings of Christ as laws that they have to obey. They are not. They are expressions of the life that comes to you, through the new birth and is naturally disposed to develop a new kind of person inside.
So when many look at the teachings of Christ, they are demoralised. They say, "I have to do these as I now am?" Of course it's impossible, but if you say instead that this is the sort of person I can become, then they open up and appear as things that are good and not an imposition.
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=92
The Sermon on the mount is to be approached with contemplative prayer?
The requirement of not committing adultery is met by contemplating on the image of what a person in the kingdom looks like, does not even lust?
Self actualization in transcendental meditation is visualising yourself as an elevated being. This leads to a state of joy, some say, ecstasy.
How does it make a person not think lustful thoughts about a desirable human being of the opposite gender passing through your field of vision?
Thank you for posting that link to Willard's teaching because I think it illustrates exactly what I have been saying and exactly where you are missing the point in your understanding of what Willard is saying-- and possibly (if Willard is right, and I think he is) what Jesus is saying in the Sermon.
Willard is saying that simply going thru life with gritted teeth, focusing hard on "not doing bad stuff" is not the abundant life Jesus is calling us to. Going around all day passing beautiful people and reminding yourself "Don't s***w them! You're married! That would be bad!" is not the purpose of the Law. Rather, the purpose and intent of the Law, according to Jesus, is to have a transformed heart-- something that is made possible thru the power of the Holy Spirit. In the case of adultery, the transformed heart is one that looks on every human being as a child of God, in the image of God. Once you do that, you don't have to walk around all day gritting your teeth and saying "don't s***w him/her!"-- because treating them as an object of lust is antithetical to thinking of them as a child of God.
Same thing with murder. Instead of getting up each day and walking around each day with a giant to-do list that says "Don't kill anyone!" your to-do list says "love everyone!". That is the purpose and intent of the law. And once your heart is transformed, once you love someone, you don't have to grit your teeth and remember not to murder them. Because murder is antithetical to love.
That has nothing at all to do with "self-realization" or transcendental meditation. It may have something to do with contemplative prayer, though, because that is one of the ways that we allow the Spirit to transform our hearts. Because it is not at all about self- realization, it's about Spirit- transformation. It's not our work, it's God's.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Dunno about you, but David thought Uriah deserved hell fire:
I highly doubt that. Certainly nothing in Psalm 143 suggests that.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
But then, that would only matter to you if you valued the Bible as evidence.
Seriously? Footwasher, that is not worthy of you.
Up until now we have had a heated but respectful debate. I vehemently disagree with you and your whole approach to righteousness-- but we have been debating in a respectful fashion.
The above (not directed toward me) is incredibly disrespectful-- and ignorant. It's hell-call worthy, and I would prefer to keep this discussion out of the nether-regions.
The fact that someone does not interpret the Bible in precisely the same narrow way you do is NOT evidence that they don't "value the Bible". Nor is it indicative of someone who just referenced Jesus' command to love your neighbor.
Seriously, an apology is in order so we can move on and get back to the important task of asking what is God saying to us through the Bible.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
cliffdweller. You do realise that something else is going on here?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
cliffdweller. You do realise that something else is going on here?
I guess not, because I'm not sure what you're referring to but your post sounds very ominous...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Good. For your. Are you familiar with the directorial works of John Carpenter?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
No, I've never seen a John Carpenter film-- not a genre I enjoy.
So what's your point? Is Footwasher the antichrist? Or are we Satan's minions that footwasher must annihilate in order to save the world?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So what's your point? Is Footwasher the antichrist?
Cliffdweller, don't engage, even speculatively, in personal attacks. Still less, don't try and push other posters into engaging in them.
Martin60, you are on a cliff-edge of your own without having to rise to bait like that - or post so obscurely that people start indulging in it. Act sensible for once. (Note: what is required of you is not to say "Sir" after the fact, what is required of you is to change your behaviour so there is no risk of it being qualifed as jerkdom.)
/hosting
[edited for top-of-page clarity]
[ 01. February 2016, 05:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Thank you for posting that link to Willard's teaching because I think it illustrates exactly what I have been saying and exactly where you are missing the point in your understanding of what Willard is saying-- and possibly (if Willard is right, and I think he is) what Jesus is saying in the Sermon.
That's rich, I post the illustration of the view, I summarise what you've been struggling to explain, and you say I don't understand? Lord give me strength.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Willard is saying that simply going thru life with gritted teeth, focusing hard on "not doing bad stuff" is not the abundant life Jesus is calling us to. Going around all day passing beautiful people and reminding yourself "Don't s***w them! You're married! That would be bad!" is not the purpose of the Law. Rather, the purpose and intent of the Law, according to Jesus, is to have a transformed heart-- something that is made possible thru the power of the Holy Spirit. In the case of adultery, the transformed heart is one that looks on every human being as a child of God, in the image of God. Once you do that, you don't have to walk around all day gritting your teeth and saying "don't s***w him/her!"-- because treating them as an object of lust is antithetical to thinking of them as a child of God.
Same thing with murder. Instead of getting up each day and walking around each day with a giant to-do list that says "Don't kill anyone!" your to-do list says "love everyone!". That is the purpose and intent of the law. And once your heart is transformed, once you love someone, you don't have to grit your teeth and remember not to murder them. Because murder is antithetical to love.
People go around having bad thoughts. The law convicts them, makes them feel bad, kills them, that's it's job. Jesus approved of the publican who was humbled, crushed, as he read the law in the right way, God's perfect requirements, and was justified. The Pharisee prided himself on meeting an acceptable level of those requirements of the law which the publican had not succeded at.
The point is that there is no acceptable level of law, everything is mandatory. At some point, everybody is killed by the law. That is why Christ raised the bar for the rich young ruler even higher than he did in the Sermon on the Mount. It's definitely not like the California DMV rules where you get your driver's license, if you can show you are knowledgeable about 50 percent of the traffic rules.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That has nothing at all to do with "self-realization" or transcendental meditation. It may have something to do with contemplative prayer, though, because that is one of the ways that we allow the Spirit to transform our hearts. Because it is not at all about self- realization, it's about Spirit- transformation. It's not our work, it's God's.
Well I see your lack of effort through positive thinking, and I raise you with even lesser effort through confession of inadequacy.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I highly doubt that. Certainly nothing in Psalm 143 suggests that.
Then why did David say he had sinned against God, and only God?
quote:
Originally posted by Cliffdweller:
Seriously? Footwasher, that is not worthy of you.
Up until now we have had a heated but respectful debate. I vehemently disagree with you and your whole approach to righteousness-- but we have been debating in a respectful fashion.
The above (not directed toward me) is incredibly disrespectful-- and ignorant. It's hell-call worthy, and I would prefer to keep this discussion out of the nether-regions.
The fact that someone does not interpret the Bible in precisely the same narrow way you do is NOT evidence that they don't "value the Bible". Nor is it indicative of someone who just referenced Jesus' command to love your neighbor.
Seriously, an apology is in order so we can move on and get back to the important task of asking what is God saying to us through the Bible.
I'd like to get some clarification on the issue, since things have changed a bit. I remember when it was a requirement to post content as well as links so that if the link died, at least the content would be available. It seems that content posting is now discouraged.
Apparently, quoting from the Bible is also discouraged, being proof texting. However it seems to be a hobbling of those who value the teachings of the Bible. How can we reinforce a Bible teaching unless we quote from the text?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: Then why did David say he had sinned against God, and only God?
First, I don't think that David wrote Psalm 51 (if he existed at all).
Second, the idea that David sinned only against God is false. He sinned against God, against Uriah, possibly against Bathsheba, against Uriah's relatives …
I can understand it if perhaps whoever wrote the Psalm meant "David sinned only to God, as opposed to other gods" since this still may have been written in a half-polytheistic context.
[ 01. February 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Then why did David say he had sinned against God, and only God?
Because he thought he had sinned against only God? He was wrong - sin hurts people, hurts the planet, hurts ourselves - depending on what we have done wrong.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
footwasher--
First, let me apologize for engaging Martin's obscure questions as I did. I shoulda known better.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
That's rich, I post the illustration of the view, I summarise what you've been struggling to explain, and you say I don't understand? Lord give me strength.
No, you posted a quote that perfectly illustrated the view, then went on to "summarize" it in a way that is completely contrary to what it said. You don't understand it.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
I'd like to get some clarification on the issue, since things have changed a bit. I remember when it was a requirement to post content as well as links so that if the link died, at least the content would be available. It seems that content posting is now discouraged.
Apparently, quoting from the Bible is also discouraged, being proof texting. However it seems to be a hobbling of those who value the teachings of the Bible. How can we reinforce a Bible teaching unless we quote from the text?
No one is objecting to you or anyone else quoting from the Bible. It's something we do all the time on this board. The shipmate in question was objecting to the way you were quoting Scripture, which is similar to the objections I've raised to the way you've used quotations in general.
[ 01. February 2016, 13:58: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Because he thought he had sinned against only God? He was wrong - sin hurts people, hurts the planet, hurts ourselves - depending on what we have done wrong.
What should I believe, a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology or the politically correct, idealistic hopes of a dreamer?
[ 01. February 2016, 15:45: Message edited by: footwasher ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Because he thought he had sinned against only God? He was wrong - sin hurts people, hurts the planet, hurts ourselves - depending on what we have done wrong.
What should I believe, a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology or the politically correct, idealistic hopes of a dreamer?
No contest. The dreamer every time.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher:]What should I believe, a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology or the politically correct, idealistic hopes of a dreamer?
You mean Jesus?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology
hmmmm.... I believe we have identified the problem.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology
hmmmm.... I believe we have identified the problem.
It's the way you tell 'em. You should go on the stage.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
footwasher--
First, let me apologize for engaging Martin's obscure questions as I did. I shoulda known better.
Yup, now we know what the mammoths felt when they stepped into the tarpits!
quote:
Cliffdweller wrote:
No, you posted a quote that perfectly illustrated the view, then went on to "summarize" it in a way that is completely contrary to what it said. You don't understand it.
Let's see.
quote:
Willard wrote:
So when many look at the teachings of Christ, they are demoralised. They say, "I have to do these as I now am?"
quote:
Footwasher paraphrase:
Believer reads "Thou shalt not even be angry" and he is demoralized, because He doesn't feel he is able to do it on his own strength.
quote:
Willard wrote:
Of course it's impossible, but if you say instead that this is the sort of person I can become, then they open up and appear as things that are good and not an imposition.
quote:
Footwasher paraphrase:
Believer says because I have changed because I have been born from above, then the impossible appears possible and good and not a struggle.
How did you get the idea of viewing everybody as a child of God from that passage like you did here:
quote:
Cliffdweller wrote:
In the case of adultery, the transformed heart is one that looks on every human being as a child of God, in the image of God. Once you do that, you don't have to walk around all day gritting your teeth and saying "don't s***w him/her!"-- because treating them as an object of lust is antithetical to thinking of them as a child of God.
quote:
Cliffdweller wrote:
No one is objecting to you or anyone else quoting from the Bible. It's something we do all the time on this board. The shipmate in question was objecting to the way you were quoting Scripture, which is similar to the objections I've raised to the way you've used quotations in general.
If he is objecting to the content of the interpretation of Scripture, he should point out its inadequacies. He should not object to use of Scripture per se. In other words, he should prove that bad proof texting, prooftexting out of context, has happened.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
How did you get the idea of viewing everybody as a child of God from that passage like you did here
At that point I wasn't summarizing, I was moving on to give a specific example (responding to the one you mentioned in your post) from the Sermon on how that gets played out.
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
If he is objecting to the content of the interpretation of Scripture, he should point out its inadequacies. He should not object to use of Scripture per se. In other words, he should prove that bad proof texting, prooftexting out of context, has happened.
He did. He wasn't objecting just to the interpretation, but to the way you use Scripture, which, again, is similar to the way you use all quotations. You tend to link/quote something (whether from Scripture or from a website) completely out of context (proof texting). You also tend (in my observation) to point to a quote and say "there! that proves my point!" when to other readers your point seems nothing at all like the quote you have provided.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
No contest. The dreamer every time.
A dreamer goes Stateside, the bastion of raw capitalism. He believes the less intelligent should be the beneficiary of affirmative action, government jobs with the least responsibility, NHS style healthcare, liberal benefits, and generous pensions. Unfortunately, it's not his call.
When you go to a region with a laisser faire economic policy, small government, the regulating principle is that the spillover from the rich will eventually benefit the poor. The more wealth the rich create, the more the wealth will spill over. That's what the leaders in that country want, if the Donald is any indicator of The prevailing sentiments.
It's not what the dreamer desires.
As Paul tells the listeners on Mars Hill: It's not what you think God wants. It's His game, its His region, He is your Creator, so you better learn what He wants.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
As Paul tells the listeners on Mars Hill: It's not what you think God wants. It's His game, its His region, He is your Creator, so you better learn what He wants.
And also with you, of course. It's not even what Calvin wants.
aside:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
He believes the less intelligent should be the beneficiary of affirmative action, government jobs with the least responsibility...
the less intelligent??? Seriously?!?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Fortunately, as you have helpfully reminded us, it's not your call.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: If he is objecting to the content of the interpretation of Scripture, he should point out its inadequacies. He should not object to use of Scripture per se. In other words, he should prove that bad proof texting, prooftexting out of context, has happened.
I'm the 'he' you're talking about here.
I don't need to prove anything. What I object to is when I write a post that I've thought long about, and the only thing I get back is a Bible quote (worse by the way it is thrown in my face "this will rock your socks off!").
There are a range of objections I have against this, but the worst of all is the assumption that if I'm arguing against you, I'm actually arguing against the Bible. You and the Bible are on the same level here. I'm sorry, but that's a couple of steps too high for you. And I'm guessing there are more than a few heresies involved in this.
If you want to disagree with me, great. If you want to disagree vehemently with me and use strong wording about it (within the Purg guidelines), go ahead. I love robust discussion and I have a thick skin; I can take it. And by all means, in your answer to me quote the Bible at will. But what I object to is when your answer to me consists only of throwing the Bible into my face. Once again, that doesn't insult me. But it does insult the Bible.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Well said, Le Roc.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
At that point I wasn't summarizing, I was moving on to give a specific example (responding to the one you mentioned in your post) from the Sermon on how that gets played out.
IOW, you were correcting my summary with your summary, and failing, in that your summary never interacted with Willards claim, indeed, took off on an unrelated tangent. F minus for reading comprehension, D for indulgent, sloppy, wishful, imposing of your own views on the original material.
quote:
Cliffdweller wrote:
He did. He wasn't objecting just to the interpretation, but to the way you use Scripture, which, again, is similar to the way you use all quotations. You tend to link/quote something (whether from Scripture or from a website) completely out of context (proof texting). You also tend (in my observation) to point to a quote and say "there! that proves my point!" when to other readers your point seems nothing at all like the quote you have provided.
Not true. He was objecting to my use of Scripture to support my views. The practice, not the content.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: If he is objecting to the content of the interpretation of Scripture, he should point out its inadequacies. He should not object to use of Scripture per se. In other words, he should prove that bad proof texting, prooftexting out of context, has happened.
I'm the 'he' you're talking about here.
I don't need to prove anything. What I object to is when I write a post that I've thought long about, and the only thing I get back is a Bible quote (worse by the way it is thrown in my face "this will rock your socks off!").
There are a range of objections I have against this, but the worst of all is the assumption that if I'm arguing against you, I'm actually arguing against the Bible. You and the Bible are on the same level here. I'm sorry, but that's a couple of steps too high for you. And I'm guessing there are more than a few heresies involved in this.
If you want to disagree with me, great. If you want to disagree vehemently with me and use strong wording about it (within the Purg guidelines), go ahead. I love robust discussion and I have a thick skin; I can take it. And by all means, in your answer to me quote the Bible at will. But what I object to is when your answer to me consists only of throwing the Bible into my face. Once again, that doesn't insult me. But it does insult the Bible.
Consider the televangelist who says Christ's teachings of the abundant life means health and wealth, using Scripture:
John 10:10“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have itabundantly.
The wrong method of rebuttal:
Whinger: Not fair, not fair, throwing Scripture at me!
-----------
The right procedure in rebutting a debating opponent:
Irrelevant. Christ was describing the inadequate job the Jewish leaders were doing in identifying eternal life. You are applying the words out of context, using a passage dealing with spiritual feeding to support a teaching of Christ providing treasure that trusts and perishes, contradicting a dominant theme in all his teachings.
But you knew that.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And also with you, of course. It's not even what Calvin wants.
That was not even coherent. You don't want to add incoherency to the list of demerits of your posts do you?
quote:
Cliffdweller wrote:
aside:
the less intelligent??? Seriously?!?
Fortunately, as you have helpfully reminded us, it's not your call.
It's what happens in capitalistic societies, sis. The smart gobble up the mediocre.
Which isn't really fair. The less intelligent received less brains from God. They should be blamed for doing less well?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
footwasher: The right procedure in rebutting a debating opponent:
Irrelevant. Christ was describing the inadequate job the Jewish leaders were doing in identifying eternal life. You are applying the words out of context, using a passage dealing with spiritual feeding to support a teaching of Christ providing treasure that trusts and perishes, contradicting a dominant theme in all his teachings.
Yes, our discussion is going to be like this: - I make an argument, putting thought into my post.
- Your answer only consists of a Bible text.
- I do the effort of putting that Bible verse in context, arguing why it doesn't apply to my answer.
- Your answer only consists of another Bible text.
- I do more effort putting the Bible text in context …
I don't think so. You want to discuss with me, you're going to share in the effort. Just answering me with a Bible text is not enough, you need to show how you interpret this text, you need to show how it fits into context, and you need to show how it applies to my answer. I'm not going to do your work for you.
(My earlier objection to this practice is more important and still stands.)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
It's not what you think God wants. It's His game, its His region, He is your Creator, so you better learn what He wants.
Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(My earlier objection to this practice is more important and still stands.)
Your problem is your inadequate grasp of how discussions take place, as seen by your post. No discussion happens like you describe. OTOH, I can show you thousands of discussion happening the way I described.
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
It's not what you think God wants. It's His game, its His region, He is your Creator, so you better learn what He wants.
Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Absolutely, as David learned, when he sinned against God and God only, in the greater points of the law, justice , mercy and faithfulness. Matt 23:23.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Boogie: Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
One of my favourite verses, and I don't think I'm the only one. What I find interesting is that two out of the three recommendations involve my neighbour.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What should I believe, a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology or the politically correct, idealistic hopes of a dreamer?
Given that it takes a person firmly living in dreamland to imagine a "bullet proof" Calvinist theology...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If I may, no I'm not saying that footwasher is The Prince Of Darkness (unpleasantly compelling, like much of Carpenter), I'm sure he's a lovely chap. I'm saying that this thread, chomping under angler fish bait, the illusion of a morsel of satisfaction, is a gaping maw drawing you in, endlessly swallowing you cliffdweller. You are In The Mouth of Madness (even more unpleasant compulsion). Reason cannot work against unreason.
I understand the compulsion. Look at me here. Just as futile.
[ 01. February 2016, 22:16: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
What should I believe, a straight idea from the Bible, part of an entire framework of solid, bullet proof Calvinistic theology or the politically correct, idealistic hopes of a dreamer?
Given that it takes a person firmly living in dreamland to imagine a "bullet proof" Calvinist theology...
Yes. And more gently, I think that's key to our problem here.
fwiw, I was educated, trained, ordained, and served in a Reformed (Calvinist) denomination for 20 yrs. Passed my ordination exams based in no small part on my knowledge of Calvin's Institutes. But even in my most Calvinist days, I would never have suggested that Calvinist/Reformed theology is "bullet proof" or even that it is a "straight" trajectory from the Bible. I'm not even sure Calvin would say that (as evidenced in part by the many, many revisions to the Institutes.)
This isn't the place for that debate, but I think the failure to recognize the debate itself-- to recognize the full marketplace of ideas all fully within orthodox Christianity-- to recognize that good, Bible-believing Christians see these things differently than you-- is the fundamental problem we're having here, and the crux of Le Roc's (and my) objections to the way you are using Scripture.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If I may, no I'm not saying that footwasher is The Prince Of Darkness (unpleasantly compelling, like much of Carpenter), I'm sure he's a lovely chap. I'm saying that this thread, chomping under angler fish bait, the illusion of a morsel of satisfaction, is a gaping maw drawing you in, endlessly swallowing you cliffdweller. You are In The Mouth of Madness (even more unpleasant compulsion). Reason cannot work against unreason.
I understand the compulsion. Look at me here. Just as futile.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Boogie: Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
One of my favourite verses, and I don't think I'm the only one. What I find interesting is that two out of the three recommendations involve my neighbour.
Also, it says 'your God' not God. I would say that as meaning 'what you know of God'. We all, including other faiths, have a dim picture of God. But, if we do the other stuff to the best of our ability we can't go far wrong.
In fact, do we need the rest of the bible at all - just this verse says it all
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You're not wrong there Boogie.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0