Golden Key: To deface something at the top with their initials?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:No it isn't - big theology'says that the love in the Trinity is sufficient to itself and needs nothing more.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love.
quote:The beautiful thing about love is: it isn't about what the one who loves needs.
leo: No it isn't - big theology'says that the love in the Trinity is sufficient to itself and needs nothing more.
quote:Hey, we've all had boring Sunday afternoons that got out of hand.
Why did God create the universe, and us?
quote:Quotes file.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Hey, we've all had boring Sunday afternoons that got out of hand.
Why did God create the universe, and us?
quote:Haldane. Of course, that's still a bit self-centered, assuming God has a special interest in life because we're life. It could even more convincingly be argued that God really likes vast stretches of near-total emptiness.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Was it Agassiz who said that God must have an inordinate fondness for beetles? Such a multiplicity of beetles (and we haven't even gotten to bacteria which apparently form something like 99% of all life on this planet) shows that God is incredibly fecund.
quote:Terry Pratchett's creator god really worked hard on beetles. (Although he needed a little explaining on the advantages of sex in populating Discworld with life instead of creating multitudes of one-offs.) He considered the cockroach his masterpiece.
Was it Agassiz who said that God must have an inordinate fondness for beetles? Such a multiplicity of beetles...
quote:Begs the question of "necessary for what?" We tend to think along the lines of "necessary for us to exist", which presupposes that our own glorious existence is the whole point of the entire Universe. It's possible that the great empty stretches are the desired bits and sections that clogged up with matter and life are "structurally necessary" for the emptiness.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wonder if those stretches of empty are not structurally necessary.
quote:A similar take on Adam naming all the animals:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Terry Pratchett's creator god really worked hard on beetles. (Although he needed a little explaining on the advantages of sex in populating Discworld with life instead of creating multitudes of one-offs.) He considered the cockroach his masterpiece.
quote:
God: And here’s the next species, one I’m particularly proud of…
Adam: Beetle.
God: Excellent. Now here’s another…
Adam: Beetle.
God: No, you just named the last one “beetle”. This one is quite different — look at the pattern on the wing cases, and the shape of the antennae…
Adam: Beetle.
God: Well, OK, though they certainly look different to Me. Now, the next species is —
Adam: Beetle.
quote:If you follow kabbalah, in the great withdrawal of God (tzimtzum), space is left, so that stuff can occur, well, maybe more space. So absence becomes one of the hallmarks of God. Well, the atheists go to town on this one.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wonder if those stretches of empty are not structurally necessary. There is so much empty, there must be a reason. As you know, Bob, the quantum physicists speculate that there may be an infinity of universes. Space-time may be something like foam, or something like cheese -- membranes of real stuff, separated by empty. All the empty may be necessary, to keep the bits separate from each other. Like the air in each little bubble of foam on the top of your beer.
quote:blank canvasses awaiting his next project?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wonder if those stretches of empty are not structurally necessary. There is so much empty, there must be a reason...
quote:The two ideas aren't incompatible. Indeed, the point of saying that the Trinity is sufficient is precisely to say that God creates.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If the Trinity is sufficient to itself then why create? No, I think creativity is one of God's core attributes.
quote:But being omniscient he already knew it how it was going to turn out. Personally I'd have stopped right there (except of course I'd know I wasn't going to).
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But He was not going to pass this chance up, to do some keen stuff.
quote:For my money, he could have skipped over Boko Haram and ISIS.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
God creates because He wants to, because it's one of the ways He expresses who He is.
quote:Naturally I'm going to use this as an excuse to quote Deathtrap:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why does an artist paint? Why does a novelist write? Why does a composer write a symphony? Why does a scientist peer down a microscope and marvel at the variety of bacteria in a milligram of soil?
Ultimately it's the same reason why a mountaineer scales a mountain.
quote:
Sidney Bruhl: Why make it anywhere? Why make it?
Clifford Anderson: Hahaha, because it's there, Sidney!
Sidney Bruhl: That's mountains, not plays! Plays are not there until some asshole writes them!
quote:One way I like to fantasise about it is that perhaps there isn't a whole lot of difference between God thinking about creating the Universe, and Him actually doing it.
que sais-je: But being omniscient he already knew it how it was going to turn out. Personally I'd have stopped right there
quote:Well, we need to get to people like them before they get all evil, murdery and mean, and also more than a few presidents, generals and those who make their bombs and drones and shit. We need to poison their souls and minds with humanity, Jesus love, music, and flowers. Or something like that.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
For my money, he could have skipped over Boko Haram and ISIS.
quote:I'd settle for reciting the Gloria during Lent, or wearing brown after sunset. We don't need gangs of young men kidnapping whole schools full of girls for rape and slave service, or mass beheadings of innocents.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you want interest, excitement, thrills -- you might well leave room for evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The small arty answer is, because if you want to tell a story you need characters, and a world for them to move around in. Suddenly you turn around and you are J.R.R. Tolkien with ten volumes of back history, a map the size of a gymnasium floor, and Elvish family trees that twine with the ubiquity of pumpkins.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Then He'd have had to skip their infinite chain of causation.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:For my money, he could have skipped over Boko Haram and ISIS.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
God creates because He wants to, because it's one of the ways He expresses who He is.
quote:To deface something at the top with their initials?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why does an artist paint? Why does a novelist write? Why does a composer write a symphony? Why does a scientist peer down a microscope and marvel at the variety of bacteria in a milligram of soil?
Ultimately it's the same reason why a mountaineer scales a mountain.
quote:Proof of God being guilty of that
Golden Key: To deface something at the top with their initials?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I think it must be this.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why does an artist paint? Why does a novelist write? Why does a composer write a symphony? Why does a scientist peer down a microscope and marvel at the variety of bacteria in a milligram of soil?
Ultimately it's the same reason why a mountaineer scales a mountain. Because it's there. Because they can, because it's what they enjoy.
God creates because He wants to, because it's one of the ways He expresses who He is.
quote:Maybe he just had a bit of a bender and when he awoke had accidentally created all things. Since then has been trying to make things right and apologise.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LOL. Or like Slartibartfast, in the H2G2 books, carving his name when he made the fiddly bits around the fjords.
quote:As opposed to voluntourism which is the act of seeking pleasure under the guise of doing good.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
It’s kind of flippant, but I’ve always had a certain fondness for a position called voluntarism, which essentially sums up the answers to “Why did God…” (create the world, create us, redeem us, etc.) as “because he felt like it”.
quote:So if God needed these other things, was he in some way incomplete or imperfect?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love. <snip>
quote:There's nothing wrong with enjoying doing good. In fact, you will do it with a much better attitude if you love your voluntary work.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:As opposed to voluntourism which is the act of seeking pleasure under the guise of doing good.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
It’s kind of flippant, but I’ve always had a certain fondness for a position called voluntarism, which essentially sums up the answers to “Why did God…” (create the world, create us, redeem us, etc.) as “because he felt like it”.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:There is everything wrong with voluntourism. But I digress and apologise for it.
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's nothing wrong with enjoying doing good. In fact, you will do it with a much better attitude if you love your voluntary work.
I'm sure God loves all her voluntary work
quote:Just to expand on Brenda's answer given near the beginning of this thread:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love.
quote:A major problem with justifying evil in this way I feel is that it's a bit tough on the people who get cast as villains. (The Judas problem.) Calvinists obviously hold something of the sort. But to the rest of us it doesn't work as well. If we're free to not be evil, then it seems plausible that for each person it's better for them not to be evil than for them to be evil. From which it seems hard not to think that it's better for everyone not to be evil than for some people to be evil.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And if you want stuff to happen in your creation, then you need conflict. We can't just all lie around on beached holding drinks with paper umbrellas in them, can we? If you want interest, excitement, thrills -- you might well leave room for evil.
quote:Always.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:So if God needed these other things, was he in some way incomplete or imperfect?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love. <snip>
K.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Always.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:So if God needed these other things, was he in some way incomplete or imperfect?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love. <snip>
K.
quote:I like the idea that when you're a very good writer, the characters take up a life of their own.
A Feminine Force: I think it's like being a writer.
quote:Which god is this? I'm not familiar with it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Always.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:So if God needed these other things, was he in some way incomplete or imperfect?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love. <snip>
K.
Love is always the servant, as Jesus pointed out.
quote:God is not a Servant?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Which god is this? I'm not familiar with it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Love is always the servant, as Jesus pointed out.
quote:
Matthew 20: Whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve.
quote:I have a friend who is writing her first novel. I doubt she would describe herself as a good writer, much less very good, but in talking to her a few months ago she said that she knew how her novel would end, but she was constantly being surprised by some of the things her characters did on the way.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I like the idea that when you're a very good writer, the characters take up a life of their own.
A Feminine Force: I think it's like being a writer.
quote:I've never understood this. I make my wife a cup of tea knowing she's thirsty. I can't help feeling pleased my wife is more happy.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:There is everything wrong with voluntourism.....
Originally posted by Boogie:
There's nothing wrong with enjoying doing good. In fact, you will do it with a much better attitude if you love your voluntary work.
I'm sure God loves all her voluntary work
quote:The thing is Brenda, God put up with having no fun for eternity before making the universe. What made Him change?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Clearly it is far far more -fun- for there to be a universe, than for there not to be a universe. God, being infinite, was going to do something with His infiniteness. Creation may not have been necessary, in the sense that breathing is necessary for us. But He was not going to pass this chance up, to do some keen stuff.
quote:Martin, like all of us bags of mostly water, you're stuck in time. Get unstuck and process all moments in an instant of perfect knowledge. I'm sure that would be fun. The creation orgasm of spirit.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Clearly it is far far more -fun- for there to be a universe, than for there not to be a universe.The thing is Brenda, God put up with having no fun for eternity before making the universe. What made Him change?
quote:This bit I think is worded just a wee bit wrong.
God has ALWAYS done this. For eternity.
quote:This bit I think is worded just a wee bit wrong.
God has ALWAYS done this. For eternity.
quote:I had asked if God was imperfect. Those who answered, answered 'yes', he is imperfect. I was surprised too.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Which god is this? I'm not familiar with it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Always.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:So if God needed these other things, was he in some way incomplete or imperfect?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love. <snip>
K.
Love is always the servant, as Jesus pointed out.
quote:I think I agree with you, but then again, like you, I'm not sure what is meant by claims of perfection either (!).
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess I can add "God is perfect" to my list of "this is a statement about God but I don't know what it means."
Also, going back to the human realm a bit, does needing other people make you less perfect? I'm not sure if I'd agree with that.
quote:I'm familiar with God as servant and love etc. Just not how that relates to God creating us out of a need. Or God as in some way imperfect (needy in this example).
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:God is not a Servant?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Which god is this? I'm not familiar with it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Love is always the servant, as Jesus pointed out.
quote:
Matthew 20: Whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve.
quote:The "perfection" of God usually relates to God's completeness. Like the circle is complete and therefore a sign of perfection. i.e. God does not rely on anything outside of God for God's very being.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:I think I agree with you, but then again, like you, I'm not sure what is meant by claims of perfection either (!).
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess I can add "God is perfect" to my list of "this is a statement about God but I don't know what it means."
Also, going back to the human realm a bit, does needing other people make you less perfect? I'm not sure if I'd agree with that.
K.
quote:I'm sure we agree on this. My only point here is that love is by definition "needy" if you want to look at it that way, since it requires an object.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm familiar with God as servant and love etc. Just not how that relates to God creating us out of a need. Or God as in some way imperfect (needy in this example).
quote:About time!
Originally posted by Evensong:
I too am a Virgo.
But you're forgetting "The Fall".
quote:Not if God creates simply as a gift. The gift of existence.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I'm sure we agree on this. My only point here is that love is by definition "needy" if you want to look at it that way, since it requires an object.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm familiar with God as servant and love etc. Just not how that relates to God creating us out of a need. Or God as in some way imperfect (needy in this example).
quote:Life is so unnerving for a servant who's not serving. He's not whole without a soul to wait upon.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm familiar with God as servant and love etc. Just not how that relates to God creating us out of a need.
quote:Like I said, I get tired of excuses.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I too am a Virgo.
But you're forgetting "The Fall".
quote:Yes. That's a better way to look at it. Existence is a gift from a loving God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not if God creates simply as a gift. The gift of existence.
quote:We were made perfect?
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
quote:Like I said, I get tired of excuses.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I too am a Virgo.
But you're forgetting "The Fall".
How can something that is made perfect unmake its own perfection?
AFF
quote:Well that's what I think. But some wonder if God didn't make a mistake in creating us.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes. That's a better way to look at it. Existence is a gift from a loving God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not if God creates simply as a gift. The gift of existence.
quote:So why the punishment? Some gift, by the way. "Even though I'm perfect and want for nothing, I'll create some creatures that I know will be nasty pieces of work. I'll create all of them 'broken', many of them deformed and riddled with pains and illness, some will be born dead. I'll then demand that they be well and that they worship me on no evidence and them send them to an eternity of conscious torment if they don't!"
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes. That's a better way to look at it. Existence is a gift from a loving God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not if God creates simply as a gift. The gift of existence.
quote:Refer to syllogism above.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:We were made perfect?
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
quote:Like I said, I get tired of excuses.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I too am a Virgo.
But you're forgetting "The Fall".
How can something that is made perfect unmake its own perfection?
AFF
quote:At what point in the evolution of human beings did God start to love us?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
How can we know? How can we hope to know anything about God as little finite creatures in some teeny weeny spot in the universe so vast it is beyond our imagining? Sure, we like to think of ourselves as big grown ups with minds that can work all sorts of things out and how we can get lots of answers about things from science, philosophy, art etc....but really, we are just tiny little things; microscopic little bacteria in a solar system, completely unnoticeable and probably considerably smaller than a quark in a universe yet for some reason we think we can have a concept of God that gives answers. Unless of course you think that Jesus was who he said he was, then everything changes. It doesn't answer everything because we are too restricted, too stupid, too tiny to ever hope to know even the smallest aspect of it all, but the simple activity of it changes everything.
quote:According to Nigel M, who appears to know what he is talking about, the Hebrew word for God can be literally translated as "I am in various tenses with you." I was with you; I have been with you; I am with you; I will be with you.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
God is always doing it. God is the "I am" not "I was", not "I have been". God is no "has been". It's all a now thing. Eternity isn't a past nor a future.
quote:Yes, I was thinking about the arbitrariness of life. One woman has the breast cancer gene(s), and her mother had it, and her grandmother, and her daughter. One of my oldest friends is going into the dark night of dementia.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:So why the punishment? Some gift, by the way. "Even though I'm perfect and want for nothing, I'll create some creatures that I know will be nasty pieces of work. I'll create all of them 'broken', many of them deformed and riddled with pains and illness, some will be born dead. I'll then demand that they be well and that they worship me on no evidence and them send them to an eternity of conscious torment if they don't!"
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes. That's a better way to look at it. Existence is a gift from a loving God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not if God creates simply as a gift. The gift of existence.
'A gift from a loving God', as you say.
K.
quote:As Fletcher Christian says above, "How can we know?"
Originally posted by Komensky:
So why the punishment? Some gift, by the way.
quote:Why on earth should you start with that assumption in answering questions about the origin of the universe? What a prejudicial approach to cosmology.
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]
If we start from the assumption of a loving God, and work it out from there, I think that it makes more sense.
quote:I didn't realize that it was possible to start with no assumptions.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Why on earth should you start with that assumption in answering questions about the origin of the universe? What a prejudicial approach to cosmology.
quote:I have heard from people who were at Auschwitz, and from people who have suffered terribly in other ways. My understanding is that they are not the ones who struggle with the concept of a loving God.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What sense does suffering make, if you accept the premise of a loving God? Place yourself in the middle of Auschwitz, and explain the sense of it.
quote:So God builds in arbitrariness and suffering as a kind of light and shade? I will hasten to tell this to my friend slowly disappearing into dementia, and no doubt, she will feel transported.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am not a theologian, nor do I play one on TV. However, I am a creator, one of Tolkien's sub-creators wielding my little wand. And I can affirm that when you create, you do not create a paradise from beginning to end and east to west. This may be fun for you, the created creature, lazing on the beach fanning yourself and sipping a rum punch. But from the creator's point of view there has to be conflict, otherwise nothing happens. And the whole point of making it is so that something will happen.
In other words: God's ways are not our ways. He loves us, is obsessed with us, and is restless in His creation, fussing it here, tinkering it there as it runs off the rails. (Nothing else would explain the American presidential system.) But He does not coddle us. That would not make for a good work. And as in Genesis, He's not going to rest until it's very good.
quote:Well, you said that we misunderstand suffering. So how do you understand Auschwitz in the light of a loving God?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I have heard from people who were at Auschwitz, and from people who have suffered terribly in other ways. My understanding is that they are not the ones who struggle with the concept of a loving God.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What sense does suffering make, if you accept the premise of a loving God? Place yourself in the middle of Auschwitz, and explain the sense of it.
quote:I see it from the point of view of the way that God would have had to create the world in order to prevent Auschwitz from ever happening.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, you said that we misunderstand suffering. So how do you understand Auschwitz in the light of a loving God?
quote:I find myself rather drawn to Moltmann's take on this: He is there in Auschwitz, suffering.
quetzalcoatl: So how do you understand Auschwitz in the light of a loving God?
quote:I used to be. Then I thought "big deal. Do something useful about it."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I find myself rather drawn to Moltmann's take on this: He is there in Auschwitz, suffering.
quetzalcoatl: So how do you understand Auschwitz in the light of a loving God?
quote:It's an attractive idea, but also, I get the thought, so what?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I find myself rather drawn to Moltmann's take on this: He is there in Auschwitz, suffering.
quetzalcoatl: So how do you understand Auschwitz in the light of a loving God?
quote:Well, OK, gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle, there is mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. But hang on, there's another bit, isn't there, he will wipe every tear from their eye; there will be no more death or crying or mourning or pain.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In creation, there is going to be suffering. There is no way to avoid it. Even if there were peace on earth and hunger were eradicated, we will still get old and die; even if that death were peaceful and painless there would be the pain of loss and bereavement. And even if you decree that we all live forever -- there is undeniable pain for some of us, when the beloved dog or cat dies. We are asking for what is clearly not going to happen.
It is obvious from Jesus's own life, that the avoidance of pain and suffering is not high on His agenda. There is something else that God is trying to accomplish, but keeping us from pain and suffering is not it.
quote:As I understand it, the reason Jesus didn't avoid pain and suffering was precisely to keep us from it. Avoiding pain and suffering was high enough upon Jesus's agenda that he spent half a night asking God to take it away from him.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is obvious from Jesus's own life, that the avoidance of pain and suffering is not high on His agenda. There is something else that God is trying to accomplish, but keeping us from pain and suffering is not it.
quote:Your understanding is incorrect. There was a direct correlation between the Holocaust and Israel becoming one of the countries with the highest percentage of non believers.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I have heard from people who were at Auschwitz, and from people who have suffered terribly in other ways. My understanding is that they are not the ones who struggle with the concept of a loving God.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What sense does suffering make, if you accept the premise of a loving God? Place yourself in the middle of Auschwitz, and explain the sense of it.
quote:That certainly makes sense.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Your understanding is incorrect. There was a direct correlation between the Holocaust and Israel becoming one of the countries with the highest percentage of non believers.
quote:The really fishy bit is that God had to create the universe this way, and suffering and pain and death are inevitable, and it couldn't be any other way, but it will be one day, even though it can't be.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, we don't have explanations about evil, but this is going on under the title, 'why did God create the universe?'
So I guess you get to say that we don't know why God created a universe full of arbitrariness and suffering, but on the other hand, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and his ways are not our ways, and this is the best of all possible worlds.
Hmm, there's something fishy about this.
quote:There is nothing fishy about it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, we don't have explanations about evil, but this is going on under the title, 'why did God create the universe?'
So I guess you get to say that we don't know why God created a universe full of arbitrariness and suffering, but on the other hand, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and his ways are not our ways, and this is the best of all possible worlds.
Hmm, there's something fishy about this.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:It's not that it can't be. It can only be with our free cooperation.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The really fishy bit is that God had to create the universe this way, and suffering and pain and death are inevitable, and it couldn't be any other way, but it will be one day, even though it can't be.
quote:I thought the perfect system is where all tears are wiped from our eyes, and there is no more mourning or death or pain?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:There is nothing fishy about it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, we don't have explanations about evil, but this is going on under the title, 'why did God create the universe?'
So I guess you get to say that we don't know why God created a universe full of arbitrariness and suffering, but on the other hand, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and his ways are not our ways, and this is the best of all possible worlds.
Hmm, there's something fishy about this.
To me the easiest way to explain it is to try to come up with a system that would theoretically be better.
Let's see, here goes:
What I would do is make a system where no pain or suffering was possible. No hunger. No tears. There are people, and all of the people are loving and kind. Nature exists, but there is nothing harmful in nature. Even accidents do not happen. Food is plentiful. Everyone can do what they want, but they innately want to do nothing but good and useful things. They are incapable of doing anything except what their Creator wants them to do. They are happy.
OK. I guess that is the perfect system.
quote:My eyes glaze over. It is not worth the energy, to create a boring creation. I repeat: stuff has to happen.
What I would do is make a system where no pain or suffering was possible. No hunger. No tears. There are people, and all of the people are loving and kind. Nature exists, but there is nothing harmful in nature. Even accidents do not happen. Food is plentiful. Everyone can do what they want, but they innately want to do nothing but good and useful things. They are incapable of doing anything except what their Creator wants them to do. They are happy.
OK. I guess that is the perfect system.
quote:Yeah, but it has to be the best stuff, doesn't it? I mean, God is omnibenevolent, isn't he, so he wants the best for us. He's omnipotent, so he can provide the best.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:My eyes glaze over. It is not worth the energy, to create a boring creation. I repeat: stuff has to happen. [/QB]
What I would do is make a system where no pain or suffering was possible. No hunger. No tears. There are people, and all of the people are loving and kind. Nature exists, but there is nothing harmful in nature. Even accidents do not happen. Food is plentiful. Everyone can do what they want, but they innately want to do nothing but good and useful things. They are incapable of doing anything except what their Creator wants them to do. They are happy.
OK. I guess that is the perfect system.
quote:Or death and suffering are tied to the "principalities and powers" (Eph. 6) that must be defeated before the complete fulfillment of the Kingdom. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (1Cor. 15:26)
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except of course that Christian tradition hangs this promise of a new creation with no suffering or death in front of us. So it is possible. Or this promise is - erm - misunderstood?
quote:Well, that's a brilliant twist of the knife, or pen, or whatever.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Or death and suffering are tied to the "principalities and powers" (Eph. 6) that must be defeated before the complete fulfillment of the Kingdom. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (1Cor. 15:26)
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except of course that Christian tradition hangs this promise of a new creation with no suffering or death in front of us. So it is possible. Or this promise is - erm - misunderstood?
quote:Does that not fit with our experience of the world? It does mine. Read my tag line.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, that's a brilliant twist of the knife, or pen, or whatever.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Or death and suffering are tied to the "principalities and powers" (Eph. 6) that must be defeated before the complete fulfillment of the Kingdom. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (1Cor. 15:26)
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except of course that Christian tradition hangs this promise of a new creation with no suffering or death in front of us. So it is possible. Or this promise is - erm - misunderstood?
This stuff would be the best, but the moths have go to it, so it has to be fumigated, when it will be restored to its full glory.
quote:Including Auschwitz, brain cancer in children, and earthquakes? Oh no, they come from the powers and principalities!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
God wants the best for us. But the best for us might not be the most comfortable, or pleasant, or even what we want at all.
If your definition of 'best' is that beach with the cold rum punch, it is possible that your concept is not only small, it's boring. I think it's Lewis who says that not only is Heaven better than we imagine, it is better than we can imagine. His analogy is to childhood. When you were four, your idea of the very best in life -- pizza, let us say -- was quite different from the concept you may have in your thirties. Your vision in adulthood might well include pizza. But it will encompass much more.
quote:This sounds like an evil God, not one who wants what is best for us. What kind of a monster would give a child motor-neurone disease or bone cancer? What lessons would a baby learn from from living in constant pain? This is an unspeakable suggestion, that such a monster was in any sense 'loving'.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
God wants the best for us. But the best for us might not be the most comfortable, or pleasant, or even what we want at all.
If your definition of 'best' is that beach with the cold rum punch, it is possible that your concept is not only small, it's boring. I think it's Lewis who says that not only is Heaven better than we imagine, it is better than we can imagine. His analogy is to childhood. When you were four, your idea of the very best in life -- pizza, let us say -- was quite different from the concept you may have in your thirties. Your vision in adulthood might well include pizza. But it will encompass much more.
quote:I think there's a difference between asking why did God create the universe (as opposed to not creating the universe) and asking why God created the universe in this particular way (as opposed to in some other way).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, we don't have explanations about evil, but this is going on under the title, 'why did God create the universe?'
So I guess you get to say that we don't know why God created a universe full of arbitrariness and suffering, but on the other hand, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and his ways are not our ways, and this is the best of all possible worlds.
quote:Which is to its credit, because it's clearly quite easy to imagine better universes. And, fundamentally, Christianity promises there will be one. Which it couldn't, if this was the best it could be.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think there's a difference between asking why did God create the universe (as opposed to not creating the universe) and asking why God created the universe in this particular way (as opposed to in some other way).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, we don't have explanations about evil, but this is going on under the title, 'why did God create the universe?'
So I guess you get to say that we don't know why God created a universe full of arbitrariness and suffering, but on the other hand, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and his ways are not our ways, and this is the best of all possible worlds.
I'd also distinguish between a strong problem of evil and a weak problem of evil. The strong problem of evil would be, given the choice between bringing into being the universe as it is or not bringing any universe into being, how could a good God bring it into being? The weak problem of evil would be why didn't God bring into being a universe with less evil in it than this one?
I've had two children so for all practical purposes I've committed myself to the bring it into being side of the strong problem.
Christianity has historically not gone in for the best of all possible worlds explanation.
quote:And Dr Pangloss of course. The problem I think we have now with this explanation is "when"? Apart from not having us in it, this universe was pretty much how it is now before we even went into the trees in the first place, never mind came down from them, with disease, death and, presuming that non-human animals can nevertheless be self-aware, suffering. This is why I don't entirely agree with people saying that modern science isn't a problem for Christianity. It is. It may not be insurmountable, but it presents very great difficulties for the "created perfect then we buggered it up" narrative.
That's Leibniz. Christianity believes creation is fallen and needs to be redeemed.
quote:This is I think very true. Unfortunately it does play straight into the idea of religion as wish-fulfillment.
Psychological health seems to require a general underlying assumption that the universe doesn't have too much arbitrary suffering in it, an attitude that fundamentally things are alright. Since the empirical facts are at best equivocal in their support for that, we can either accept that human existence is absurd, or else that in some way not available to direct empirical observation the universe is indeed fundamentally alright. The claim that God exists is I think one name for the belief that the universe is in some non-empirical way such that psychological health is justified.
quote:'strewth and I thought I was pushing the boat out! Yeaaahhh. Us and Job eh?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:The really fishy bit is that God had to create the universe this way, and suffering and pain and death are inevitable, and it couldn't be any other way, but it will be one day, even though it can't be.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, we don't have explanations about evil, but this is going on under the title, 'why did God create the universe?'
So I guess you get to say that we don't know why God created a universe full of arbitrariness and suffering, but on the other hand, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and his ways are not our ways, and this is the best of all possible worlds.
Hmm, there's something fishy about this.
quote:Can you think of a better explanation? Really, if you're going to take those things seriously (and we must), you're left with either there is no God, God is a giant ***... or some version of spiritual warfare. What I/Open Theism would advocate is more nuanced than the old school spiritual warfare creed, but I think it's the only way to go, at least for me.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Including Auschwitz, brain cancer in children, and earthquakes? Oh no, they come from the powers and principalities!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
God wants the best for us. But the best for us might not be the most comfortable, or pleasant, or even what we want at all.
If your definition of 'best' is that beach with the cold rum punch, it is possible that your concept is not only small, it's boring. I think it's Lewis who says that not only is Heaven better than we imagine, it is better than we can imagine. His analogy is to childhood. When you were four, your idea of the very best in life -- pizza, let us say -- was quite different from the concept you may have in your thirties. Your vision in adulthood might well include pizza. But it will encompass much more.
quote:No, I can't.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Can you postulate an outcome, a solution, that would make the sufferings of concentration camps worth while? Put it another way -- can you imagine those who died at Bergen Belsen somewhere, praising God? If you and I can imagine it, I am certain God can.
quote:I'm trying to imagine a world without gravity, so that nothing can arbitrarily or accidentally squish other things.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The mystery is, as Karl says, why we HAVE to have meaningless arbitrary suffering before all will be well.
quote:As you said, "when" is key. I hold the corruption happened at the very beginning-- the first moment of the Big Bang or whatever is current theory of the origin of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem I think we have now with this explanation is "when"? Apart from not having us in it, this universe was pretty much how it is now before we even went into the trees in the first place, never mind came down from them, with disease, death and, presuming that non-human animals can nevertheless be self-aware, suffering. This is why I don't entirely agree with people saying that modern science isn't a problem for Christianity. It is. It may not be insurmountable, but it presents very great difficulties for the "created perfect then we buggered it up" narrative.
quote:And no onchocerciasis. Heaven. The Resurrection. So little children don't get their eyes eaten inside out.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I'm trying to imagine a world without gravity, so that nothing can arbitrarily or accidentally squish other things.
Originally posted by Martin60:
The mystery is, as Karl says, why we HAVE to have meaningless arbitrary suffering before all will be well.
quote:God created a wicked and corrupt world? This still raises the question, as you have brought up the Big Bang (though with some disdain)—at what point in the evolution did God start to love us? Did he love us as trilobites? Did God have a 'special plans' for each trilobite? Or was only Cro-Magnon man that loved—or later? It took an awfully long time until they finally found the Christian God, so perhaps hated those creatures that he made and then just got bored?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:As you said, "when" is key. I hold the corruption happened at the very beginning-- the first moment of the Big Bang or whatever is current theory of the origin of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem I think we have now with this explanation is "when"? Apart from not having us in it, this universe was pretty much how it is now before we even went into the trees in the first place, never mind came down from them, with disease, death and, presuming that non-human animals can nevertheless be self-aware, suffering. This is why I don't entirely agree with people saying that modern science isn't a problem for Christianity. It is. It may not be insurmountable, but it presents very great difficulties for the "created perfect then we buggered it up" narrative.
quote:It is hard to imagine how it is that God exists outside of time. But supposing that He does, He would be simultaneously in the past present and future, so these questions would not be relevant.
Originally posted by Komensky:
at what point in the evolution did God start to love us? Did he love us as trilobites? Did God have a 'special plans' for each trilobite? Or was only Cro-Magnon man that loved—or later? It took an awfully long time until they finally found the Christian God, so perhaps hated those creatures that he made and then just got bored?
quote:In many ways no questions about God would be relevant - as absolutely anything would be possible for her.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is hard to imagine how it is that God exists outside of time. But supposing that He does, He would be simultaneously in the past present and future, so these questions would not be relevant.
quote:Freddy, you can't have it and not have it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:It is hard to imagine how it is that God exists outside of time. But supposing that He does, He would be simultaneously in the past present and future, so these questions would not be relevant.
Originally posted by Komensky:
at what point in the evolution did God start to love us? Did he love us as trilobites? Did God have a 'special plans' for each trilobite? Or was only Cro-Magnon man that loved—or later? It took an awfully long time until they finally found the Christian God, so perhaps hated those creatures that he made and then just got bored?
quote:My answer is similar to Golden Key's. The answers are there. It is just a question of finding them.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But my question - relevant or not - would be 'why keep us so much in the dark about God once we have the need to know?'
quote:I disagree; the answers are there in Christian texts and thinking, it's just that they are either incorrect or deeply unsatisfactory. Notice how much time has been spent in this thread wondering why God does evil things. Why did God (or the Godhead) stop performing miracles? It must have been very compelling evidence to see Jesus fly, but we don't get anything of the sort. That's a shame.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:My answer is similar to Golden Key's. The answers are there. It is just a question of finding them.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But my question - relevant or not - would be 'why keep us so much in the dark about God once we have the need to know?'
Personally, I find the answers in Swedenborg. Others find them in other sources. Others are unconvinced. There are a lot of options, including the conclusion that there simply are no answers.
quote:You mean simultaneously have it and not have it?
Originally posted by Komensky:
Freddy, you can't have it and not have it.
quote:I also agree that they are there in the Christian texts. Whether they are satisfactory or not depends on how you understand them.
Originally posted by Komensky:
I disagree; the answers are there in Christian texts and thinking, it's just that they are either incorrect or deeply unsatisfactory.
quote:You know what? I am with you on this.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My eyes glaze over. It is not worth the energy, to create a boring creation. I repeat: stuff has to happen.
quote:What corruption?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:As you said, "when" is key. I hold the corruption happened at the very beginning-- the first moment of the Big Bang or whatever is current theory of the origin of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem I think we have now with this explanation is "when"? Apart from not having us in it, this universe was pretty much how it is now before we even went into the trees in the first place, never mind came down from them, with disease, death and, presuming that non-human animals can nevertheless be self-aware, suffering. This is why I don't entirely agree with people saying that modern science isn't a problem for Christianity. It is. It may not be insurmountable, but it presents very great difficulties for the "created perfect then we buggered it up" narrative.
quote:It's an interesting question, well, I suppose it is. I must admit as I've got older, explanations don't really twang my zither. I mean, there are an endless number - say, that gravity is caused by God pulling things down. Is that satisfying? It just seems irrelevant to me, although it may be true.
Can you think of a better explanation? Really, if you're going to take those things seriously (and we must), you're left with either there is no God, God is a giant ***... or some version of spiritual warfare. What I/Open Theism would advocate is more nuanced than the old school spiritual warfare creed, but I think it's the only way to go, at least for me.
quote:Actually, Quez, that chimes very nicely with teleological theologies as well as those of divine command. The rock stays on the ground because that is where God wants it to be—that is its proper place.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:It's an interesting question, well, I suppose it is. I must admit as I've got older, explanations don't really twang my zither. I mean, there are an endless number - say, that gravity is caused by God pulling things down. Is that satisfying? It just seems irrelevant to me, although it may be true.
Can you think of a better explanation? Really, if you're going to take those things seriously (and we must), you're left with either there is no God, God is a giant ***... or some version of spiritual warfare. What I/Open Theism would advocate is more nuanced than the old school spiritual warfare creed, but I think it's the only way to go, at least for me.
Advocates of a 3-omnis God certainly seem to have to perform gyrations to resolve all the contradictions, however, I suppose gyrations are quite pleasing. It reminds me of Yeats, that things are 'turning and turning in the widening gyre', ironically from the poem 'The Second Coming'.
quote:No, that's not what I'm suggesting. God created a perfect world, but one that is free-- for us, but also for other created beings (in this case, spiritual entities-- the "principalities and powers" of Eph. 6). So, while creation was good and perfect, at some (very very early) point in the evolutionary process (e.g. the first moment of Big Bang) those free creatures intervened in the evolutionary process ("corruption" to use the language of the Bible).
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:God created a wicked and corrupt world?.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:As you said, "when" is key. I hold the corruption happened at the very beginning-- the first moment of the Big Bang or whatever is current theory of the origin of the universe.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem I think we have now with this explanation is "when"? Apart from not having us in it, this universe was pretty much how it is now before we even went into the trees in the first place, never mind came down from them, with disease, death and, presuming that non-human animals can nevertheless be self-aware, suffering. This is why I don't entirely agree with people saying that modern science isn't a problem for Christianity. It is. It may not be insurmountable, but it presents very great difficulties for the "created perfect then we buggered it up" narrative.
quote:I don't know where you're getting the disdain from-- I can assure you that's not the case. My aside about "whatever theory" is simply to acknowledge that we're beyond my area of expertise, so I am dependent there on those with greater knowledge than I.
Originally posted by Komensky:
This still raises the question, as you have brought up the Big Bang (though with some disdain)—at what point in the evolution did God start to love us? Did he love us as trilobites? Did God have a 'special plans' for each trilobite? Or was only Cro-Magnon man that loved—or later? It took an awfully long time until they finally found the Christian God, so perhaps hated those creatures that he made and then just got bored?
quote:Of course, the "3-omnis" God is not the Open view that I'm advocating for.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
cliffdweller wrote:
quote:It's an interesting question, well, I suppose it is. I must admit as I've got older, explanations don't really twang my zither. I mean, there are an endless number - say, that gravity is caused by God pulling things down. Is that satisfying? It just seems irrelevant to me, although it may be true.
Can you think of a better explanation? Really, if you're going to take those things seriously (and we must), you're left with either there is no God, God is a giant ***... or some version of spiritual warfare. What I/Open Theism would advocate is more nuanced than the old school spiritual warfare creed, but I think it's the only way to go, at least for me.
Advocates of a 3-omnis God certainly seem to have to perform gyrations to resolve all the contradictions, however, I suppose gyrations are quite pleasing. It reminds me of Yeats, that things are 'turning and turning in the widening gyre', ironically from the poem 'The Second Coming'.
quote:You naughty boy, you know my answer to that-- you're baiting me.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What corruption?
quote:It's true that I don't think we can believe in the Fall as something that happened to two ancestral human beings. I do think it's possible to believe that the Fall is an extratemporal event. Every time I've advanced that idea I've got the response that it's terribly science-fictional. Well, so were satellites.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:The problem I think we have now with this explanation is "when"? Apart from not having us in it, this universe was pretty much how it is now before we even went into the trees in the first place, never mind came down from them, with disease, death and, presuming that non-human animals can nevertheless be self-aware, suffering.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE][qb]Christianity believes creation is fallen and needs to be redeemed.
quote:Reality is what you have to believe in in order to function properly.
quote:This is I think very true. Unfortunately it does play straight into the idea of religion as wish-fulfillment.
Psychological health seems to require a general underlying assumption that the universe doesn't have too much arbitrary suffering in it, an attitude that fundamentally things are alright. Since the empirical facts are at best equivocal in their support for that, we can either accept that human existence is absurd, or else that in some way not available to direct empirical observation the universe is indeed fundamentally alright. The claim that God exists is I think one name for the belief that the universe is in some non-empirical way such that psychological health is justified.
quote:Well, old age brings many benefits, and of course, some deleterious stuff, but I don't worry now about this stuff, not even the mystery.
There is something to be said for the "no explanations" position. Chalking it up to "mystery" does demonstrate a proper humility, of course, and recognition that there is so much beyond our understanding. And it sure helps fill in those gaps.
But the problem I have with "mystery" as an answer is that it makes God ultimately unknowable. It distances us from God, when I think the whole point of Jesus and the Bible is to help us to know God. And knowing God changes how we live. Theology matters-- because it changes so much in the way we relate to God and to one another. Sure, we can't figure the whole thing out, and we're gonna get a bunch of it dead wrong. But the effort I think to understand God and the universe does impact our lives in significant ways. ymmv.
quote:Quantum theory is not used (as far as I know!) to create models for how… God must be. If you attend any cosmological conference you will find that exactly zero speakers bring up God as a possible answer—it isn't happening. The conversation about God creating the universe has been taking place in a vacuum for a long time.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
God is ultimately unknowable. We only know of him what He reveals to us. I don't see how you can get around that, if He is infinite and we aren't. We can speculate, we can deduce, we can even (as with quantum theory) delineate models of how certain aspects of God must be. But we can't ever really entirely know.
quote:Well, except that he HAS revealed himself to us-- thru Scripture and more so in the incarnation. So, as much as God is infinite and transcendent and beyond us, he wants to be known. So while there will always be gaps-- things we just can't possibly comprehend-- I find the heavy over-reliance on "mystery" to be an obstacle that keeps God at a distance. I can't trust someone I don't know. And trust seems to be tied closely to the central, core purpose of faith itself.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
God is ultimately unknowable. We only know of him what He reveals to us. I don't see how you can get around that, if He is infinite and we aren't. We can speculate, we can deduce, we can even (as with quantum theory) delineate models of how certain aspects of God must be. But we can't ever really entirely know.
quote:But how well do we really know anybody? Human beings are unknowable. How well does your spouse really know you? There are always bits of you that he does not know -- that you will not tell him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't trust someone I don't know. And trust seems to be tied closely to the central, core purpose of faith itself. [/QB]
quote:Sure. And, as I said, this is even more true of the infinite, transcendent God.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:But how well do we really know anybody? Human beings are unknowable. How well does your spouse really know you? There are always bits of you that he does not know -- that you will not tell him. [/QB]
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't trust someone I don't know. And trust seems to be tied closely to the central, core purpose of faith itself.
quote:But are all avenues of enquiry really open to you? Or rather, are you really open to all avenues of enquiry? Even in less weighty matters, we do like to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Sure. And, as I said, this is even more true of the infinite, transcendent God.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:But how well do we really know anybody? Human beings are unknowable. How well does your spouse really know you? There are always bits of you that he does not know -- that you will not tell him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't trust someone I don't know. And trust seems to be tied closely to the central, core purpose of faith itself.
However-- when I don't know something about my husband-- eg why he does what he does-- I try to find out. I ask questions. I listen. And because he wants to be known by me-- he tries to explain. Because that's what trust is built on. Sure, a little bit of mystery in a relationship is fun/exciting, but only a little bit. If my spouse is so mysterious that I'm not really sure if he's Jimmy Carter or Idi Amin, it's going to be hard to trust him, hard even to really love him. And again, that seems to be the whole point of faith-- to learn to love and trust in God. We do that by coming to know God-- albeit imperfectly, of course. [/QB]
quote:Absolutely-- on both sides of the faith equation. I would say I'm as open to new evidence as I'm able/aware. In cases where there's evidence I'm not integrating into my final conclusion it's (as it is for most of us) some subconscious defense mechanism.
Originally posted by Komensky:
But are all avenues of enquiry really open to you? Or rather, are you really open to all avenues of enquiry? Even in less weighty matters, we do like to avoid cognitive dissonance.
K.
quote:I am in complete agreement.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So, as much as God is infinite and transcendent and beyond us, he wants to be known. So while there will always be gaps-- things we just can't possibly comprehend-- I find the heavy over-reliance on "mystery" to be an obstacle that keeps God at a distance. I can't trust someone I don't know. And trust seems to be tied closely to the central, core purpose of faith itself.
quote:full disclosure: I was once, many many lifetimes ago, married to a man who turned out to be living a hidden double life-- a pretty dark hidden double life that ended up with him in prison. So perhaps this is why I don't find "mystery" such an attractive notion, and why being known and building trust is important. (altho K may turn it around and suggest it is evidence of my extreme gullibility. Both may be true to some degree).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Sure. And, as I said, this is even more true of the infinite, transcendent God.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:But how well do we really know anybody? Human beings are unknowable. How well does your spouse really know you? There are always bits of you that he does not know -- that you will not tell him.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I can't trust someone I don't know. And trust seems to be tied closely to the central, core purpose of faith itself.
However-- when I don't know something about my husband-- eg why he does what he does-- I try to find out. I ask questions. I listen. And because he wants to be known by me-- he tries to explain. Because that's what trust is built on. Sure, a little bit of mystery in a relationship is fun/exciting, but only a little bit. If my spouse is so mysterious that I'm not really sure if he's Jimmy Carter or Idi Amin, it's going to be hard to trust him, hard even to really love him. And again, that seems to be the whole point of faith-- to learn to love and trust in God. We do that by coming to know God-- albeit imperfectly, of course. [/QB]
quote:Ha. You think?
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's such a shame that God has decided to stop performing the amazing miracles described in the Bible. All we need is for one person to walk on water or perform unaided human flight and—bam—it would be all sorted.
K.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Not withstanding LC's sorting of this, a gold star to you.
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's such a shame that God has decided to stop performing the amazing miracles described in the Bible. All we need is for one person to walk on water or perform unaided human flight and—bam—it would be all sorted.
K.
quote:Oh those wretched cynics and their evidence! They should just accept what God's chosen people tell them, right?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Ha. You think?
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's such a shame that God has decided to stop performing the amazing miracles described in the Bible. All we need is for one person to walk on water or perform unaided human flight and—bam—it would be all sorted.
K.
Within two minutes at least 70% of the observers would have come up with an explanation, however unlikely, that made it therefore unnecessary to suppose any supernatural interference at all.
That's just how people are.
And among the remainder, most would be attributing it to little green aliens or some such tabloid fare. Because aliens, or fairies, or even the popular conception of angels, are so much safer than God. He has this nasty habit of requiring things of us.
quote:Particularly when put against centuries of Christians violently extinguishing each other .
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Paul violently extinguished every other light in the world, so that Jesus might then shine it alone," (Paul Wernle).
I think this is a brilliant tour de force, however somewhat melodramatic, or even hysterical.
quote:Now now, young man, you are being parochial. In India, and other countries, God produces tons of miracles, healings, levitations, materialization of objects, even the turning of water into petrol, quite useful, people living on air, and so on.
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's such a shame that God has decided to stop performing the amazing miracles described in the Bible. All we need is for one person to walk on water or perform unaided human flight and—bam—it would be all sorted.
K.
quote:It is interesting how many people there are in the world who are completely prepared to accept these things. Having spent years living in West Africa this is a common point of view there.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In India, and other countries, God produces tons of miracles, healings, levitations, materialization of objects...
quote:You're right. I forgot all about Sathya sai baba!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Now now, young man, you are being parochial. In India, and other countries, God produces tons of miracles, healings, levitations, materialization of objects, even the turning of water into petrol, quite useful, people living on air, and so on.
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's such a shame that God has decided to stop performing the amazing miracles described in the Bible. All we need is for one person to walk on water or perform unaided human flight and—bam—it would be all sorted.
K.
I know this may not happen in Basingstoke, but lift your eyes to the orient and see the glory.
quote:So after Eternity had already past, it got a bit boring? Or during Eternity it got a bit boring?
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Particularly when put against centuries of Christians violently extinguishing each other .
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Paul violently extinguished every other light in the world, so that Jesus might then shine it alone," (Paul Wernle).
I think this is a brilliant tour de force, however somewhat melodramatic, or even hysterical.
God created the Universe and us because Eternity gets a bit bit boring after a while and He fancied some light entertainment.
quote:HAH! Oh ye of little faith, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and worthy of eternal oblivion in the second death, I'm sure in Gazingstock charismanic circles all these things are routine, mountains fall in the sea, all sorts.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Now now, young man, you are being parochial. In India, and other countries, God produces tons of miracles, healings, levitations, materialization of objects, even the turning of water into petrol, quite useful, people living on air, and so on.
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's such a shame that God has decided to stop performing the amazing miracles described in the Bible. All we need is for one person to walk on water or perform unaided human flight and—bam—it would be all sorted.
K.
I know this may not happen in Basingstoke, but lift your eyes to the orient and see the glory.
quote:So after Eternity had already past, it got a bit boring? Or during Eternity it got a bit boring?
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rolyn:
God created the Universe and us because Eternity gets a bit bit boring after a while and He fancied some light entertainment.
quote:On the other hand, Auden says somewhere in the Dyer's Hand that no poet really thinks of themselves as a poet for more than a couple of seconds after they've finished a poem since they can never know if ever they'll write another poem to their satisfaction again. (No doubt he was speaking chiefly for himself.)
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Immediately I read that Feanor felt he could never make anything as cool as a Silmaril ever again, I knew it was wrong. When the portable-star gig went south, Feanor should've blinked, poured himself another cup of coffee, and reached for his pen, or Ipad, or piano, or whatever.
quote:And of course the master-crafstman making some creation that he wouldn't be able to repeat has become a relatively common trope.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Immediately I read that Feanor felt he could never make anything as cool as a Silmaril ever again, I knew it was wrong.
quote:I agree. I really don't see a hole here, or anything off about the story of Fëanor and the silmarils.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Roll in a bit of mystical "Fëanor endowed the silmarils with so much of his essence that he diminished himself in their making" and Bob is indeed your mother's brother.
quote:Yeah but Rolyn, in this galaxy alone, He's incarnating ten times right now. A trillion times in the visible universe, just one of an infinity. Right now. How can that NOT be so?
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:So after Eternity had already past, it got a bit boring? Or during Eternity it got a bit boring?
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rolyn:
God created the Universe and us because Eternity gets a bit bit boring after a while and He fancied some light entertainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking maybe it gets a bit boring from time to time. You know supernovas, Cosmic collisions and single atoms expanding to create more matter than we can comprehend surely gets a little tedious with nothing else happening.
It must be like putting the TV on to see how those Earth species He plonked in the middle of nowhere are struggling along. Throw in a few asteroids now and again to shake them up and you have hours of endless fun I would have thought. Well, not exactly endless from the Secular perspective.
quote:Fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Originally posted by rolyn:
So no matter how much our technology allows us to look outwards with ever more sophisticated telescopes, space probes and so on we won't ever find the limit of God's creation.
Like the old Panto routine where the audience call out "It's behind you".
quote:It is kind of amazing that the closest theoretically habitable planet is thought to be 14 light years away.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have no problem with God incarnating Himself in other universes. By definition we will never find out about it, so we'd never know.
quote:That will be exciting!
Originally posted by Freddy:
On the other hand, since heaven must surely include people from every planet, we will have an opportunity to know in the next life.
quote:You mean we WILL find the limit?!
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:Fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Originally posted by rolyn:
So no matter how much our technology allows us to look outwards with ever more sophisticated telescopes, space probes and so on we won't ever find the limit of God's creation.
Like the old Panto routine where the audience call out "It's behind you".
T
K.
quote:More importantly, the other profound limitations upon our relationships in life will fall away. We will have an infinity of time, and attention will never flag because of sleepiness/gin tonics/the phone ringing/the need to start cooking supper. Nor will our mortal ranking systems be of importance (Kim Kardashian will at last assume her rightful place in the order of the Universe, a cause for hosannahs right there) and so our affections will be ordinate at last. We will care greatly about what we ought to care most about, and less about things that are unimportant, and not at all about things that are irrelevant. Race, skin color, gender, planet of origin, number of pseudopods, methane-breathing -- what a pleasure it will be to shed these irrelevancies and really get to know our fellow beings.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:That will be exciting!
Originally posted by Freddy:
On the other hand, since heaven must surely include people from every planet, we will have an opportunity to know in the next life.
quote:What makes you think that?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:More importantly, the other profound limitations upon our relationships in life will fall away. We will have an infinity of time, and attention will never flag because of sleepiness/gin tonics/the phone ringing/the need to start cooking supper. Nor will our mortal ranking systems be of importance (Kim Kardashian will at last assume her rightful place in the order of the Universe, a cause for hosannahs right there) and so our affections will be ordinate at last. We will care greatly about what we ought to care most about, and less about things that are unimportant, and not at all about things that are irrelevant. Race, skin color, gender, planet of origin, number of pseudopods, methane-breathing -- what a pleasure it will be to shed these irrelevancies and really get to know our fellow beings.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:That will be exciting!
Originally posted by Freddy:
On the other hand, since heaven must surely include people from every planet, we will have an opportunity to know in the next life.
quote:Makes sense to me!
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
More importantly, the other profound limitations upon our relationships in life will fall away. We will have an infinity of time, and attention will never flag because of sleepiness/gin tonics/the phone ringing/the need to start cooking supper. Nor will our mortal ranking systems be of importance (Kim Kardashian will at last assume her rightful place in the order of the Universe, a cause for hosannahs right there) and so our affections will be ordinate at last. We will care greatly about what we ought to care most about, and less about things that are unimportant, and not at all about things that are irrelevant. Race, skin color, gender, planet of origin, number of pseudopods, methane-breathing -- what a pleasure it will be to shed these irrelevancies and really get to know our fellow beings.
quote:Well, your vision strikes me as life-phobic.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Clearly there is a break between the neophiles and the neophobes. Oh well, it takes all sorts.
quote:You want conflict to make things interesting, and I think you are right to want it. But conflict does not necessarily equal evil/sin/fuckedupness. You can also find plenty of it in creative work, as you struggle with the limitations and blessings of the particular medium in which you have chosen to work. And none of that is likely to go away--I don't think, for instance, that in the new heaven and new earth metals are likely to behave identically to wood or clay. Nor will living things react identically to one another. I think we'll have eternity to explore, to make, to struggle and delight, and to share with one another--and "one another" = every created being and God.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To me, it sounds like a nightmare. I think that it's precisely the limitations of time and space, and our own desires and inhibitions, which make life so interesting. I mean, we try to resist gravity, but it wins in the end! But the collision between is the real juice of life.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:First of all, it does not say "no sadness" but rather "he will wipe away every tear from their eyes." Make of it what you will.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Why is there no sadness in Heaven? The thought of obligatory happiness with no emotional dynamism and endless praise of the Great Leader without end for all eternity is far more terrifying than death.
K.
quote:As there is infinite sadness in creation, there is in Heaven, a greater infinity.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:First of all, it does not say "no sadness" but rather "he will wipe away every tear from their eyes." Make of it what you will.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Why is there no sadness in Heaven? The thought of obligatory happiness with no emotional dynamism and endless praise of the Great Leader without end for all eternity is far more terrifying than death.
K.
Second, even if you remove sorrow and rage from the gamut of human emotions ...
Let's stop a moment. What I'm referring to is not a simple cutting out of those things as if we were robots. Rather God removes all the horrid internal stuff that leads to sadness or rage (such as depression and other mental illnesses, physical illnesses that result in fits of rage or tears inappropriately, and oh, yeah, he also removes sin and its tagalongs). What you are left with is a healthy, balanced human being, still with the capacity for sorrow and anger, but only going to respond that way when it's appropriate. Someone rather like Christ, in fact. And then drop this healthy human being into a perfect environment along with a lot of other similar beings, and what will result? The whole normal range of human emotions bar the ones that have no reason for being there, because their causes no longer exist.
This is one possibility.
quote:That's because your heart will have found rest in God, whereas before it was restless, so it will no longer seek gratification and general bad stuff. Easy peasy.
Originally posted by Komensky:
How this conversation often goes:
Q: Why is there so much suffering?
A: Because of The Fall (not the band)—God gave us free will…
Q: Will there be suffering in Heaven?
A: No, of course not!
Q: Will there be free will?
A: …uhhh
K.
quote:You've said this before Brenda and it didn't work for me. It's starting to despite itself! You can't have transcendence without the non-transcendent. If angels exist even they have to develop, be tried, tested and can fail to do so. Hopefully redeemably. Creation has to suffer. Full stop. No matter how 'perfect' it starts. Most human suffering is meaningless and contingent: so. Dark, yes; nasty, brutish and short. So when offered a lifeline, a way out, a way ahead, who would there be that would not grasp the line, co-operate in their rescue from the human condition? AKA "sin". Can such a lifeline be offered to fallen angels? Be accepted? Is a taste of meaningless suffering inoculation against failure IN transcendence?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You need dark stuff, because otherwise the picture is boring. Painters know that dark hues make the light pop. Creation was not made for us, the created. Have you ever seen Sunday in the Park With George? All the characters of the Seurat painting come down and complain bitterly of it. But the work was not made for them. The artist was not thinking of how hot the sun is on them, or how I want my glasses. He was thinking of entirely different things.
quote:There is a misunderstanding about what constitutes freedom.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Q: Will there be free will?
A: …uhhh
quote:Where are you getting all this? Is my Bible missing chapters?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:There is a misunderstanding about what constitutes freedom.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Q: Will there be free will?
A: …uhhh
Freedom is being able to do what you wish to do, unhampered by constraints.
In the world this means being able to choose among many varying impulses coming both from outside of us and within us. It means that we are not being forced to do any particular thing, but instead are able to choose for ourselves.
That is an important form of freedom.
True freedom, however, is being able to do what you wish. This is only possible when what you wish for is established - and - when what you wish for is possible.
While true freedom is somewhat possible in this world, it is much more possible in the next.
In heaven people have established what it is they wish for through the many decisions they made in their earthly life.
In heaven these wishes are all possible because people in heaven wish for things that are consistent with God's wishes. Since He is the source of all power, people in heaven are empowered to do exactly what they want.
The point is that in this world freedom is about the ability to do one thing or its opposite depending on our own choice. It does not necessarily mean that we will have the capacity to do whatever it is we choose.
In heaven the difference is that we have already made our choices on a fundamental level, and so freedom is about our ability to actually do what we wish.
In hell the situation is the same, but with opposite results. We have made our fundamental choices, and have decided to pursue goals that are self-serving and self-seeking. The issue with this is that these goals are not consistent with God's wishes, and they also conflict with the wishes of others, so they end up being impossible to fulfill.
So in hell we cannot do what we want, and are therefore not free. We are free to pursue our interests, but those interests are inherently self-limiting.
Yes, there is free will in heaven. But the freedom there is not about the ability to do good or evil depending on our choice. True freedom is about the ability to actually put what we have decided into action.
quote:Really really not sure about this. The universe would be boring without infant mortality? Without rape? Without genocide? Without horrible disfiguring diseases?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You need dark stuff, because otherwise the picture is boring. Painters know that dark hues make the light pop. Creation was not made for us, the created. Have you ever seen Sunday in the Park With George? All the characters of the Seurat painting come down and complain bitterly of it. But the work was not made for them. The artist was not thinking of how hot the sun is on them, or how I want my glasses. He was thinking of entirely different things.
quote:Look at Freddy's sig, Komensky - it's standard Swedenborgian thinking.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:Where are you getting all this? Is my Bible missing chapters?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:There is a misunderstanding about what constitutes freedom.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Q: Will there be free will?
A: …uhhh
.... ,snip ...
Yes, there is free will in heaven. But the freedom there is not about the ability to do good or evil depending on our choice. True freedom is about the ability to actually put what we have decided into action.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Look at Freddy's sig, Komensky - it's standard Swedenborgian thinking.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Where are you getting all this? Is my Bible missing chapters?
quote:'s a metaphor ennit? This IS the best of all possible worlds. Only evil (boredom) can be transcended. Only darkness can be enlightened. If there were a better way from eternity, it would have happened.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Really really not sure about this. The universe would be boring without infant mortality? Without rape? Without genocide? Without horrible disfiguring diseases?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You need dark stuff, because otherwise the picture is boring. Painters know that dark hues make the light pop. Creation was not made for us, the created. Have you ever seen Sunday in the Park With George? All the characters of the Seurat painting come down and complain bitterly of it. But the work was not made for them. The artist was not thinking of how hot the sun is on them, or how I want my glasses. He was thinking of entirely different things.
I don't think I can buy that.
quote:I have no trouble buying it.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Really really not sure about this. The universe would be boring without infant mortality? Without rape? Without genocide? Without horrible disfiguring diseases?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You need dark stuff, because otherwise the picture is boring. Painters know that dark hues make the light pop. Creation was not made for us, the created. Have you ever seen Sunday in the Park With George? All the characters of the Seurat painting come down and complain bitterly of it. But the work was not made for them. The artist was not thinking of how hot the sun is on them, or how I want my glasses. He was thinking of entirely different things.
I don't think I can buy that.
quote:Do you agree that, since any words of Jesus come to us fourth or more handed at best including multiple transcriptions and translations, it is difficult to say how implicit they are.
Originally posted by Freddy:
...this answer is implicit in Jesus' teaching about freedom.
quote:Might be. But it works for me. How do you see it?
Originally posted by Komensky:
You wouldn't say in any way that it is a combination wishful thinking and making shit up?
quote:Not to start an argument about biblical infallibility, but Christianity is pretty much based on the idea that Jesus' teachings are more or less accurately portrayed in the gospels.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Do you agree that, since any words of Jesus come to us fourth or more handed at best including multiple transcriptions and translations, it is difficult to say how implicit they are.
Originally posted by Freddy:
...this answer is implicit in Jesus' teaching about freedom.
And, yes, I know this is being picky, but every now an dagain I think it needs a mention.
quote:But they're not "moderated to limits for which we are adapted" are they?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I have no trouble buying it.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Really really not sure about this. The universe would be boring without infant mortality? Without rape? Without genocide? Without horrible disfiguring diseases?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You need dark stuff, because otherwise the picture is boring. Painters know that dark hues make the light pop. Creation was not made for us, the created. Have you ever seen Sunday in the Park With George? All the characters of the Seurat painting come down and complain bitterly of it. But the work was not made for them. The artist was not thinking of how hot the sun is on them, or how I want my glasses. He was thinking of entirely different things.
I don't think I can buy that.
The real issue, I think, is about how we hold and think about what Brenda is suggesting. Maybe it is especially about the issue of extent. A little contrast makes things interesting. Too much contrast makes them impossible.
Imagine a world where the waves in the ocean were usually 100 feet tall, or where winds typically blew at 300 mph. Disaster would be a constant, and life improbable. Extremes of size, speed, rate of growth, and any other variable we can imagine, would effectively prevent our existence.
But these same factors moderated to limits for which we are adapted are simply part of life's variety. Without that variety life would be boring - and worse it would have no purpose.
quote:Especially the gospel of 'John'!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Do you agree that, since any words of Jesus come to us fourth or more handed at best including multiple transcriptions and translations, it is difficult to say how implicit they are.
Originally posted by Freddy:
...this answer is implicit in Jesus' teaching about freedom.
And, yes, I know this is being picky, but every now and again I think it needs a mention.
quote:Agreed. And, while there can be some debate about particular verses/sayings, I think there's pretty convincing evidence that the transmission of Jesus' sayings has been accurate-- for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that those doing the transmission believed in the authority of those sayings. Translation & interpretation, of course, is another kettle of fish.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Not to start an argument about biblical infallibility, but Christianity is pretty much based on the idea that Jesus' teachings are more or less accurately portrayed in the gospels.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Do you agree that, since any words of Jesus come to us fourth or more handed at best including multiple transcriptions and translations, it is difficult to say how implicit they are.
Originally posted by Freddy:
...this answer is implicit in Jesus' teaching about freedom.
And, yes, I know this is being picky, but every now an dagain I think it needs a mention.
So I tend to think that Jesus' teachings about freedom, as recorded in places such as John 8, are true to what He actually said - and thus true to the way that things really are.
quote:There are Christians who don't believe in eternal life. C. S. Lewis wrote that he did not believe in eternal life until several years after he became a Christian.
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's curious, the main (only?) reason we are encouraged to believe in the Christian story is in order to have eternal life
quote:Yes there are clearly aspects of creation that go beyond these limits. For the most part, however, the human race has thrived under the circumstances.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But they're not "moderated to limits for which we are adapted" are they?
I can't believe people actually think this bullshit.
quote:You would think.
Originally posted by Komensky:
and then offers Heaven as the reward, but doesn't tell us what it's like. I would have thought that was important, no?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:What?! How can they be accurate when the four gospels contain so many discrepancies? There are also strings of scientific blunders. Why do you give such problematic texts so much weight?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
<snip> And, while there can be some debate about particular verses/sayings, I think there's pretty convincing evidence that the transmission of Jesus' sayings has been accurate-
quote:What's to weigh? God in the enculturated FLESH said these things. There's no doubt He said them. The writers are first and second circle. Just like Freddy, Jesus made it up as He went along, in BEST faith.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:What?! How can they be accurate when the four gospels contain so many discrepancies? There are also strings of scientific blunders. Why do you give such problematic texts so much weight
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
<snip> And, while there can be some debate about particular verses/sayings, I think there's pretty convincing evidence that the transmission of Jesus' sayings has been accurate-
K.
quote:No need to apologize. Details are important.
Originally posted by Komensky:
I should apologise—I didn't mean to detail the thread.
quote:I'm sure you are making a good point here. Somehow generations of Christians have managed to ignore these basic and obvious issues.
Originally posted by Komensky:
What?! How can they be accurate when the four gospels contain so many discrepancies? There are also strings of scientific blunders. Why do you give such problematic texts so much weight?
quote:There are some discrepancies-- mostly minor, and precisely what you would expect from multiple witnesses trying to remember events years or decades later, and reconstructing them in literary documents with different agenda/purposes. The transmission is not perfect-- but it is relatively consistent (particularly in the big things) given the circumstances.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:What?! How can they be accurate when the four gospels contain so many discrepancies? There are also strings of scientific blunders. Why do you give such problematic texts so much weight?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
<snip> And, while there can be some debate about particular verses/sayings, I think there's pretty convincing evidence that the transmission of Jesus' sayings has been accurate-
K.
quote:Interviewing eyewitness immediately after an event often reveals significant differences. Interviewing witnesses together often sees them adapt their stories to each other. Interviewing them after a significant time sees many change details from their initial statements, both major and minor.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are some discrepancies-- mostly minor, and precisely what you would expect from multiple witnesses trying to remember events years or decades later, and reconstructing them in literary documents with different agenda/purposes.
quote:And this would raise red flags in any normal circumstance.
The transmission is not perfect-- but it is relatively consistent (particularly in the big things) given the circumstances.
quote:I don't think it is based on that. Protestants might emphasise the Bible but others don't so much.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christianity is pretty much based on the idea that Jesus' teachings are more or less accurately portrayed in the gospels.
quote:Not really, given that the people doing the recall/recording had come to believe that the words of Jesus were the authoritative word of God. The "group factor" you rightly cite is undoubtedly at play, which argues against the sort of intense parsing of particular words or the mental gymnastics to "make everything fit" that inerrantists will do. But overall, again, the sorts of minor discrepancies we're seeing should not raise any red flags-- and neither should the relative consistency.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Interviewing eyewitness immediately after an event often reveals significant differences. Interviewing witnesses together often sees them adapt their stories to each other. Interviewing them after a significant time sees many change details from their initial statements, both major and minor.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are some discrepancies-- mostly minor, and precisely what you would expect from multiple witnesses trying to remember events years or decades later, and reconstructing them in literary documents with different agenda/purposes.
quote:And this would raise red flags in any normal circumstance.
The transmission is not perfect-- but it is relatively consistent (particularly in the big things) given the circumstances.
quote:It's not about whether Christians emphasize the Bible. The gospels are the initial source of Christian teaching. If they are not seen as having some validity there is no Christ and no Christianity.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I don't think it is based on that. Protestants might emphasise the Bible but others don't so much.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christianity is pretty much based on the idea that Jesus' teachings are more or less accurately portrayed in the gospels.
quote:You've got some confusion about the offer of eternal life--no doubt owing to the limits of English translation. This is not purely and simply one-day-after-another-ad-infinitum. First and foremost it refers to a quality of life--the kind of life that is hooked up to God, the source of real life, and that could be characterized as "life in the golden age" or "Messianic era" (depending on whether you like your references Greek or Hebrew). And this kind of life begins here and now, not waiting for death, for anyone who will receive it through Jesus. Really, the primary focus is NOT on endless days (though those exist, yes). It is on a wholly different kind of life than what we start out with, one characterized by freedom, strength, joy, and all that good stuff.
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's curious, the main (only?) reason we are encouraged to believe in the Christian story is in order to have eternal life—and yet there is next to nothing about it in the Bible. Jesus, it seems, invents the idea of Hell (or does he create Hell?) as the punishment and then offers Heaven as the reward, but doesn't tell us what it's like. I would have thought that was important, no? The gospel of John tells us it has many rooms. Well, so does the local travelodge—and I don't even want to spend a weekend there.
K.
quote:Fourth handed? Second-handed at best I would accept, but fourth-handed? What are the intervening steps?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you agree that, since any words of Jesus come to us fourth or more handed at best including multiple transcriptions and translations, it is difficult to say how implicit they are.
quote:How can that be when Christianity started before any gospels were written?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:It's not about whether Christians emphasize the Bible. The gospels are the initial source of Christian teaching. If they are not seen as having some validity there is no Christ and no Christianity.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I don't think it is based on that. Protestants might emphasise the Bible but others don't so much.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christianity is pretty much based on the idea that Jesus' teachings are more or less accurately portrayed in the gospels.
quote:Well, that's true, certainly. I'm sure it was quite a movement during the time when the gospel was communicated purely on a word-of-mouth basis.
Originally posted by leo:
How can that be when Christianity started before any gospels were written?
quote:This isn't the problem. The problem is the idea that a world without suffering - not one without natural wonders - would be somehow boring. If boredom is not reading about a randomly picked utterly pointless death or this pointless bit of cuntery or this piece for which I lack words then frankly I pray and long for boredom.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The 'waves 300 feet high' thing would not of course be survivable by us. (At least, not if you live by the shore.) But honestly -- you have read SF novels and viewed movies like Interstellar. There are no conditions on earth so harsh that life is not found -- the abyssal ocean depths, acidic water geysers in the Marianas Trench, deserts five feet under the surface, Antarctic dry gulches. I am absolutely certain God could create life in nearly any condition you could name. If Hollywood scriptwriters can imagine it, how should God drop the ball?
quote:Yes - the church chose 'scripture' not the other way round.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Well, that's true, certainly. I'm sure it was quite a movement during the time when the gospel was communicated purely on a word-of-mouth basis.
Originally posted by leo:
How can that be when Christianity started before any gospels were written?
Does it make a difference that it was as yet unwritten?
quote:Are you saying that the church chose 'scripture' that they did not believe was an accurate representation of what Jesus actually taught?
Originally posted by leo:
Yes - the church chose 'scripture' not the other way round.
quote:First handed would be hearing the words of Jesus directly for ourselves.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Fourth handed? Second-handed at best I would accept, but fourth-handed? What are the intervening steps?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you agree that, since any words of Jesus come to us fourth or more handed at best including multiple transcriptions and translations, it is difficult to say how implicit they are.
quote:The choice was on apostolic authorship, not on 'accuracy' - I don't think accuracy in writing was a 1st Century concern.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Are you saying that the church chose 'scripture' that they did not believe was an accurate representation of what Jesus actually taught?
Originally posted by leo:
Yes - the church chose 'scripture' not the other way round.
The point is that these people thought Jesus was the origin of these ideas, as have Christians ever since.
quote:Yes and no. I would agree that what we think of as "accuracy"-- getting each historical and scientific fact exactly right, getting the chronology in the correct order, that sort of thing-- not a priority at all in the first c. And that alone explains 99% of all the "contradictions". But I think there's good evidence that the early church was concerned re "getting Jesus right"-- getting the words/ message/ works of Jesus right.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:The choice was on apostolic authorship, not on 'accuracy' - I don't think accuracy in writing was a 1st Century concern.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Are you saying that the church chose 'scripture' that they did not believe was an accurate representation of what Jesus actually taught?
Originally posted by leo:
Yes - the church chose 'scripture' not the other way round.
The point is that these people thought Jesus was the origin of these ideas, as have Christians ever since.
quote:We've got some very very early manuscripts-- not original, but very early-- that match up rather well with later copies. Not perfectly (those "scribal gloss" footnotes) but really quite well. So I don't think there's any need to "unpin" the transmission of the original docs.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Third handed would be the Gospel authors interviewing those who were direct witnesses of the words of Jesus and then writing those words down. (e.g. Mary Magdalene tells a Gospel-writer what Jesus said to her at the tomb.) We're sort of moving into the realm of possibility with this one. There's always the question of whether the versions we have now are the same as the original autographs (the physical text hand-written by the authors), but we'll put a pin in that for now. The problem for most modern readers of the Gospel is that we can't read the text as written. We're mostly illiterate in the koine Greek used by the Gospel authors.
quote:I'm sure you are right about that.
Originally posted by leo:
The choice was on apostolic authorship, not on 'accuracy' - I don't think accuracy in writing was a 1st Century concern.
quote:My take as well.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Overall I'm agreeing with the points Crœsos and Leo are making, but feel they are exaggerating the impact of those points on the actual trustworthiness of the written record.
quote:I said that I think that the answer can be inferred from Jesus' words about freedom.
Originally posted by Komensky:
How this conversation often goes:
Q: Why is there so much suffering?
A: Because of The Fall (not the band)—God gave us free will…
Q: Will there be suffering in Heaven?
A: No, of course not!
Q: Will there be free will?
A: …uhhh
quote:My point was mostly about the chain-of-transmission (fourth hand+ vs. second hand account) rather than the implications for accuracy. A second hand account can be quite inaccurate and it's possible for a fourth hand account to be fairly accurate. However, being sure of the accuracy of an account does not transform a fourth (or more) hand account into a second hand account.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Every Bible translator has an army of critics breathing down their neck 2nd guessing every choice.
So again, if you're looking for word-for-word perfection, you're not going to get it-- because all translation of any document, much less an ancient one, is fluid and imperfect. But what we have is, I am convinced, a reasonably accurate reflection of what Jesus said & did.
Overall I'm agreeing with the points Crœsos and Leo are making, but feel they are exaggerating the impact of those points on the actual trustworthiness of the written record.
quote:Perhaps not. I'm not very hung-up on the 'accuracy' of the Gospels, and I'm more than willing to take into account that they are second, third or fourth hand reports, written in a society that didn't have the concept of journalistic accuracy.
Crœsos: Plus I'm not sure having "an army of critics" necessarily insures accuracy, particularly if many of those critics have a predetermined agenda and a preset notion of the 'right' answer.
quote:Unless SusanDoris was deliberately restricting her 'we' to people who have no koine Greek and don't intend to try I don't think the last step, from Greek to English really qualifies. There's a difference in kind there. That exact translation between languages is not possible is a valid point under some circumstances, but it's not the same sort of step as the others.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So what we have is a paraphrase of a paraphrase of words that passed through at least one intermediary between the speaker and the writer.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Fourth handed? Second-handed at best I would accept, but fourth-handed? What are the intervening steps?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you agree that, since any words of Jesus come to us fourth or more handed at best including multiple transcriptions and translations, it is difficult to say how implicit they are.
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I think there is good reason to trust that the overall message of the NT and particularly the gospels, is close to the overall message that Jesus preached & taught.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I suppose I should have left out the words 'at best', but I was thinking about the fact that the authorised version of the Bible was put together several hundred years later; ample time for changes to have taken place, especially bearing in mind the lack of literacy of the majority of the people during and after the lifetime of the man at the centre of things.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Unless SusanDoris was deliberately restrcting her 'we' to people who have no koine Greek and don't intend to try I don't think the last step, from Greek to English really qualifies. There's a difference in kind there.
quote:But in fact it wasn't "hundreds" of years, but closer to 100. Which is a significant difference. The date of common sources like Q would be even earlier. By the time we get to "100s" of years, we're already getting canons that include all the NT books, so obviously they were written far earlier. And, as I mentioned above, we've got some very very early fragments that get us very close to the original manuscripts-- not there, but very close-- as well as later docs. The fact that those very early fragments align very closely (not perfectly, but very close) to those later copies indicate that from very early on, there was a sense that what was being transmitted here was important enough to take great care in the transmission, as well as the fact that the 3 synoptics are all using Q in very very similar ways.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I suppose I should have left out the words 'at best', but I was thinking about the fact that the authorised version of the Bible was put together several hundred years later; ample time for changes to have taken place, especially bearing in mind the lack of literacy of the majority of the people during and after the lifetime of the man at the centre of things.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Unless SusanDoris was deliberately restrcting her 'we' to people who have no koine Greek and don't intend to try I don't think the last step, from Greek to English really qualifies. There's a difference in kind there.
quote:But the kerygma of people like Paul said very little about what Jesus taught. It wss all about what he did.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I'm sure you are right about that.
Originally posted by leo:
The choice was on apostolic authorship, not on 'accuracy' - I don't think accuracy in writing was a 1st Century concern.
My original point was that Jesus said things about freedom, which was challenged on the basis that we don't really know what Jesus said.
I think that Christianity has always believed that we do have some idea of what Jesus really taught.
quote:The accepted canon was I believe finally agreed in the fourth century. I wouldn't refer to three hundred as several hundred.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I suppose I should have left out the words 'at best', but I was thinking about the fact that the authorised version of the Bible was put together several hundred years later; ample time for changes to have taken place, especially bearing in mind the lack of literacy of the majority of the people during and after the lifetime of the man at the centre of things.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Now that is a very interesting comment.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:But the kerygma of people like Paul said very little about what Jesus taught. It wss all about what he did.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that Christianity has always believed that we do have some idea of what Jesus really taught.
quote:I have the same prayer. Mainly because it is a dead horse and not the subject of this thread.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Od Lord, can you please use the Force to prevent this thread from becoming about how oral accounts are really reliable and that the text of the Bible is, despite all the evidence, really accurate?
quote:Amen. Be advised that continuing this tangent will a thread move provoke, and you can take that as Gospel.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I have the same prayer. Mainly because it is a dead horse and not the subject of this thread.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Od Lord, can you please use the Force to prevent this thread from becoming about how oral accounts are really reliable and that the text of the Bible is, despite all the evidence, really accurate?
quote:And to the objection that if God loves us why do we suffer, my favorite answer, one that is commonly given, is that love wants the object of its love to be free.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love.
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
quote:If we don't know what Jesus taught, then how do we know whether it was taught by the rabbis?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
quote:(and a pretty neat summation of Open Theism! So of course I agree). To add a step to complete the package I would say I believe our experiences in this life leads us to learn that God's will really is the best way to live, so in the coming Kingdom we will freely and joyfully choose that.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Returning to the OP, my favorite answer to the question was that given by Brenda:
quote:And to the objection that if God loves us why do we suffer, my favorite answer, one that is commonly given, is that love wants the object of its love to be free.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love.
And to the follow-up question about whether people are still free in heaven, and if so why is there not suffering there, my favorite answer is that true freedom, as Jesus is reputed to have said, is doing God's will.
I guess that wraps it all up pretty neatly with a bow.
quote:Scroll down about half way
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:If we don't know what Jesus taught, then how do we know whether it was taught by the rabbis?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
And how do we know what the rabbis taught?
quote:Very interesting document.
Originally posted by leo:
[QBScroll down about half way [/QB]
quote:Not so much 'unreliable' as not intending to be word-for-word utterances. The gospels aren'rt biography - though oral tradition was very strong in later Judaism.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point of the question, though, was that you had suggested that we simply do not know what Jesus said because the sources are unreliable. So why do you have confidence in the sources for the arguably similarly unreliable sources of what the rabbis were teaching?
quote:Yes, thanks. That makes good sense.
Originally posted by leo:
Not so much 'unreliable' as not intending to be word-for-word utterances. The gospels aren'rt biography - though oral tradition was very strong in later Judaism.
quote:The Jesus of the Gospels taught plenty of things not to be found in any supposed rabbinical sources. Especially the stuff about Himself.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
quote:That is extremely badly written.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Scroll down about half way
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:If we don't know what Jesus taught, then how do we know whether it was taught by the rabbis?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
And how do we know what the rabbis taught?
quote:That's in the 4th Gospel - which is probably not ipsissima verba
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:The Jesus of the Gospels taught plenty of things not to be found in any supposed rabbinical sources. Especially the stuff about Himself.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
quote:Well if you did, you didnt communicate your thought about the content.
Originally posted by Martin60:
We did. It's extremely badly written.
quote:And what are your criteria for judging whether Jesus actually said what's attributed to him (other than, apparently, it'd already been said by the rabbis)?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:That's in the 4th Gospel - which is probably not ipsissima verba
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:The Jesus of the Gospels taught plenty of things not to be found in any supposed rabbinical sources. Especially the stuff about Himself.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
quote:Scholarship,style of Greek, dating. (Unless it is like the Qur'an where the Perophet makes longer speeches in Medina, shorter ones in Maccah.)
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:And what are your criteria for judging whether Jesus actually said what's attributed to him (other than, apparently, it'd already been said by the rabbis)?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:That's in the 4th Gospel - which is probably not ipsissima verba
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:The Jesus of the Gospels taught plenty of things not to be found in any supposed rabbinical sources. Especially the stuff about Himself.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Not sure what you are getting at
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?
Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.
And it's not just in John's Gospel either.
quote:Er ... it's EXTREMELY badly written. There is no valid 'content'. Do the WORK leo. I just took possession of Hubbard's Grasses. He did the WORK.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Well if you did, you didnt communicate your thought about the content.
Originally posted by Martin60:
We did. It's extremely badly written.
quote:As you must be aware, this issue is an extremely complex, technical and highly contentious area. Please be more specific.
Originally posted by leo:
Scholarship,style of Greek, dating.
quote:By any reasonable standard of "very little", that's just not true.
Originally posted by leo:
And very little in the synoptics.
quote:Because the rabbis didn't 'claim' to be messiah
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And why do you think that so very many of the Jews of His time rejected his claims if he was just spouting the same stuff they'd already heard from other rabbis?
quote:I have a whole blog devoted to it - the ourworking of 3 years discussions in the Council of Christians and Jews.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if you'll forgive me, that's another assertion without an argument.
quote:But Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics - messianic secret and all that.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is rather my point, leo.
quote:Never heard of him/it and google doesn't help.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anti-Semitic Jews. Is that like Judischen Judenhasser?
quote:It's German that literally means "Jewish Jew hater."
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Never heard of him/it and google doesn't help.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anti-Semitic Jews. Is that like Judischen Judenhasser?
quote:No that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:But Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics - messianic secret and all that.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is rather my point, leo.
quote:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)
quote:I'm sorry, but in general people tend to argue for their points here on the boards, not by proxy by waving vaguely in the direction of their blogs. That seems a fairly reasonable standard of discourse for a discussion board to me.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have a whole blog devoted to it - the ourworking of 3 years discussions in the Council of Christians and Jews.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if you'll forgive me, that's another assertion without an argument.
quote:I'm sorry?!
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Never heard of him/it and google doesn't help.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anti-Semitic Jews. Is that like Judischen Judenhasser?
Not sure that you've understood.
quote:The only place in mark where this happens - the climax at the end of the continuiing 'messianic secret.'
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:No that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:But Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics - messianic secret and all that.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is rather my point, leo.quote:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)
quote:But not in detail in a thread about 'Why did God create the universe, and us?'
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:I'm sorry, but in general people tend to argue for their points here on the boards, not by proxy by waving vaguely in the direction of their blogs. That seems a fairly reasonable standard of discourse for a discussion board to me.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have a whole blog devoted to it - the ourworking of 3 years discussions in the Council of Christians and Jews.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if you'll forgive me, that's another assertion without an argument.
quote:Ha! This "climax" is the disproof of the theory. I think this just shows what utter bunkum the "messianic secret" theory is. Is there any scholar out there who has held to it for the last 60 years anyway?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:The only place in mark where this happens - the climax at the end of the continuiing 'messianic secret.'
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No[t] that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:quote:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)
quote:Indeed: while it is not surprising that the insights and moral teaching of Jesus will echo things that had been revealed to earlier prophets and teachers, if that was ALL Jesus said-- just repeating what other rabbis had already said-- it's hard to imagine why anyone wanted him dead.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I repeat, there are plenty other teachings, sayings and claims made by Jesus - even in the synoptics - both about Himself and His mission which are nowhere to be found in the rabbinical material you have cited.
quote:pretty much all of them.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Ha! This "climax" is the disproof of the theory. I think this just shows what utter bunkum the "messianic secret" theory is. Is there any scholar out there who has held to it for the last 60 years anyway?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:The only place in mark where this happens - the climax at the end of the continuiing 'messianic secret.'
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No[t] that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:quote:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)
quote:Really? Truly?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:pretty much all of them.
Is there any scholar out there who has held to it for the last 60 years anyway?
quote:From the second:
Wrede's [Messianic Secret] theory enjoyed its highest level of acceptance in the 1920s, and support for it began to decline thereafter as criticisms of the theory were provided based on multiple new arguments.
[...]
By the mid-1970s the Messianic Secret theory no longer existed as Wrede had proposed it.
[...]
G. E. Ladd , a former Baptist professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, stated that: "The 'Messanic Secret' is a clever theory, but utterly lacking in evidence".
quote:One more for fun:
Wrede's theory is not acceptable as it stands.
quote:
The major Christological contention of Wrede cannot be upheld. Even if the commands to silence after the miracles of healing are invented subsequently, the fact of these miracles (unless they too are invented) must constitute a messianic claim [...] the whole tone of Jesus' proclamation, from its first opening with 'The kingship of God has come near' (1.14-15), is messianic. A much larger demolition-job needs to be done on the historicity of Mark if all public messianic indications are to be removed from the lifetime of Jesus. The miraculous feedings are a sign that Jesus is a second Moses, and so a messianic figure. Peter's messianic confession cannot have been invented subsequently because of its slur on the chief apostle. The messianic entry into Jerusalem may have been built up, but the deliberate entry on a donkey must have been intended by Jesus messianically. Finally the cleansing of the Temple must have messianic overtones, as the reaction to it by the Jewish authorities shows, both in their demand for Jesus' authority and in the accusation at the trial.
It is further impossible to explain Jesus' own claims unless they include messianic overtones. In particular his assembly of his own little community of the Twelve, his own qahal (= community, 3.13-14), parallel to Israel, implies that he is the representative of the Lord who originally gathered Israel to be his own special people. The same (delegated?) divine authority is implied by the claim to forgive sin (2.10) and to be Lord of the Sabbath (2.28). Particularly related to the end-time expectation of the messiah is the claim to be the bridegroom (2.19).
quote:It is a tangent you raised, leo.
Originally posted by leo:
Thank you for engaging with this (tangent) but you are looking too much to Wrede. Modern scholars like J. D. Dunn also posit it. As does Norman Perrin.
quote:Do you have an answer to any of that?
1) Even if the commands to silence after the miracles of healing are invented subsequently, the fact of these miracles (unless they too are invented) must constitute a messianic claim[.]
2) the whole tone of Jesus' proclamation, from its first opening with 'The kingship of God has come near' (1.14-15), is messianic.
A much larger demolition-job needs to be done on the historicity of Mark if all public messianic indications are to be removed from the lifetime of Jesus.
3) The miraculous feedings are a sign that Jesus is a second Moses, and so a messianic figure. Peter's messianic confession cannot have been invented subsequently because of its slur on the chief apostle.
4) The messianic entry into Jerusalem may have been built up, but the deliberate entry on a donkey must have been intended by Jesus messianically.
5) the cleansing of the Temple must have messianic overtones, as the reaction to it by the Jewish authorities shows, both in their demand for Jesus' authority and in the accusation at the trial.
It is further impossible to explain Jesus' own claims unless they include messianic overtones.
6) In particular his assembly of his own little community of the Twelve, his own qahal (= community, 3.13-14), parallel to Israel, implies that he is the representative of the Lord who originally gathered Israel to be his own special people.
7) The same [...] divine authority is implied by the claim to forgive sin (2.10) and to be Lord of the Sabbath (2.28).
8) Particularly related to the end-time expectation of the messiah is the claim to be the bridegroom (2.19).
quote:Come off it, leo - I didn't engage with you here only to be fobbed off with unadorned reading assignments. That's really not good sport.
Originally posted by leo:
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this because I take it for geranted.
For more up to date scholars, you might consider:
R T France
Kingsbury, J. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, chapter 1. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983.
Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to St Mark, pg. 66 - 69, A & C Publishers, London, 1991.
Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991)
Joseph Fitzmyer
Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)
quote:and more narrowly
there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis
quote:So far as I can see, you have completely failed to evidence either of these sweeping claims. No-one is denying that in Mark Jesus is often at pains to keep the news of His miracles and identity under close control, but his messiahship is practically blared out of speakers throughout the synoptics (let alone John). The idea that Jesus had no messianic message during His pre-resurrection ministry and that Mark had to make some stuff up out of whole cloth to cover up that absence to the early Church (who clearly believed Him to have been the Messiah) is, IMNSHO, bunkum.
Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics[.]
quote:In case you don't recognise it, it's one of the works you suggested in your reading list above, and the citation is: Morna Hooker, The Gospel According to St Mark, A & C Publishers (London, 1991), p. 66, accessed here.
To describe the whole ministry of Jesus as 'unmessianic' is to ignore totally the plain evidence of the gospels in favour of a comlplex theory as to how that evidence came to be arranged. If there is any agreement among New Testament scholars today, it is in believing that Jesus acted with authority and believed himself to have been commissioned by God: it is difficult not to use the term 'messianic' to dsecribe such authority. And were the Church - or the evangelist - to have imposed a messianic interpretation on to totally unmessianic material, one would hardly have expected the messianic secret to have emerged: rather, one would have expected much clearer statements of Jesus' messiahship.
[...]
If we ask how Mark makes use of the secret, then it is important to notice that it functions in precisely the opposite way to what one expects: it serves a a means of revelation to the hearers/readers of the gospel.
yeah but, no but ...
