Jump to content

hoghead

Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think that persons should educate themselves on the arguments for God presented by the major philosophes and theologians, the counter-arguments, and the counter-rebuttals. In theological debates over the existence of God, it is totally bogus to try and argue, "Look, fella, you have to believe. It says so in the Bible." No doubt, the other guy has also read Scripture and simply disagrees with it. It is also bogus to argue that you have simply been moved by the Spirit. Every religious kook and fanatic in the book claims that he or she is being moved by the Spirit. Why should you be any different? You need far bigger guns.
  2. I hear you. Don't be afraid to ask for or accept financial help. You probably need it. It's very hard to ask others for help. That was something I had to overcome when I went through a big financial crisis a couple of years ago. Also, have you exhausted all other agencies that may support you? Are you on Food Stamps, etc.? If neighbors are doing mean thing to you, have you contacted the appropriate authorities. the police, etc.?
  3. I agree, Seeker. Hardly anyone comes to Scripture, with a blank mind. Everyone views Scripture through a lens. Often, that is forgotten about. So it is all too easy for someone the try and win an argument by saying, "Scripture says such-and-such" and leave it go at that. Thing is, one may well be presenting one's interpretation of Scripture, which may or may not be solid or agreed upon between the two parties. So you need to be very clear about your interpretative framework. If, for example, you are viewing Scripture through the lens of fundamentalaistic Christianity, then Scripture is inerrant and Moses wrote the Pentateuch. If, however, you are reviewing Scripture through the lens of modern biblical studies, then it is a different story.
  4. At first glance, drawing a hard line between the Christian definition of God and Hellenic philosophy seems the right and logical thing to do. Most laity are apt to do just that. However, historically and philosophically, matters are not at all that simple. Let me try and explain as simply as I can. The Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us little about how God is built, for example. So, as the early church reached into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, the fathers began incorporating Hellenic metaphysics into theology, into their definition of God as he is in his own nature. They were heavily influenced by Hellenic schools of thought, such as provided by Parmenides, Zeno, Plato, which depreciated and de-valuated the world of time and change and relativity as a major illusion. Hence, the early church baptized as Christian Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. God, then, in the writings of the fathers, as well as the ensuing creeds and confessions, was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, wholly independent of creation, wholly immaterial, wholly simple, the epitome of the immutable and the immune. The fathers were well aware that this model of God seriously conflicts with the highly anthropomorphic imagery of God in the Bible, which describes God as having strong emotion and also subject to change, as we find in about 100 passages. However, these key biblical passages were written off as mere figures of speech which had nothing to do with actual nature of God. As Calvin once put it, these were simply God talking "baby talk" to us. Hence, in his sermons on God's wrath, Calvin was careful to warn the congregation that his sermons in no way meant that God was truly angry or subject to any other emotion. Centuries earlier, St. Anselm argued that God, in his own nature, is wholly without compassion, as God is passionless, without any emotion, to start with, and also incapable of experiencing any form of suffering. In recent years, especially since WWII, theologians have seriously questioned this classical model, on biblical and metaphysical grounds.
  5. The "circle of teh earth," In Isaiah, is referring to the sky, to the fact the sky looks like a dome covering the earth. God is depicted as sitting at the top, because that assures God can see everything happening on earth. The earth per se here, as in other biblical passages, is seen as flat; otherwise, God could not see everything happening,.
  6. I believe God is a loving God; and when you love others, you do not seek to coerce them with threats. So I think God saves everyone. Indeed, that is how God serves as the ground for the meaning of life. All too often, we are confronted with our seeming meaninglessness. What meaning, what purpose does our life have if it is all going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? The past fades. That is the evil of evil. But it is very different if God enters the picture. God, I believe, enjoys a direct, empathic experience with any and al creaturely feelings. Hence, all our experiences are felt by God and preserved in God's eternal memory, where they are enjoyed forever. Hence, our lives have eternal significance. Since you cannot separate the experience from the experiencing ego, we also live on in God. Just how is hard to say. I posit that once we are free of teh struggle for survival here, we can lower our defenses and boundaries. it is no longer us against them. As such, we are freer to enter into an empathic encounter with others, share in their feelings. This isn't cheap grace or an easy way out. Once we move into this greater harmony with others, we will l experience the pain and suffering we have perhaps inflicted on them and vice versa. And that's a pretty tough experience to go through. So, while I don't believe in Hell and damnation, I don't believe Heaven is exactly a piece of cake either. Too often, the "saved" have been identified as those who subscribe to certain doctrines. Faith has collapsed into intellectual ascent to dogma. It is more important to God what you believe than how you live. However, I think God is far more interested in how you live than in your religious beliefs. I sometimes think of God as analogous to a physician. Now a truly great physician does not refuse to serve or save patients, based on what he considers appropriate religious beliefs. Who would even begin to trust a doctor who said he would try and save only Methodists or Catholics or Buddhists, everyone else out of the ER?
×
×
  • Create New...