No. I said that believing in Jesus as a human being living in Roman-occupied Judea in the 1st century and believing Jesus was the Christ are two different things.
I think I provided a more accurate paraphrase of what you said than that. What you said is: "I'll put it this way: I think Jesus was a real guy. I think he did good things and was a good guy. I also think that the way he said people ought to live their lives is good. This does not make me a Christian, however, because I do not believe that Jesus is in any way related to a God."
And then you said this, responding to who defined it that way:
Quote:
Um, me?
That's really the problem. You're not a Christian, and yet you're telling one of the country's most senior Christians (Spong) that he's not a Christian. And your definition arguably contradicts the founder of the movement himself.
I just don't think you can reasonably do that, because in the end, Christians decide what they are. And if they're doing it in an honest fashion that can be justified with reason or history or other means, as I believe Spong does, I don't think you can draw the line and say "no you can't do that."
I think part of it stems from your view of religion. If you basically reject it completely, then I think you may be more likely to view it as inflexible, and to feel that it ought to just recede into history as a silly superstition. I think that may be groverat's view. But if you believe that it has the potential to be a positive institution, then you may support Spong-like reformations. It's interesting, because in that sense, the literalists and the religion-rejectors have this in common: Neither want to see it move away from its superstitions.
That's really the problem. You're not a Christian, and yet you're telling one of the country's most senior Christians (Spong) that he's not a Christian. And your definition arguably contradicts the founder of the movement himself.
What does my being a Christian or not have anything to do with this? At issue here is whether or not it is possible to adhere to a theism without adhering to a theism.
Quote:
I just don't think you can reasonably do that, because in the end, Christians decide what they are. And if they're doing it in an honest fashion that can be justified with reason or history or other means, as I believe Spong does, I don't think you can draw the line and say "no you can't do that."
Sure. And I agree with you that the nature of Christianity shifts, sometimes violently, over time and that Christians' beliefs about doctrine, theology, and the nature of the Christ change over time. But we're not talking about something like a movement away from a belief in general resurrection leading to Christians allowing their bodies to be cremated. Despite its various movements, the greatest of which was probably in the c18 during the Enlightenment, at the heart of it all was a belief in the theism. Christianity has a long history, and at every turn in it there is a God to whom the individual is subject. To remove that feature of it undoes the whole shebang. We're also arguing about the "nature" of a religion that is both internal (i.e. Jesus's internalization of Mosaic Law in the beatitudes), evangelical, and, more importantly, revelatory. All revelatory religions run into these questions of definition sooner or later, which is how they wind up hopelessly fragmented (like the protestant wing of Christianity) or so watered down that they don't mean anything, in the end, like some Unitarian churches I've attended. The first is the problem of all religions that allow individuals to interpret the text for themselves. The second is an example of why any theism worth its salt is going to say "this/these God/Gods, not those."
Quote:
I think part of it stems from your view of religion.
My view of religion is pretty healthy, as is my view of Christianity. I read my Bible. I read my Elaine Pagels. I go to church when I'm home for the holidays. I watch my Brigham Young University sunday school classes on public television and keep my Book of Mormon out. I read the Gita. I read the Koran. I'm planning on going down to the local Buddhist monastery soon to talk with a monk about some questions I have.
Quote:
If you basically reject it completely, then I think you may be more likely to view it as inflexible, and to feel that it ought to just recede into history as a silly superstition. I think that may be groverat's view.
While I am an atheist, this does not mean that I think religion is stupid or that religious people are stupid for believing what they do. Nor do I think it is useless. Far from it.
Quote:
But if you believe that it has the potential to be a positive institution, then you may support Spong-like reformations.
I personally think that Spong's reformations, which amount to a kind of secularizing of the institution, are every bit as dangerous as the evangelicals' attempts to empiricize Christianity by approaching it as science.
Quote:
It's interesting, because in that sense, the literalists and the religion-rejectors have this in common: Neither want to see it move away from its superstitions.
Perhaps. I only have Christianity's best interests in mind here.
What does my being a Christian or not have anything to do with this?
I'm sorry if it sounded petty, but I think it is relevant because I don't think that Christianity can be objectively defined by an outsider. It's people like Spong and Luther and Constantine and Paul - Christians - who define it, for better or worse.
But here's what I don't get. You believe there is no God, and yet you think it's dangerous for others to not believe in God. You're essentially saying that you prefer them being wrong. That's why it seems to me that you'd rather just see it stay as a "silly superstition," or an opiate of the masses. Isn't that kind of immoral? How can you really say that you have their best interests in mind when, in effect, you want them to remain wrong?
But here's what I don't get. You believe there is no God, and yet you think it's dangerous for others to not believe in God. You're essentially saying that you prefer them being wrong.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say it is dangerous for other people to disbelieve in God. I said it was dangerous for Christianity to move away from the conception of God that has been at its heart since before Christianity existed.
Quote:
That's why it seems to me that you'd rather just see it stay as a "silly superstition," or an opiate of the masses.
I think you're misreading my intentions as somehow de facto confrontational or judgmental about Christianity or belief in any religion, really. I think that you cannot remove the Judeo-Christian tradition of a God figure from Christianity and have it remain a) Christianity and b) a religion. To do that reduces religion to science, and once that happens, the game's over. I don't want to see Christianity become science because that will be the end of Christianity. A religion like Christianity requires a mystical element.
Quote:
Isn't that kind of immoral? How can you really say that you have their best interests in mind when, in effect, you want them to remain wrong?
No. It's no more immoral than when I suggest to someone with whom I disagree politically that it may not be in his best interests to saw his own leg off for fun. You keep responding as if I'm somehow inherently being judgmental about Christians and believers, I assume, simply because I'm an atheist and say so without shame. I simply don't/can't believe what they do. I'm not running around telling them they're stupid for believing or having faith.
And it's not that I want them to remain "wrong." I don't want them to destroy their own religion.
You used the analogy of stopping someone from sawing off their leg - but you agree that sawing off your leg is wrong. A better analogy is if your friend was about to saw off his leg, and you said "that's what he believes is right." Furthermore, Spong is saying "no don't saw off your leg" and yet you're saying "don't listen to Spong, just keep sawing!"
I know you're not being judgmental, I didn't intend to suggest that. I understand that you're just saying that religion ought to stay religion.
But, going off another point you made about the mystical, perhaps a different way of phrasing this question would be "Can you retain that mystical, spiritual element without believing false things?" I think you can. In fact, I'd say that the theistic notion of God as a man in the sky is much less spiritual than other views of God, like Spong's. The theistic view is quite concrete and less mystical in comparison.
I think to put our disagreement over this simply, you're suggesting that a concrete, interventionist, "theistic" view of God is essential to Christianity, and I think a less concrete, more mystical, less interventionist view is possible.
I have a feeling we've lost any Christians here, but it would be interesting to find out how most Christians view God.
1. Something like Q from Star Trek: Next Generation. A being with unlimited power who lives somewhere out there.
2. Something more like The Force from Star Wars. Not really a being, but more like, well "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." This is kind of Spong's view.
3. The Prime Mover, like Jefferson and other deists believe(d). Made a Big Bang and then took off.
I would have thought that it is possible to be an athiest, but still be a Christian.
It is possible to believe God does not exist, but still adhere to the teachings of Jesus (as defined by Segovius), but then it depends on whether Seg's Jesus would have defined himelf as a Christian.
It would also be possible to not believe in God, but still adhere to Jesus's teachings if you define Jesus as an astrotheological figurehead, but that would depend on whether you were prepared to view Jesus as a Christian.
So I need to ask, do we interpret being a Christian as it is defined by the products of the Church, or is being a Christian an adherance to the works attributed to Jesus, be him human teacher or mythological?
1) That 'God' is the term used to describe a force that infuses everything. That is to say the idea that the sum total of all that exists or can exist is 'God'. This is the 'mystic' idea you refer to, sort of the unity of everything. Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all the same thing.
2) That the universe is full of 'things' and God is one of these things. They are all separate: Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all separate things.
Yeah I think that's right. It's basically the "theism" question, of whether God is a being or not. But putting MarcUK and Bush all in the same pot might ruin the meal.
Another distinction that I think is important is whether you believe that God is even comprehensible at all. I read an analogy once about God being like trying to explain the human view of the universe to a dog. There's just a lot there that a dog does not have the cognitive capability to understand - that there are planets orbiting the sun, etc. Those things exist, but a dog will not ever be able to understand them like we do.
I think it would be a conceit to believe that humans are capable of understanding everything. I mean everything. I get the feeling that physics has been bumping into this problem a lot. Maybe I'm wrong, and we can, because we can build tools like telescopes and particle accelerators. But I wonder.
And perhaps what makes us different from dogs is that we can know that there may be things out there that we cannot comprehend. I suppose that's really the definition of religion: the awareness that there's stuff you don't understand.
The problem comes when people then insert stuff in there to make it understandable, when they're not willing to live with that lack of comprehension. I think that's really the debate between Spong (et al.) and the literalists. Spong says it's something mysterious that we don't understand and all those stories are just false attempts at understanding, and the fundies say no we do understand.
I'm not a Christian (though I have been having disturbing leanings in that direction lately) but it seems to me that there are two (in a very broad sense) views of God at issue here:
1) That 'God' is the term used to describe a force that infuses everything. That is to say the idea that the sum total of all that exists or can exist is 'God'. This is the 'mystic' idea you refer to, sort of the unity of everything. Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all the same thing.
2) That the universe is full of 'things' and God is one of these things. They are all separate: Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all separate things.
These seem the fundamental issues - sure, we can refine them (old man on cloud, Allah, Jehovah, Ahura Mazda) but on the basic level, this is what we choose from: 1 or 2.
View 2 is the traditional view of Christianity and it presents serious problems on all levels. It allows the possibility of division - ie that God is opposed by certain things -well if HE is the omnipotent first cause how did HE become embroiled in such a situation ? And is it 'real' - ie can the Devil win ? If not then it is not a real opposition but a fake set-up. Again problems.
Personally I would subscribe to view 1 and would argue that Jesus did also and judge Christianity by that. If we become fixated on terms then I guess what the Church says IS Christianity so I would content myself with the fact that Jesus wasn't a Christian.
We knew that I guess. It has a kind of nice iconoclastic ring to it though.
I think that view 1 presents more and more serious problems than view 2. If God is the sum of the parts of the universe and the universe proves to have a beginning, then the question arises what caused the beginning?
In Islam, that's the basis of my religious thinking, God is indeed not a person in the form of a human, but an entity that fills the whole universe and beyond and one that is present between every atom and "inch" of the universe and yet is an independent entity that is not generated by the universe, and that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist when the universe is gone...
In that idea, nothing can exist and live or continue to live without the will and work of God, including the evil and good people, jinns, animals, insects, angels and including the devil. There is nothing that can exist without his will and work to enlive it and to keep it alive, so nothing in this universe can be an opponent of God.
As to the notion of Jesus not being a christian, that's only consequential according to Islam. Jesus was created by God to be a wonder to humanity, to be the fleshy version of God's word, a prophet and messenger to jews and gentiles alike. He served God in the best manner and was devouted (the english word for islamic) to Him and certainly didn't see himself or asked people to see him as the son of god or even as the human version of God himself, which the catholic church claimed and established in christianity.
It's strange that you see view 1 as problematic and then claim Islam as the basis of your thought because view 1 is the Islamic view. You admit this yourself in the second paragraph where you describe the view exactly just in sightly differing terms.
Of course there are many hadith, Qur'anic statements and quotes from the Sufis to back this up should it be necessary.
I totally agree with the second bit about Jesus. Obviously this is the Islamic view also and one that I share.
Maybe I misinterpreted your view 1, but for me it reads like you meant that God is the sum of the parts that make up the universe and not independent from that universe, which is a completely unislamic view.
The islamic view is somehow a mixture of view 1 and 2: God is indeed everywhere in the universe at the same time, and more so even in every time-phase at once, so that He is able to see what in our human terms is way in the future or way in the past practically "live".
But and that is the important aspect, God is according to Islam an independent and souvereign entity and even if the whole universe would stop to exist according to his will, He would continue to exist unchanged.
Besides, hadith are not a fitting source of wisedom to discuss these religious themes, as they are very unreliable and represent more the human and timebound interpretation of the quranic message. The Quran itself is much better in that regard. The Sufis are not an islamic movement, they have existed before the Quran was revealed and are more like mystics and buddhists that soak up religious wisedom wherever it comes up and be it in the Quran.
I think everything was created 5 minutes ago, and my memories and the whole universe was 'dated' to convince me I've been here for a while.
Prove me wrong!
What's that old aphorism about Johnson and subjectivism? Someone says something like what you just did and Johnson kicks a rock, saying "I refute it, thus!"
Sigh - this is so beneath my abilities, life really shouldn't be like this, it's just too easy:
If such a device were employed to 'convince you you'd been here for a while' then by definition you would never suspect.
It would take a superior intelligence to successfully pull-off such a feat and (again, by definition) that means they could not be a superior intelligence if they were less intelligent than you - especially as you seem to display a propensity to go running round rambling on about it on the internet.
Such an intelligence would, at the very least, prevent your access to a functioning computer or make it so you were a PC head or something.
This is in no way my point of view, and I browse these forums often and I find you guys to be very helpful. I just thought you might be interested in what this site thinks of you. And please do not think all Baptists view Mac lovers this way.
They link to an add that had the original Apple computer sell for $666.66 folks. Did they really need that extra two-thirds of a dollar to avoid proving it was the Computer of the Beast®?
This is in no way my point of view, and I browse these forums often and I find you guys to be very helpful. I just thought you might be interested in what this site thinks of you. And please do not think all Baptists view Mac lovers this way.
Are you using FireFox? Opera? I think it works with IE, but there are problems using this with FireFox sometimes, though it works for me. I do not know about Opera.
The gist of the site is that Mac = the devil's computer company because it was founded by hippies (evil) and you guys are a cult like following and other such information that would take quite an imagination to find. I could not help but think of AppleInsider when reading this.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
No. I said that believing in Jesus as a human being living in Roman-occupied Judea in the 1st century and believing Jesus was the Christ are two different things.
I think I provided a more accurate paraphrase of what you said than that. What you said is: "I'll put it this way: I think Jesus was a real guy. I think he did good things and was a good guy. I also think that the way he said people ought to live their lives is good. This does not make me a Christian, however, because I do not believe that Jesus is in any way related to a God."
And then you said this, responding to who defined it that way:
Um, me?
That's really the problem. You're not a Christian, and yet you're telling one of the country's most senior Christians (Spong) that he's not a Christian. And your definition arguably contradicts the founder of the movement himself.
I just don't think you can reasonably do that, because in the end, Christians decide what they are. And if they're doing it in an honest fashion that can be justified with reason or history or other means, as I believe Spong does, I don't think you can draw the line and say "no you can't do that."
I think part of it stems from your view of religion. If you basically reject it completely, then I think you may be more likely to view it as inflexible, and to feel that it ought to just recede into history as a silly superstition. I think that may be groverat's view.
Originally posted by BRussell
That's really the problem. You're not a Christian, and yet you're telling one of the country's most senior Christians (Spong) that he's not a Christian. And your definition arguably contradicts the founder of the movement himself.
What does my being a Christian or not have anything to do with this? At issue here is whether or not it is possible to adhere to a theism without adhering to a theism.
I just don't think you can reasonably do that, because in the end, Christians decide what they are. And if they're doing it in an honest fashion that can be justified with reason or history or other means, as I believe Spong does, I don't think you can draw the line and say "no you can't do that."
Sure. And I agree with you that the nature of Christianity shifts, sometimes violently, over time and that Christians' beliefs about doctrine, theology, and the nature of the Christ change over time. But we're not talking about something like a movement away from a belief in general resurrection leading to Christians allowing their bodies to be cremated. Despite its various movements, the greatest of which was probably in the c18 during the Enlightenment, at the heart of it all was a belief in the theism. Christianity has a long history, and at every turn in it there is a God to whom the individual is subject. To remove that feature of it undoes the whole shebang. We're also arguing about the "nature" of a religion that is both internal (i.e. Jesus's internalization of Mosaic Law in the beatitudes), evangelical, and, more importantly, revelatory. All revelatory religions run into these questions of definition sooner or later, which is how they wind up hopelessly fragmented (like the protestant wing of Christianity) or so watered down that they don't mean anything, in the end, like some Unitarian churches I've attended. The first is the problem of all religions that allow individuals to interpret the text for themselves. The second is an example of why any theism worth its salt is going to say "this/these God/Gods, not those."
I think part of it stems from your view of religion.
My view of religion is pretty healthy, as is my view of Christianity. I read my Bible. I read my Elaine Pagels. I go to church when I'm home for the holidays. I watch my Brigham Young University sunday school classes on public television and keep my Book of Mormon out. I read the Gita. I read the Koran. I'm planning on going down to the local Buddhist monastery soon to talk with a monk about some questions I have.
If you basically reject it completely, then I think you may be more likely to view it as inflexible, and to feel that it ought to just recede into history as a silly superstition. I think that may be groverat's view.
While I am an atheist, this does not mean that I think religion is stupid or that religious people are stupid for believing what they do. Nor do I think it is useless. Far from it.
But if you believe that it has the potential to be a positive institution, then you may support Spong-like reformations.
I personally think that Spong's reformations, which amount to a kind of secularizing of the institution, are every bit as dangerous as the evangelicals' attempts to empiricize Christianity by approaching it as science.
It's interesting, because in that sense, the literalists and the religion-rejectors have this in common: Neither want to see it move away from its superstitions.
Perhaps. I only have Christianity's best interests in mind here.
What does my being a Christian or not have anything to do with this?
I'm sorry if it sounded petty, but I think it is relevant because I don't think that Christianity can be objectively defined by an outsider. It's people like Spong and Luther and Constantine and Paul - Christians - who define it, for better or worse.
But here's what I don't get. You believe there is no God, and yet you think it's dangerous for others to not believe in God. You're essentially saying that you prefer them being wrong. That's why it seems to me that you'd rather just see it stay as a "silly superstition," or an opiate of the masses. Isn't that kind of immoral? How can you really say that you have their best interests in mind when, in effect, you want them to remain wrong?
Originally posted by BRussell
But here's what I don't get. You believe there is no God, and yet you think it's dangerous for others to not believe in God. You're essentially saying that you prefer them being wrong.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say it is dangerous for other people to disbelieve in God. I said it was dangerous for Christianity to move away from the conception of God that has been at its heart since before Christianity existed.
That's why it seems to me that you'd rather just see it stay as a "silly superstition," or an opiate of the masses.
I think you're misreading my intentions as somehow de facto confrontational or judgmental about Christianity or belief in any religion, really. I think that you cannot remove the Judeo-Christian tradition of a God figure from Christianity and have it remain a) Christianity and b) a religion. To do that reduces religion to science, and once that happens, the game's over. I don't want to see Christianity become science because that will be the end of Christianity. A religion like Christianity requires a mystical element.
Isn't that kind of immoral? How can you really say that you have their best interests in mind when, in effect, you want them to remain wrong?
No. It's no more immoral than when I suggest to someone with whom I disagree politically that it may not be in his best interests to saw his own leg off for fun. You keep responding as if I'm somehow inherently being judgmental about Christians and believers, I assume, simply because I'm an atheist and say so without shame. I simply don't/can't believe what they do. I'm not running around telling them they're stupid for believing or having faith.
And it's not that I want them to remain "wrong." I don't want them to destroy their own religion.
Cheers
You used the analogy of stopping someone from sawing off their leg - but you agree that sawing off your leg is wrong. A better analogy is if your friend was about to saw off his leg, and you said "that's what he believes is right." Furthermore, Spong is saying "no don't saw off your leg" and yet you're saying "don't listen to Spong, just keep sawing!"
I know you're not being judgmental, I didn't intend to suggest that. I understand that you're just saying that religion ought to stay religion.
But, going off another point you made about the mystical, perhaps a different way of phrasing this question would be "Can you retain that mystical, spiritual element without believing false things?" I think you can. In fact, I'd say that the theistic notion of God as a man in the sky is much less spiritual than other views of God, like Spong's. The theistic view is quite concrete and less mystical in comparison.
I think to put our disagreement over this simply, you're suggesting that a concrete, interventionist, "theistic" view of God is essential to Christianity, and I think a less concrete, more mystical, less interventionist view is possible.
I have a feeling we've lost any Christians here, but it would be interesting to find out how most Christians view God.
1. Something like Q from Star Trek: Next Generation. A being with unlimited power who lives somewhere out there.
2. Something more like The Force from Star Wars. Not really a being, but more like, well "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." This is kind of Spong's view.
3. The Prime Mover, like Jefferson and other deists believe(d). Made a Big Bang and then took off.
4. Others?
I would have thought that it is possible to be an athiest, but still be a Christian.
It is possible to believe God does not exist, but still adhere to the teachings of Jesus (as defined by Segovius), but then it depends on whether Seg's Jesus would have defined himelf as a Christian.
It would also be possible to not believe in God, but still adhere to Jesus's teachings if you define Jesus as an astrotheological figurehead, but that would depend on whether you were prepared to view Jesus as a Christian.
So I need to ask, do we interpret being a Christian as it is defined by the products of the Church, or is being a Christian an adherance to the works attributed to Jesus, be him human teacher or mythological?
Originally posted by segovius
That's the $64M question - just you don't get money if you win but a pitchfork up the harris for eternity if you lose....
if you put it in those terms, why not be a full on fundie then? pascals wager anyone?
[edit] oh yeah, Blunkett. LMFAO. "Dont let the door smack your ass on the way out".
Originally posted by segovius
1) That 'God' is the term used to describe a force that infuses everything. That is to say the idea that the sum total of all that exists or can exist is 'God'. This is the 'mystic' idea you refer to, sort of the unity of everything. Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all the same thing.
2) That the universe is full of 'things' and God is one of these things. They are all separate: Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all separate things.
Yeah I think that's right. It's basically the "theism" question, of whether God is a being or not. But putting MarcUK and Bush all in the same pot might ruin the meal.
Another distinction that I think is important is whether you believe that God is even comprehensible at all. I read an analogy once about God being like trying to explain the human view of the universe to a dog. There's just a lot there that a dog does not have the cognitive capability to understand - that there are planets orbiting the sun, etc. Those things exist, but a dog will not ever be able to understand them like we do.
I think it would be a conceit to believe that humans are capable of understanding everything. I mean everything. I get the feeling that physics has been bumping into this problem a lot. Maybe I'm wrong, and we can, because we can build tools like telescopes and particle accelerators. But I wonder.
And perhaps what makes us different from dogs is that we can know that there may be things out there that we cannot comprehend. I suppose that's really the definition of religion: the awareness that there's stuff you don't understand.
The problem comes when people then insert stuff in there to make it understandable, when they're not willing to live with that lack of comprehension. I think that's really the debate between Spong (et al.) and the literalists. Spong says it's something mysterious that we don't understand and all those stories are just false attempts at understanding, and the fundies say no we do understand.
Originally posted by BRussell
But putting MarcUK and Bush all in the same pot might ruin the meal.
Put me in the pot with Bush, and your meal will be all over your kitchen walls.
Originally posted by segovius
I'm not a Christian (though I have been having disturbing leanings in that direction lately) but it seems to me that there are two (in a very broad sense) views of God at issue here:
1) That 'God' is the term used to describe a force that infuses everything. That is to say the idea that the sum total of all that exists or can exist is 'God'. This is the 'mystic' idea you refer to, sort of the unity of everything. Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all the same thing.
2) That the universe is full of 'things' and God is one of these things. They are all separate: Dogs, Cats, Angels, Devils, Bush, Mother Theresa, MarcUk and God - all separate things.
These seem the fundamental issues - sure, we can refine them (old man on cloud, Allah, Jehovah, Ahura Mazda) but on the basic level, this is what we choose from: 1 or 2.
View 2 is the traditional view of Christianity and it presents serious problems on all levels. It allows the possibility of division - ie that God is opposed by certain things -well if HE is the omnipotent first cause how did HE become embroiled in such a situation ? And is it 'real' - ie can the Devil win ? If not then it is not a real opposition but a fake set-up. Again problems.
Personally I would subscribe to view 1 and would argue that Jesus did also and judge Christianity by that. If we become fixated on terms then I guess what the Church says IS Christianity so I would content myself with the fact that Jesus wasn't a Christian.
We knew that I guess. It has a kind of nice iconoclastic ring to it though.
I think that view 1 presents more and more serious problems than view 2. If God is the sum of the parts of the universe and the universe proves to have a beginning, then the question arises what caused the beginning?
In Islam, that's the basis of my religious thinking, God is indeed not a person in the form of a human, but an entity that fills the whole universe and beyond and one that is present between every atom and "inch" of the universe and yet is an independent entity that is not generated by the universe, and that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist when the universe is gone...
In that idea, nothing can exist and live or continue to live without the will and work of God, including the evil and good people, jinns, animals, insects, angels and including the devil. There is nothing that can exist without his will and work to enlive it and to keep it alive, so nothing in this universe can be an opponent of God.
As to the notion of Jesus not being a christian, that's only consequential according to Islam. Jesus was created by God to be a wonder to humanity, to be the fleshy version of God's word, a prophet and messenger to jews and gentiles alike. He served God in the best manner and was devouted (the english word for islamic) to Him and certainly didn't see himself or asked people to see him as the son of god or even as the human version of God himself, which the catholic church claimed and established in christianity.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by segovius
It's strange that you see view 1 as problematic and then claim Islam as the basis of your thought because view 1 is the Islamic view. You admit this yourself in the second paragraph where you describe the view exactly just in sightly differing terms.
Of course there are many hadith, Qur'anic statements and quotes from the Sufis to back this up should it be necessary.
I totally agree with the second bit about Jesus. Obviously this is the Islamic view also and one that I share.
Maybe I misinterpreted your view 1, but for me it reads like you meant that God is the sum of the parts that make up the universe and not independent from that universe, which is a completely unislamic view.
The islamic view is somehow a mixture of view 1 and 2: God is indeed everywhere in the universe at the same time, and more so even in every time-phase at once, so that He is able to see what in our human terms is way in the future or way in the past practically "live".
But and that is the important aspect, God is according to Islam an independent and souvereign entity and even if the whole universe would stop to exist according to his will, He would continue to exist unchanged.
Besides, hadith are not a fitting source of wisedom to discuss these religious themes, as they are very unreliable and represent more the human and timebound interpretation of the quranic message. The Quran itself is much better in that regard. The Sufis are not an islamic movement, they have existed before the Quran was revealed and are more like mystics and buddhists that soak up religious wisedom wherever it comes up and be it in the Quran.
Nightcrawler
Prove me wrong!
Originally posted by MarcUK
I think everything was created 5 minutes ago, and my memories and the whole universe was 'dated' to convince me I've been here for a while.
Prove me wrong!
What's that old aphorism about Johnson and subjectivism? Someone says something like what you just did and Johnson kicks a rock, saying "I refute it, thus!"
Edit: yup
Originally posted by segovius
Sigh - this is so beneath my abilities, life really shouldn't be like this, it's just too easy:
If such a device were employed to 'convince you you'd been here for a while' then by definition you would never suspect.
It would take a superior intelligence to successfully pull-off such a feat and (again, by definition) that means they could not be a superior intelligence if they were less intelligent than you - especially as you seem to display a propensity to go running round rambling on about it on the internet.
Such an intelligence would, at the very least, prevent your access to a functioning computer or make it so you were a PC head or something.
This is in no way my point of view, and I browse these forums often and I find you guys to be very helpful. I just thought you might be interested in what this site thinks of you. And please do not think all Baptists view Mac lovers this way.
Originally posted by realitydude001
a unique opinion of macs
This is in no way my point of view, and I browse these forums often and I find you guys to be very helpful. I just thought you might be interested in what this site thinks of you. And please do not think all Baptists view Mac lovers this way.
I just get a redirect???
The gist of the site is that Mac = the devil's computer company because it was founded by hippies (evil) and you guys are a cult like following and other such information that would take quite an imagination to find. I could not help but think of AppleInsider when reading this.