I think we have many choices Alan, and this indicates our imperfection
that we must seek the virtuous, strive for excellence, all these things
are within us codified within our instincts. An good analogy I think is
the coevolution of man's genetic makeup and social development. To deny
one's reasoning and experiences and growth seems to deny one's own
choosing, though we may reach a disposition of mind where we perceive
that we have been guided and pushed from a supreme force. Would it not
seem likely that as we discover the human potential for natural and
transcendental prowess we will also focus that upon the world we
inhabit? Should it be any different for your scriptures? Who do we serve
by placing supreme importance on neglecting the widest and greatest
selection of truths from such a robust and varied history and say the
matter is at rest when nothing indicates this is true except denial of
the world before us. When considering history and anthropology and
consider the many and varied cultures we cannot say Jesus, Mohammed,
Buddha or the other figures were the beginning or the end of anything,
nor the ideas of the people who wrote about them, but can serve as
guides. My duties are mounting so I apologize for making this so short
(and ignoring many other convos on my list here) but I hope only to
appeal to the spirit of growth and reason, without either of which we
would not be here considering such great ideas and insights, what truth
would demand us to deny what is plainly before us, it should instead
urge us to reconcile many domains of truth to reach our potential IMO.
Also IMO, none of this dismisses the importance of your spiritual
experiences and cherished beliefs but should be fuel (of a sort).
On 9/25/2010 2:38 PM, Alan Wostenberg wrote:
" Was Neanderthal man made in the image of God? Mike Tyson? Hitler?
Plato, Aristotle? Where in our chronological history did your
notion of man being made in the image of god take place?"
Two take two of your examples: Hitler, no less than Plato, is made in
the image of God. The phrase from genesis means /all/ men, not just
those in a state of grace. This understanding is the Christian
humanist basis of international human rights. It is not just the
believers who are made in God's image, but everybody, and from this
fact, flow a set of natural rights, independent of whether one is a
sinner or saint, believer or pagan.
On Sep 25, 11:55 am, Slip Disc<[email protected]> wrote:
Is man a creature made
in God's image, laid low by sin, in need of a Savior? Or a trousered
ape? AW
For one we have no "image" of god except for what is presented in
textural format. Then there is that audaciousness to align man with
the god when by most accounts man is still most aligned with animals
not gods. Then there is the presumption of "sin" which as we all know
is extremely and radically subjective, malleable and manipulative.
Apes and early known humanoids didn't wear cloth but I think for sure
that we are still losing our hair during this evolutionary process.
Perhaps in another 10,000 years we will be totally hairless
creatures. Which of course begs the question; "At what point in the
chronological history of "man" we he made in the image of god?" ,
because the images of man are drastically different. Was Neanderthal
man made in the image of god? Mike Tyson? Hitler? Plato,
Aristotle? Where in our chronological history did your notion of man
being made in the image of god take place?
On Sep 25, 12:28 pm, Alan Wostenberg<[email protected]> wrote:
Slip, I'm less interested in the question of how you came to believe
John Chapter 6 is just a story, and I came to believe it is history,
than in what follows from these beliefs.
For the veracity of that account has radical implications for /what/ a
man is and consequently what is good for man. Is man a creature made
in God's image, laid low by sin, in need of a Savior? Or a trousered
ape?
On Sep 18, 7:51 pm, Slip Disc<[email protected]> wrote:
Well I think we both reached the same conclusion in previous times.
John chapter 6 is quite the story but I'd be hard pressed to believe
that these events actually took place beyond the metaphor and allegory
that is consistent with biblical stories. For some strange reason
people have a need to believe things that are beyond our mundane
existence. But the real problem for me it that these things have
never existed beyond the age of antiquity. We have nothing today to
indicate validity of these events, therefore it is laid in the matter
of choice category of religious belief. I have to say, and not to
offend, but these beliefs are no different from the beliefs of other
primitive and nomadic peoples. If at any given time you told those
people their carved out of rock god was bullshit they would cut off
your head and feed you body to the dogs. You my friend are of the
same kind, dug in deep with a belief based on the ancients. What did
those people really know? What did they actually see? Were there no
such things as scams back then?
You still believe in a man god, something that was created out of the
imaginations of humanity. Books are a product of the human mind, a
creation out of the utilization of natural resource, paper and pen.
It might be half believable if it weren't for the fact that millions
of other people in the world have their own man god stories. Have you
talked to a Hassidic Jew lately, a Muslim, a Tibetan, Buddhist or any
of the other non-catholic or christian believers?
OTO?
Is that Ordo Templi Orientis?
On Sep 18, 8:01 pm, Alan Wostenberg<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sep 13, 7:25 pm, Slip Disc<[email protected]> wrote:> You actually believe
all those stories?
Of course I believe John Chapter 6. And of course you do not! And so
we necessarily have /different/ ideas of the nature of man and what
is really good for man.
One who believes man is created in the image by God, laid low by sin,
in
need of a Savor, will take a certain definite view on what is good
for man. OTO one who
believes man is a swarm of particles has a
different view of the matter.
It is a book alan, paper and pen, stories, allegory and metaphor.
Quoting scripture is merely quoting a storyline. The bible is full to
the brim with contradiction and conflict. The old testament is full
of atrocity and vengeance, bloodshed, rape and murder by the command,
jurisdiction or under the auspices of the loving god. Then there were
400 years without a word, the Romans were brutal and so was needed a
savior, and so one was born but who would believe it if it were born
like everyone else so only a virgin birth would do. And so the god
father in a demonstration of his love for humanity has his 'only' son
brutally tortured and killed. Wow, oh I forgot, that was because of
our sins, the sins we were born with. And now people have to give up
10% of their earnings to the people who keep these stories alive or
else fire and brimstone. Great story!
On Sep 13, 4:55 pm, Alan Wostenberg<[email protected]> wrote:
"By what means did the christian faith corner the market on knowing
what
is good for man?". By Christ the Lord, who said some pretty startling
things on the topic, such as "I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 8:6).
And of course in John Chapter 6 v. 48, we learn from the Inventor of
food about Real Food:
"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert,
but they died;this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that
one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from
heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that
I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us
(his) flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do
not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."
On Sep 13, 1:21 pm, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote:
As much as I can agree with much of what you say, and am a non-
christian believer in Christ... I am having a hard time digesting the
'meat' of you statement which is contained in the last sentance. By
what means did the christian faith corner the market on knowing what
is good for man? You must be reffering to the 'Pauline' brand of
modern soothesayers that claim to follow Christ. The likes of wich
would say to the starving man; "God bless you in the name of Jesus,
I'll pray for you!" and not help the man's hunger or his condition.
On Sep 13, 1:39 pm, Alan Wostenberg<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, you "can have a feeling of responsibility towards society and
consider it your duty towards it and do what is good for you and the
others". But what have feelings to do with doing good?
A man comes upon a starving man, knowing little about human nature,
offers him a good thick steak and a glass of wine. But the starving
man cannot digest the food. The first man had a sincere "feeling of
responsibility", and really wanted to "do what is good for the other",
but utterly botched it, because he is ignorant of what is really good
for the other man.
No doubt those with a "humanitarian mindset" mean well, and act in
accord with what they believe is good for fellow humans, just like the
Jihadist, or the mercy killer who euthanizes the sick patient, or the
abortionist, or Hitler. Everybody does what he /believes/ to be good
for his fellow man. But only those who /know/ what is good for their
neighbor can consistently deliver.
On the Christian view, if we do not know Christ, we do not know what
man is, so it is quite impossible to do good for man, except by
accident.
On Sep 13, 10:30 am, RP Singh<[email protected]> wrote:
A person can have a humanitarian mindset regardless of religion. You don't
have to believe in God to be good , you can have a feeling of responsibility
towards society and consider it your duty towards it and do what is good
for you and the others. Patriots need not be religious , yet they feel a
great responsibility towards their country. There are so many motives for a
man to do good to others irrespective of religion. On the other hand people
are known to indulge in vice and ask God's forgiveness later.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Alan Wostenberg<[email protected]> wrote:
Sure, "helping is primal". But the Jihadist, having a different
theology than the Christian, believes he is helping you by converting
you to Islam by the sword. Not so the Christian, for whom religion is
the "The voluntary subjection of oneself to God".
The island of atheists? Sure, they'd "help others" for some definition
of "help" and "others". I know something about the Christian command
to love my neighbor but don't know the official atheist dogma on
helping others. If one acted like there were no God why would he
think he has any duty to help others?
On Sep 12, 8:28 am, Slip Disc...
read more »
