It is interesting that this particular quote really represents, for me, the meaning of Logos and presence of the Lord. Yet the discussion about it centers around the arrogance of posting it, and not the meaning of it. Part of what may be lost in translation has nothing to do with language and more with personal bias. I suppose I do the same with someone presenting scientific evidence in the form of experimental studies. This is because I know that many of those studies are rigged from the get go, funded to produce particular results with an agenda to sway opinion or secure funding. I can fully understand how an atheist or agnostic might feel the same about a biblical quote. In this case, I am not offering this quote as evidence of anything but a suggestion of the possibility of presence at work.
Whether the characters in the stories actually lived, comparative theology can give keen insights into the workings of the human psyche, especially when tracked over time. This may be of no interest to some. To each his own. But if we are here to share, there is a modicum of respect that should be afforded to one another that has nothing to do with politesse. Neil is the master at this, bringing the best of each member of the group to light. Yet sometimes I wonder if it isn't more the cop in him, trying to keep a lid on things, than a recognition of inherent value. Survival sometimes teaches us the path of least resistance, Or that jumping into the fire is only worth it when the stakes are high enough. I tire of getting yelled at in here or anywhere else (and by the way thought Neil's article on institutional narcissism good if not practical). Our cultures may indeed reward the narcissist as they bully their way to the top and we fall in line to maintain our comfort zones, not knowing or caring that it really means we will never have a comfort zone again. The article really gave us no practical means to live with or extricate ourselves from the clutches of the narcissist, but I suppose we learn by living, just like anything else. Maybe we do all just talk around each other, but through all of that, enough relation and affection forms so that we can at least agree that we miss Francis. There is something to that. On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:01:13 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > I obviously agree RP. They are evidence of something, but rarely stand up > to detailed analysis even in their own terms. The Christians may be > Flavians conned by a Roman plot, Christ may not be a historical person but > an invention, Islam may be from Berber Jews and so on. Make these texts in > some way 'holy' perhaps as the word of god or an angel and hence he did > come to speak to us. This is more evidence of human gullibility than > anything else to me. And this doesn't mean the texts have nothing to offer. > > Religion for me can't be a matter of smug satisfaction or rejection of > counter-evidence as economics does through 'externalities'. Seeking is a > presence I understand, not the sacred. > > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:42:27 AM UTC, RP Singh wrote: > > Neil, I don't understand how scriptures can be termed evidence, I can > quote from various scriptures but what is the use, to term them as evidence > is not scientific. > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:07 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > A scientist in some senses is prostrated before the evidence Molly. > > > On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 7:47:49 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > The Logos is God,[Jn 1:1] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+1%3A1&version=ESV> as > Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God."[20:28] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+20%3A28&version=ESV> Yet > the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was > with God."[1:1] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+1%3A1&version=ESV> God > and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply > identical. In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at > least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget > that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action. The paradox > that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God > is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is > revealed does not "exhaust" God as he is, is reflected in sayings > attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one"[Jn 10:30] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+10%3A30&version=ESV> and > also, "the Father is greater than I."[14:28] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+14%3A28&version=ESV> The > Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and redemption. Jesus Christ > not only gives God's Word to us humans; he *is* the Word.[1:14] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+1%3A14&version=ESV> [14:6] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+14%3A6&version=ESV> He is > the true word─ultimate reality revealed in a Person. The Logos is God, > distinguishable in thought yet not separable in fact. > > No room for ego, arrogance or anything like it there. > > On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote: > > Over the years the word of God in reality is the essence of God.. the > essence of what is said.. just what the essence of God is.. i have no clue > other than it does exist. > > What i feel is of great importance is to change the perspective of just > who or what God is.. one thing i am sure of is the common perspective is > not working.. > > تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين > Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly < > > ... -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
