No Gospel without Law, no Mercy without Wrath

Before plunging in to this topic, I would like clarification on the difference, (definitionwise) between a subjective judgment and an objective judgment.The Jews, collectively as a people were given Law, yet knew not why except that it was what they needed. It would be as if they felt the heat and believed in a Sun but saw no Light.The latter Gentile converts were given a living breathing Law fullfilled through Jesus, Son of God. They felt the heat as long as they were accountable to each other and also through internal conviction. They saw the Light...Jesus Himself.Is relationship with a real internal light a subjective one or an objective one?Jar, you claim that atheists will have a better chance in the long run....is it because they are not blinded by the false light of religion and are free to just do what they internally know to be right? (Many Christians are wise enough to do this, also)The central tenet of Christianity is Christ Himself. He asks us, who do YOU say that I am? Are you suggesting that if He were not literally alive, belief in His "goodness" would be enough? Many purists would disagree...saying that His being alive is everything!Perhaps this could equate to this: Is the source of the Light pure? Original? (Thus, Objective, rather than subjective?)

It is not the book. It is the character behind the book. If you believe that God or gods is merely a creation of the human mind, your ultimate belief originates with human wisdom. What makes God (or Jesus Christ, the character behind the book) any more real is that to us, He transcends human wisdom....He created human wisdom. Thus, for us, the source is not human wisdom. It is a basic issue. Is human wisdom the source of all knowledge, wisdom, and speculation...or not? That is a core issue.
I am not suggesting better or worse, but logic dictates that in any two given belief systems, one is "better" than the other.Or...perhaps, we may call it a truce and agree that we disagree. You in essence may "worship" the evolving saga and potential of human wisdom as a path towards a limitless future, while I may believe in God as the source of all love, life, wisdom, and creative potential...from which all other sources get their inspiration directly or indirectly.

OK...I am going to try and simplify this, OK?Answer me a few questions.Is love subjective or objective?Is God a subject or an objective conclusion? If something (or someone) is original, they could be said to be the origin of that concept or person or God or spirit.In other words, if God is objective, He is the origin of all thought, wisdom, love, and light.(light in a spiritual sense) as well as the origin of creation. If God is subjective, human wisdom has made itself the origin of the thoughts, philosophical musings, ideas, and beliefs about God...as well as everything else.This is a relationship issue. I am all for going out and feeding the sheep and living the life of love and humility modeled by Jesus Christ. The issue, however, is jesus. Who Do You say that he Is?
Is he a subject of a good book written by human wisdom concerning morality? OR....on a deeper level, is He the Creator of the humanity that wrote the book? Is He alive and personal as an objective God, or is He a subjective model to follow, using our own human wisdom??This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-29-2005 10:23 PM

Sorry to be so baffling. Lets examine the words again, shall we? Based on these definitions, my point is that God is very much objective. Our relationship with Him can very well be subjective, but our awareness of, and acknowledgement of Him must be objective, for we did not create Him...He created us. The first commandment..to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength is an objective one.
The second command, to love others as ourselves (and as He does) is a subjective and action commandment. You can't just have the second one and perceive God as a philosophical subjective....sooner or later, His objective question, "Who Do You Say That I Am?" becomes a choice.
Peter did not know who He was based on a subjective choice but, rather, through the Holy Spirit, with an objective epiphany.I agree that many atheists will get to heaven far ahead of the conservative conmen and religious "Pharisees" of our day, but no atheist will get to heaven while remaining a subjective atheist. The objective choice will be made along the way.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-30-2005 10:16 AM

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-30-2005 10:45 AM

Not to me. God is a person (Jesus Christ) and a personality. Look at it this way--what if we replaced the word God with the word Brian?(Our EvC theologian) The statement would then become thus:
"Brian exists or Brian does not exist." I have talked with Brian. I have seen his picture, although that in itself is not important. I have discussed theology with him, and even though we do not always agree, I am quite convinced that Brian exists. If the question were presented to a room of people who did not know Brian, they would assert that the statement as it stands--"Brian exists or Brian does not exist."---would be a true summation of the person that we mentioned to them--Brian. I suppose that in this light, Brian is subjective and unknown to them while he is objective and known (somewhat) to me. Does this show why I answered the way that I did?

Lets go to the Bible for a glimpse of a possible insight and my answer.Remember when someone said that there is one thing that God cannot do...He cannot exist and not exist at the same time? This shows us a timeless and eternal God.
In fact, the context shows this to be Jesus Christ. Contrast this with the "other spirit" the Beast. Thus, I can agree with the statement: The Beast exists or the Beast does not exist. He will exist for those who do not follow God (in spirit, not necessarily religiously) yet he once was (as Lucifer turned Satan} now is not, and yet will come. Come for whom? For those whose names are not written in the book of life! God never sends anyone to hell or anywhere away from Him, but they themselves can choose to deny Him. By default, they are then sending themselves away from Him.The statement, God exists or God does not exist is not an absolute truth. God exists, has always existed, and will exist.
The other guy once existed, now does not exist, yet will exist for those who do not allow God into their heart.Am I complicating this too much?

OK, why don't you explain the statement to me the way that you understand it.

I agree, Faith. You are one heck of a woman...(you talk too much, etc.. j/k ) You have gotten better at defending the faith and you DO live up to your name. Some of what you say..(10%) is a bit vague, but I also see the Holy Spirit actually use your rhetoric to glorify His Son. I would never have the patience to do what you do...I know that you try and be a good Christian, and if we annoy a few people along the way, hopefully it will be to make them think rather than to "prove" anything to them. He will draw ALL men unto Himself.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-01-2005 05:42 AM

---

A youth is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to take over your churches, schools, and corporations. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. So it might be well to pay him some attention.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.

The early Christians, (those gathered in the "upper room" were not carrying Peter around like he was some sort of church figurehead. They were also not giving Mary the mother of Jesus any special favor.The early "protestants" which basically means protestors of official church bureaucracy over the authority of the letters, were far from the Southern Baptists. The Roman Church never formally addressed these issues until the council of Trent.I suppose that, pertaining to this topic, the issue is the question of where the authority comes from to make any sort of edict on Christian policy and practice, by definition.There will always be an argument over whether the letters and scriptures were the foundation of inerrency, the church leaders were somehow innerrently inspired, or human (political and educational) wisdom trumping them both. Be forewarned: None of us will win this argument....it continues throughout history.For the record: I believe that there are some church leaders who, having had an impartation from the Holy Spirit, have certain insights that anyone else who was similarly impartationally inspired could easily see. These men were still human, however, and often did also make mistakes and say things out of line.Just being a "Pope" made no difference in a mans level of impartation any more than Paul was perfect. He still had human fallibilities...which is why he got a bit big headed when fullfilling his calling of reaching out to the gentiles.I reject gnosticism based on my belief that impartation is never to be mixed with human wisdom....its like oil and water.Everyone has opinions on these matters...and you have to take a stand on your source of wisdom. For some, the Bible contains the wisdom.
For others, human speculation and scholarly nitpicking provide answers that satisfy their notions. Some are relativists, allowing for the hundreds of religions to all be right for the individuals.
Others are absolutely sure that there is one truth, but we need to shut up until we can communicate this truth a bit better. People will only listen if the Spirit, working through us, draws them to Him. (Not because we are so darn clever OR ignorant! )

Bibles come about through either "word for word" translations, or "thought for thought" transliterations. Aside from the JW Bible, most of the modern Bibles say just about the same thing in a different way, as far as I see it. Do you see a significant difference in the character and emphasis between the NIV, KJV, NKJV, New American, Revised Standard, etc...??As for the Gospel of Thomas, I think that it would be a good topic for a whole new thread.I gotta go to work now, though...see yall later.

I agree with you, and could not have said it better myself. If anyone seriously studies some of the spurrious documents such as the Gospel of Thomas, one will find philosophies and edifications that are different than the canon. As far as comparing all of the canon that Jar suggests, we would have to pretend that we were the current group of "church fathers" and whittle the list down to an agreeable number. Knowing this group at EvC, I think that there is a small chance that all of us would even agree on one. I may be too pessimistic, though.

There are many segments of christianity that emphasize different things. Overall, the Western Christian mindset...out of which sprung our fundies, emphasizes a Creation/Fall(Original Sin)/Redemption (or else go to Hell) paradigm.Jar is more in line with Eastern Orthodox belief, which emphasisizes a Creation/Fall,yet encouraged and empowered to work out your own salvation/theosis
paradigm. Theosis is the Divine Nature within all of us....scholar to skeptic, preacher to partier. The Eastern view gives more hope on humanity than does the Western view. The Eastern view sees everyone as already saved...whereas the fundamentalist view is that all are lost unless they repent. Theosis, the Divine Grace available to all of us, draws us unto the Father. I agree with you except that I emphasize trusting as equally important to trying. We can never try hard enough, but we CAN trust Him enough..He will give us the ability to try.(Works are evidence of His Grace.)This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-02-2005 09:57 PM

I think more along the lines of we were already on a free-fall to condemnation until jesus Christ died and rose again. We were born of imperfect genetics, He was born with perfect genetics, and He died for whosoever chooses Him. Thus, I disagree with the idea that we are all lost. Yes, none are righteous. Yes, all have sinned. But...God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever
believes in Him shall not perish.....The issue is what it means to trust God and His Son...what it means to believe....what it means to be doers and not just hearers....professors and not pretenders....confessors and not critics.

The reason that Jesus said that the way was narrow and that few will find it is because He was addressing Jews who already thought that they had it made by works alone. If you think that you see the way out, you are blind....but if you admit that you are blind (as to the truth) than the Living Truth will allow you to see!