Disc Golf Course Review - Christians are not monotheists

		Disc Golf Course Review > Social Groups > Main > Ultimate Reality
Christians are not monotheists

Register	Members List	Social Groups
- View All Groups
- Your Group Messages
Search	Today's Posts	Mark Forums Read

Christians are not monotheists

Discussion Tools

05-06-2011 07:59 PM

Donovan

Dave, god tells a man to kill his son to prove his love for him. I my human thinking that will never be good, Ever. Please explain how is that good?

05-06-2011 08:02 PM

Donovan

Quote:

By the way, do you buy into the "every effect has a cause" notion? Since you have taken "instinct" (something from within) off the table, what do you suppose the cause of "that euphoric feeling" is that you believe is a pretty standard part of the human experience?

I never said standard. And I have never actually though about cause and effect as a law..I guess another one of my million weak spots are showing. Sorry, I have not thought of that concept enough to answer that yet.

05-06-2011 08:31 PM

Dave242

You are right - I see how I carelessly put words in your mouth. You said "I can't say we all can get that euphoric feeling, but most would have the potential to get it. (birth defects, brain tumors, whatever, there are almost always exceptions to everything in life)". So we almost all have the capacity, but don't all live/experience it. Right?

I do not like to have words put into my mouth, so I'll try not to put words into yours.

05-06-2011 11:26 PM

BrotherDave

Also, depending on how one interprets the texts, you can argue that Jesus is the adopted Son of God, born human and then made divine at his baptism.

05-06-2011 11:54 PM

Dave242

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherDave

Debatable from a historical analysis perspective. Mark, the oldest Gospel, has no birth narrative at all. Matthew and Luke, which basically copied Mark while adding their own info, introduce the birth narrative some time later from Mark. (Can't remember the dates, I know Mark is ~56 AD). Related, Marcionites, an early sect of Christianity predating the protoorthodox Church (and later deemed heretics by said Church), do not believe in the birth narrative for gods are not born.

I am sorry, but I am not entering a historicity discussion. I simply am not conversant in it, I am not really interested in it and I do not base my faith on it. I respect and honor that some people are quite different than me on all counts (thankfully). BrotherDave – while I don’t know you personally I have noticed plenty I admire about you in reading your online interactions…..not limited to your wit, humor, intelligence and kindness. You remind me of some other disc golfers I have had pretty neat discussions (similar to this) and friendships with over the years. Eventually hopefully our paths will cross.

(to be continued......)

05-06-2011 11:54 PM

Dave242

(....continued...)

My path crossed with William Lane Craig personally (he was just “Bill” to us) back in the mid 90's - hung out some when I lived in Atlanta, sat through several of his classes, went to a few of his debates, etc……all were sort of interesting, but not something that resonated with me much or made my faith stronger or weaker (it was all actually pretty boring to me). I have nothing to add here that I could add other than regurgitating something I have read/plagiarized somewhere.

What I have observed in Christian/Atheist debates as well as in inter-church theology debates is that plenty of people like to talk and not listen, have a propensity to just crank up the volume on tired old points, put words in other people’s mouths, proof-text the crap out of their texts, and otherwise lower themselves into a pretty immature and manipulative place. I am prone to that too……and hope like crazy I can resist.

05-07-2011 12:01 AM

Dave242

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrotherDave

Also, depending on how one interprets the texts, you can argue that Jesus is the adopted Son of God, born human and then made divine at his baptism.

Not sure why you are tossing this out….but an interesting thought. Not sure how/if it matters in the scheme of things (although some automatically label any out-of-the-box thinking heretical). What is your reason for bringing this up? Why does it matter to the discussion?

I had never put too much thought into this. Do you have any links to where I could read more? A quick google search found this and this will take me a little to slog through: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Perio...us_to_god.html

05-07-2011 12:04 AM

BrotherDave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave242

I am sorry, but I am not entering a historicity discussion. I simply am not conversant in it, I am not really interested in it and I do not base my faith on it.

That's fine and you're certainly not alone in that respect. But just to let you (and others) know where I'm coming from, as a history and anthropology major my religious beliefs start with what I can empirically know/disregard and then after that it goes through my personal worldview filter which is powered by my experiences, intuition and readings of philosophical and religious texts.

I find it useful to know about the Synoptic Gospels and their relationship, as well as to understand the process under which the Bible came to be. It would be against my natural essence to argue/interpret/kick it old school through faith alone.

Obviously, different strokes for different folks.

05-07-2011 12:29 AM

BrotherDave

RE: Jesus as adopted Son of God

Quote:

11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Oldest Gospel, God appears to be speaking directly to Jesus.

Quote:

The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

While and Luke and Matthew usually go hand in hand with their accounts, nearly verbatim, there's an interesting hiccup. Luke, like Mk, implies that God is speaking directly to Jesus, while adding that there's an audience of other people.

Quote:

17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Now, Mt really changes it up. It is no longer implied that God is speaking directly to Jesus, it is more of a declaration. Some people like to interpret this moment as saying that God is making a declaration of adoption rather than a declaration (or reminder) of Jesus simply being the Son of God. (cont.)

05-07-2011 12:39 AM

BrotherDave

Quote:

Originally Posted by link Dave242 found

At his baptism
The author of Mark's Gospel, writing at a time when all Christians accepted Jesus as Messiah, went even further, implying that it was at his baptism that Jesus became the Messiah. We read that when Jesus came out of the water he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descended upon him like a dove and a voice came from heaven saying, "You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased."

This story gave rise in early Christian theology to what was called the "adoption theory" of the "Person of Christ." In short, Jesus was born as an ordinary human being until God, at the time of his baptism by John, adopted him as his Son. This is why there are no birth stories in Mark. This view was eventually declared heretical though it continued to break out from time to time. It became heretical for the simple reason that the belief that Jesus became the Christ only at his baptism, still common when Mark was writing about 70 c.e., was soon to be overcome by further changes in the developing tradition.

Commentary to follow:

Page 2 of 4

Bookmarks

Discussion Tools

Mark This Discussion Read

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 PM.