'For God so loved the world ...'

1246

Comments

  • All of this is of course, tied up with the fact that he only ever wanted followers - disciples - not worshippers. In that sense, I truly believe that the doctrine of the trinity is dangerous: it makes it harder to see that we are also caught up in the dance of God's love, which the trinity enacts. We are not bystanders, worshipping. We are participants.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited September 2024
    Responding to the following from @Martin54 : Beautiful @ThunderBunk. It follows from purest faith. Faith in sanitized Jesus. Washed of, detached from, his self-righteous suicide

    Is this sanitising Jesus? Not sure. Probably for a never-recovering Charismatic Evangelical, I suppose. He can't be allowed to escape the blood and guts, because then there might be space for love. Heaven forfend.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited September 2024
    Again, lovely theology built on derived orthodoxy; still fundamentalism.
  • Orthodox? Moi???? Is Outrage.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited September 2024
    LOL! Well, at least perichoretic neo-trinitarian. Bed.
  • @Martin54 said:
    liberal fundamentalist theology

    What would that be?
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    edited October 2024
    Deleted comment.
  • ChastMastr wrote: »
    @Martin54 said:
    liberal fundamentalist theology

    What would that be?

    Fundamentalist theology at least tacitly includes belief in Jesus' suicidal atonement mission. That he was right to do what he did. That the Father was right to will it. I made that work for years, going from conservative, PSA, to liberal, it's the only way, the least intrusive way, he could get our attention.
  • Forgive me, but shouldn',t the way this thread is going, shouldn't it be be in 'Epiphanes'.

    Or, he said with some trepidation, 'Dead Horses?'

    For myself, b*gg*r theology, doctrine and philosophy. I'm happy with any set of beliefs that we can follow with a clear and happy conscience and nurture a growth in the 'Fruits of the Spirit'. Fortunately, as St Paul said, 'The Spirit helps us in our weakness'.

    Love and blessings to all.
  • All of this is of course, tied up with the fact that he only ever wanted followers - disciples - not worshippers. In that sense, I truly believe that the doctrine of the trinity is dangerous: it makes it harder to see that we are also caught up in the dance of God's love, which the trinity enacts. We are not bystanders, worshipping. We are participants.

    Ahem ... ahem ... you might not like this @ThunderBunk but much of what you say here is thoroughly Orthodox Big O.

    The whole point of the Orthodox idea of 'theosis' or 'divinisation' is that we are 'caught up in the dance of God's love which the Trinity (sorry, I've capitalised it) enacts.'

    Ok, I'd say there's more to it than that but it's a start.

    From an Orthodox perspective the Trinity doesn't make that process harder, it enables it.

    The idea that we are not bystanders but participants is also thoroughly Orthodox. You might not always get that impression during an Orthodox service but that's what we hope for and expect.
  • RockyRoger wrote: »
    Forgive me, but shouldn',t the way this thread is going, shouldn't it be be in 'Epiphanes'.

    Or, he said with some trepidation, 'Dead Horses?'

    For myself, b*gg*r theology, doctrine and philosophy. I'm happy with any set of beliefs that we can follow with a clear and happy conscience and nurture a growth in the 'Fruits of the Spirit'. Fortunately, as St Paul said, 'The Spirit helps us in our weakness'.

    Love and blessings to all.

    What's Epiphanic about it? Or Dead Horse? Just about everyone here has a liberally conscionable set of beliefs. I read Spirit metaphorically of naturally informed, accountable, enlightened self interest, as the history of Christendom is far from unnatural.

    @Gamma Gamaliel Orthodox theology is nearly as broad and deep as it gets for me, the emergent notwithstanding.
  • Sigh ..... ame old same old ....
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    God is how Love is instantiated. Or would be.

    I think rather that following Jesus (and that is different for every individual who leans in that direction) is 'Love instantiated'. And 'God' only makes an appearance when He/She feels the need to. So I don't worry about the general lack of 'finger posts'.
  • The_RivThe_Riv Shipmate
    edited October 2024
    Hey @Martin54, every time you engage us with the concept of "Love," I'm reminded of the W.H. Auden poem "The More Loving One."

    How should we like it were stars to burn
    With a passion for us we could not return?
    If equal affection cannot be,
    Let the more loving one be me.
  • RockyRogerRockyRoger Shipmate
    edited October 2024
    Martin asks, "What's Epiphanic about it?" .... Er, epiphanes is, " space to discuss issues where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible".

    Are you saying you are not personally invested in the opinions you express here ?'

    MV writes, "I think rather that following Jesus (and that is different for every individual who leans in that direction) is 'Love instantiated'. And 'God' only makes an appearance when He/She feels the need to. So I don't worry about the general lack of 'finger posts'".

    True in my experience I call this manifestation the 'Holy Spirit - especially in hospital in Critical care.
  • RockyRoger wrote: »
    Sigh ..... ame old same old ....

    What same old what same old? This is completely new territory in the history of SoF, unless anyone can prove me wrong. Unless you mean my 'What's Epiphanic about it? Or Dead Horse?'. Which is still new to the thread. The new to SoF is that for God did NOT so love the world...
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    God is how Love is instantiated. Or would be.

    I think rather that following Jesus (and that is different for every individual who leans in that direction) is 'Love instantiated'. And 'God' only makes an appearance when He/She feels the need to. So I don't worry about the general lack of 'finger posts'.

    What, the following of Jesus is Love instantiated? Not Jesus himself. OK. Beholder's share and all that. That works for you but not for me. I don't see anyone in Christendom, starting with Jesus, instantiating (divine, transcendent, unnatural) Love. And that critique is new to SoF. God makes quantitatively diminishing, qualitatively increasing appearances as a character in the text up to 2,000 years ago. Then the extra-canonical claims are made in a rising sea of mediocrity since. None of those epiphanies is of Love. If the stories contained an epiphany of Love, starting with Jesus', then that would be an instance of the finger post. But there is none whatsoever.
    The_Riv wrote: »
    Hey @Martin54, every time you engage us with the concept of "Love," I'm reminded of the W.H. Auden poem "The More Loving One."

    How should we like it were stars to burn
    With a passion for us we could not return?
    If equal affection cannot be,
    Let the more loving one be me.

    Amen!
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Martin asks, "What's Epiphanic about it?" .... Er, epiphanes is, " space to discuss issues where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible".

    Are you saying you are not personally invested in the opinions you express here ?'

    MV writes, "I think rather that following Jesus (and that is different for every individual who leans in that direction) is 'Love instantiated'. And 'God' only makes an appearance when He/She feels the need to. So I don't worry about the general lack of 'finger posts'".

    True in my experience I call this manifestation the 'Holy Spirit - especially in hospital in Critical care.

    I'm totally invested in the opinions I express here. Happy to be so. I can't express anything in Epiphanies. Which is another way to shut me down of course.

    I'm glad of that manifestation for you. Was it solely interior? Independent, extrinsic of the critical care that allowed it? Or was the critical care intrinsic, perichoretic with it? If that's too Epiphanic, I understand.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    @Martin54 you have had pm conversations with myself and @Alan Cresswell several times on what you need to do to access Epiphanies - and then you have proceeded to do nothing about it. It remains the case that you need to contact one or other of us to discuss reinstatement if you want it and we will guide you through the process. It is not a process specific to you, and other shipmates who previously lost posting rights in Epiphanies have subsequently had them reinstated at their request.
  • I realise that @Doublethink, if I may here. I know what the conditions are. If this thread goes there, fine, I'll watch.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    LOL! Well, at least perichoretic neo-trinitarian. Bed.

    @Martin, what does the one-word sentence "Bed" mean here?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    LOL! Well, at least perichoretic neo-trinitarian. Bed.

    @Martin, what does the one-word sentence "Bed" mean here?

    I was interacting with @ThunderBunk, and was signing off to bed.
  • I understood that bit.

    I don't mean to cavill here and I'm hardly one for originality, but I'm not convinced the concepts you are outlining here are 'new' to SoF.

    They have been implicit in your posts for some considerable time.
    I'm sure other posters will have expressed similar views from time to time.

    That doesn't mean that you shouldn't elaborate and expand on them, of course.
  • I understood that bit.

    I don't mean to cavill here and I'm hardly one for originality, but I'm not convinced the concepts you are outlining here are 'new' to SoF.

    They have been implicit in your posts for some considerabime.
    I'm sure other posters will have expressed similar views from time to time.

    That doesn't mean that you shouldn't elaborate and expand on them, of course.

    I'm sure they're not. But. If not. they've aged out. For many years. I don't recall such views, the view, that the God of the Jesus of faith is not Love.
  • NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If the stories contained an epiphany of Love, starting with Jesus', then that would be an instance of the finger post.
    What would an epiphany of Love look like, in your view?

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I understood that bit.

    I don't mean to cavill here and I'm hardly one for originality, but I'm not convinced the concepts you are outlining here are 'new' to SoF.

    They have been implicit in your posts for some considerabime.
    I'm sure other posters will have expressed similar views from time to time.

    That doesn't mean that you shouldn't elaborate and expand on them, of course.

    I'm sure they're not. But. If not. they've aged out. For many years. I don't recall such views, the view, that the God of the Jesus of faith is not Love.

    Ok. But I daresay those who believe that are less likely to hang around these boards than those that do. Which isn't to say that our atheist and agnostic friends here aren't welcome to contribute. We need them all.
  • Nenya wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If the stories contained an epiphany of Love, starting with Jesus', then that would be an instance of the finger post.
    What would an epiphany of Love look like, in your view?

    The perfect question. What it did look like to me was the Pericope Adulterae, The Woman Caught in Adultery. I perceived that as displaying divine intelligence. Now, nothing less than the Parousia I suppose.

    But that follows the Love-less narrative. Because Love has never shown itself, it will not. Can not. Is not. Brute fact realism. Love cannot undo Lovelessness.

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    @Martin54 said:
    liberal fundamentalist theology

    What would that be?

    Fundamentalist theology at least tacitly includes belief in Jesus' suicidal atonement mission. That he was right to do what he did. That the Father was right to will it. I made that work for years, going from conservative, PSA, to liberal, it's the only way, the least intrusive way, he could get our attention.

    I'm talking about "liberal fundamentalist theology" specifically. I can imagine people holding liberal theology in fundamentalist ways, but I've honestly never encountered that in my life. People holding fundamentalist theology in liberal ways seems self-contradictory to me.
  • @Martin54 said,
    What same old what same old? This is completely new territory in the history of SoF, unless anyone can prove me wrong. Unless you mean my 'What's Epiphanic about it? Or Dead Horse?'. Which is still new to the thread. The new to SoF is that for God did NOT so love the world...

    I think there have been atheists on the Ship for literally decades. It's not new. I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode with the gay pride parade (Marchers: "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" Lisa: "You do this every year! We are used to it!").

    https://youtu.be/TQh8AZhVgRU?si=nFjvFGFq3DJMqzPV&t=23
    I don't see anyone in Christendom, starting with Jesus, instantiating (divine, transcendent, unnatural) Love.

    If you don't believe anything is actually divine or transcendent in the first place, then by definition you wouldn't see it in Christendom, Jesus, or indeed anywhere else. Again, this is not new. It's just atheism.



  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I realise that @Doublethink, if I may here. I know what the conditions are. If this thread goes there, fine, I'll watch.

    So why not just follow the conditions so you can express things in Epiphanies?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Again, lovely theology built on derived orthodoxy; still fundamentalism.

    I'm thinking that this is some kind of redefinition of "fundamentalism" I'm not acquainted with. What do you mean by "fundamentalism" here?
  • You see Martin? Same old same old?
    My answer is the same as Puddleglum's to the Green Witch.
    I know Our Dear Lord was with me in critical and intensive care (and worse)! How? Every way, every feeling!

    A story? Yes, but better (for me) than yours, and I try to live it!
    This posting shd be in Epiphanies of course. I wrote a poem about this which was quite widely shared in Xian circles.

    Blessings!
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Further discussion on thread placement etc needs to be in Styx

    Doublethink, Admin
  • RockyRoger wrote: »
    You see Martin? Same old same old?
    My answer is the same as Puddleglum's to the Green Witch.
    I know Our Dear Lord was with me in critical and intensive care (and worse)! How? Every way, every feeling!

    A story? Yes, but better (for me) than yours, and I try to live it!
    This posting shd be in Epiphanies of course. I wrote a poem about this which was quite widely shared in Xian circles.

    Blessings!

    I couldn't be more glad for you that that was your experience and how it motivates you. And yes it was obviously better for you than my encounters with death, which so far were all as a believer. The next won't be. I envy you : ) And I try, aspire, to live in all my losses in gratitude - which I speak to nature, to being - and kindness too. While keeping busy. What else is there? But the beholder's share of the art of life.

    I'm glad for all of those who find what they are looking for, Love, in the story, that I cannot.
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Again, lovely theology built on derived orthodoxy; still fundamentalism.

    I'm thinking that this is some kind of redefinition of "fundamentalism" I'm not acquainted with. What do you mean by "fundamentalism" here?

    I mean any degree of literal belief in the Jesus story. Any positive believing take on Jesus' beliefs. Which necessarily mean that he was correct, to speak, live and die as he did. That it's all Love.

    This isn't atheism. This is rational scepticism, doubt. Critique. That could lead to atheism, or emergent belief.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    edited October 2024
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    LOL! Well, at least perichoretic neo-trinitarian. Bed.

    @Martin, what does the one-word sentence "Bed" mean here?

    I was interacting with @ThunderBunk, and was signing off to bed.

    Thanks, @Martin54. It would be less confusing if you had signed off "It's late, I'm off to bed."

    You may find this amusing - about three weeks ago you posted a one-word sentence "Stevenage." I know that Stevenage is a town in England, but had no idea why you would post a random town name. It occurred to me that maybe "stevenage" might be a word, like "porterage" but specific to stevedores. But googling just gave me hits about the town.

    Fortunately, before I had to confess my ignorance, Doublethink asked what "Stevenage" meant and you explained UK Storm Shadows are made in Stevenage. A fact which is not in the extremely lengthy Wikipedia entry on Stevenage, so can hardly be regarded as common knowledge, or in any way intuitive.

    (Although, while ploughing through the Wiki entry I was interested to note that the Housing Director of Stevenage New Town from 1951-1972 was a woman influenced by Octavia Hill.)

    But generally, @Martin, please re-read what you have typed before hitting "post comment" and if you spot a one-word sentence, please, please, please, extend it into something comprehensible. Please.

    (NB, before you ask, this is me posting as a baffled Shipmate, not as a host.)
  • Sorry @North East Quine. My circuits are obviously fried in that regard. No excuse. It all screams ADHD at me and even autism, as all my nearest and dearest say. All. Neurodivergence is still no excuse, but I'm looking for an explanation too.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I'd ifnore
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Sorry @North East Quine. My circuits are obviously fried in that regard. No excuse. It all screams ADHD at me and even autism, as all my nearest and dearest say. All. Neurodivergence is still no excuse, but I'm looking for an explanation too.

    @Martin54 when I was doing my science A levels back in the Palaeolithic, we were always told to assume our essay audience could understand anything, but knew nothing.

    Try that approach.

    We will always understand your grammar. What we won't necessarily know is the allusions you are making. We are not Tamarians.

    There's no point saying "Scouring of the Shire, innit?" unless you know your audience has the same familiarity and understanding of the LoTR that you do.
  • Thanks @KarlLB. Old dog, new tricks. 1 return from the vet left, then I'm put down. I hope that's not too allusive.

    Then you can all rest in peace. No one else will feel that they're being gaslighted by declarations of Love, God's humanly, naturally impossible, transcendent, pure, total, absolute, nothing but love, from the Jesus story.
  • Before I download works by Steven J Brams (Divine Games, Biblical Games), which may or may not be relevant to this topic, has anyone here read them?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    1 return from the vet left, then I'm put down. I hope that's not too allusive.
    I’m afraid I have absolutely no clue what “I return from the vet left” means.


  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    1 return from the vet left, then I'm put down. I hope that's not too allusive.
    I’m afraid I have absolutely no clue what “I return from the vet left” means.


    Quite.

    Again, I am not a Tamarian.
  • I took it to mean that he's not been banned or suspended indefinitely, 'put down' as it were. As in what happens to animals at the vets when they can't be cured.

    But he's come close to it.

    The 'left' reference I take to mean something like 'exit stage left'.

    It's all good fun but do we really have to have cryptic crosswords all the time?

    What was that ancient quiz show with Robert Robinson where families had to solve cryptic clues? Ask The Family was it?

    I'm showing my age.

    Yes, we can scroll on by but we wouldn't have to if Martin made himself understood.

    We all like word-play and allusions but not at the expense of complete incomprehensibility.

    I'm really not convinced you are saying anything new or clever here, @Martin54. I'm not suggesting that you are trying to compensate for that by adding a note of cryptic mystery to cover up an otherwise fatuous or common place argument - I don't believe in God. Deal with it. Jesus was fine as far as it went but he isn't God and we should all move on - but I'm not picking up anything new or original here.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    1 return from the vet left, then I'm put down. I hope that's not too allusive.
    I’m afraid I have absolutely no clue what “I return from the vet left” means.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    1 return from the vet left, then I'm put down. I hope that's not too allusive.
    I’m afraid I have absolutely no clue what “I return from the vet left” means.

    Quite.

    Again, I am not a Tamarian.

    I am an old dog trying to learn new tricks, and I'm under sentence of three admin/host strikes and you're out, one down, two to go, I have two trips to the veterinarian left, as a failing old dog, with a return only from the next one.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Will you please all take discussions of ships business, if you wish to have them - which includes hosting policy - to Styx.

    Doublethink, Admin
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    There's no way one could get that meaning of "left" from what you wrote. You could have, you know, just posted what you actually meant?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    There's no way one could get that meaning of "left" from what you wrote. You could have, you know, just posted what you actually meant?

    Oh God. You're right. I have one return from the vet left.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2024
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    There's no way one could get that meaning of "left" from what you wrote. You could have, you know, just posted what you actually meant?

    Oh God. You're right. I have one return from the vet left.

    Actually looking back the main problem was your 1 looked like an I. @Nick Tamen suffered the same confusion.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    There's no way one could get that meaning of "left" from what you wrote. You could have, you know, just posted what you actually meant?

    Oh God. You're right. I have one return from the vet left.
    Actually looking back the main problem was your 1 looked like an I. @Nick Tamen suffered the same confusion.
    Yep.

  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited October 2024
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    There's no way one could get that meaning of "left" from what you wrote. You could have, you know, just posted what you actually meant?

    Oh God. You're right. I have one return from the vet left.
    Actually looking back the main problem was your 1 looked like an I. @Nick Tamen suffered the same confusion.
    Yep.

    I'm not surprised. But yours was secondary. Mine was primary. Filling in my own blanks in my own mind... Sigh. I used to read what I wrote out loud, especially in a sensitive context. Which this is! Just did. Sorry both. And all.
  • Fine, but as @Doublethink has indicated, all discussions about hosting policies and so on don't really belong here but in The Styx. It would be nice to have a discussion with you without it veering into one about how many 'lives' you have left.

    The clearer you make things the less likely we are to end up in The Styx or with you whittling your lives away.
  • NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Nenya wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    If the stories contained an epiphany of Love, starting with Jesus', then that would be an instance of the finger post.
    What would an epiphany of Love look like, in your view?

    The perfect question. What it did look like to me was the Pericope Adulterae, The Woman Caught in Adultery. I perceived that as displaying divine intelligence. Now, nothing less than the Parousia I suppose.

    But that follows the Love-less narrative. Because Love has never shown itself, it will not. Can not. Is not. Brute fact realism. Love cannot undo Lovelessness.

    So, to be clear - Love is not? There is no Love and there never will be an epiphany of it?
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Thanks @KarlLB. Old dog, new tricks. 1 return from the vet left, then I'm put down. I hope that's not too allusive.

    Then you can all rest in peace. No one else will feel that they're being gaslighted by declarations of Love, God's humanly, naturally impossible, transcendent, pure, total, absolute, nothing but love, from the Jesus story.
    I haven't seen anyone say they feel they are being gaslighted, have I missed something?

  • I think the point is that faith, or at least evangelism, can only be something very close to gaslighting, if you discount the possibility of God's love being authentic. Love draws you in and then BAM!!!! No more Mr/Ms NiceGod.

    As it goes I think that's a reasonable description of an awful lot of evangelism, but it's not inevitable.
This discussion has been closed.