No Pharisee would disagree with Jesus that...

No Pharisee would disagree with Jesus that the nation of Judah-Israel renounced it’s privileged status during the time of Nebuchadnezzar through horrible acts like sacrificing their children in fire and shedding innocent blood. What was up for debate was which “system” was better at restoring "Israel’s" rightful place as God’s chosen nation: the Parasitical-system or the Jesus-system?


It might not be too far of a stretch to say that the Jesus-system was no better, at least at first glance, in itself, then the Pharisaical system. The Pharisees believed, and succeeded to some extent by Jesus’ own testimony, in escaping the committing of many sinful acts. However, Jesus had two things going for him and his system that the Pharisees didn’t. When the Pharisees asked Jesus “what makes your system better than our system?,” Jesus’ reply was “no one can prove me guilty of sin.” And “believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.” Sinlessness and miracles kept Jesus untouchable, even to the moment he was before Pilate. But Jesus, by telling the truth, committed the ultimate sin (I am not attempting to address the “unpardonable sin”). Jesus ultimate “sin,” which he did not reveal until his blameless walk of love and miracles on earth was complete, was to claim to be God. Pilate even gave Jesus an “out:” [loosely translated] “C’mon… just say you’re not god. No one’s god. It’s easy to do and I can free you…”


But Jesus chose to commit the “sin” for which his critics had no greater hatred and for which even those among his critics who admired Him could not believe and accept - though they could not understand the miracles and the sinless transcendence of his earthly walk (“No one could do the things He does if God were not with him...")


So I have a better understanding of why Jesus was so untouchable here on earth (sinlessness, miracles) and a better understanding of what Jesus did that even sinlessness and miracles could not atone for, at least in the eyes of his detractors.


-j

The philosophical claims of christianity are not that far-fetched…

…and are simple. Just as when you record inventory or other information on a computer, the electrons that transmit the computer data are “real” – in a tangible sort of way, but the “eight quantity of part 030A” or the “dress, yellow, size 8” as reflected in the “network” realm, is a “concept” or “idea.” What is on the computer screen describes and points to (occasionally) the actual item in a warehouse or on the sales floor, but it is not the “thing in itself” (as Kant might have described it).

Even if we are not banking electronically, the ink and the paper of the dollar bill is “real” in a tangible way, but what it represents is far more powerful (or less, depending on the decade), then the “record of labor, value, products, and services” it represents.

Now the simple leap comes into play. Christianity, as well as other faiths which hold to an equally real, but different, spiritual realm (not merely an idea or a thought or a feeling but a “realm” or “plane” of existence, holds that our lives, and what we see as “real” now, not just action and motion -- not just our hands, our feet, our bodies, ourselves, is akin to what an intangible idea or symbol represents to “physical” or “material” reality which we can touch. Ironically, the Christian paradigm holds that even intangible things, used above to illustrate a distance from “material” reality -- our thoughts, feelings, emotions, attitudes, and their like -- will show up as tangible reality in the spiritual realm for eternity.

So whereas we may not be able to fathom a reality more “real” then what we hear and see and touch and think, a “reality-squared” of which Christianity claims eternal life is made of, it is not a difficult concept. Thoughts, feelings, ideas, and electrons in a bank account can compel action in the realm of what we now know as physically reality very easily. The same is true of current tangible and intangible reality that we know now in the spiritual reality of which we only have a (temporary) glimpse.





James
Random thoughts in this vein:

1)
No one can tell me that the Big Bang does not require a leap of faith. (Where did matter come from? Time necessitates that we began, thus, what could have been before this matter-wise. Furthermore, what caused the Big Bang?) So isn't God as the Great Cause really the more logical conclusion?

2)
While at first the concept of the trinity, three persons, yet one, may seem a bit insane and unfathomable, what must be remembered is that God created all. This includes all time, space and dimensions. Mathematically, we can prove that there are more dimensions than those that we experience in our reality. Yet, we could not fathom these dimensions. Is it really that far fetched then to believe that we should be able to fathom a trinity which created dimensions that are unfathomable to us?


Mike Crockett
Agreed! I guess I was just attempting to describe the spiritual reality's relationship to physical reality here the same way ideas, though non tangible, relate to physical reality. Only in the case of the spiritual reality, the spiritual reality (not the physical reality as it relates to ideas, symbols, information stored in a computer network) is more real than the physical reality) though we do not see it fully yet.


David
God as the Great Cause is certainly one conclusion. "The more logical conclusion" is a matter of debate. I do not believe that a belief in the Big Bang, or whatever you call the beginning of the Universe,necessitates unbelief in God. That is all I am prepared to say on 1 cup of coffee


Mike Crockett
"What is real?"

-Morphius, the Matrix


Mike Crockett
Also, it has become interesting to me, and this would not just be the result of popular culture/video gaming (for example), that because folks are beginning to accept the concept of alternate physical realities that accepting alternate spiritual realities, even "actual" contradictory - not just "apparently" contradictory - claims of spiritual realities (folks just feel they operate in separate spiritual realms), seems a whole lot easier for folks to do. If one is of the "one (yet one dynamic, often unfathomable) physical and spiritual reality" view as I appear to be ( =p ) , when we start to transcend "linear" thinking with regard to spiritual reality claims, without violating reason and common sense, though possibly appearing to do so (as we did with the theory of relativity; your mass increases and time slows down for you the faster you go; space is curved), it is interesting how we can explore that apparent leaps of (Aristotelian) logic can be, possibly, not-so-much-of-a-leap...

The editorial review looked interesting...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1604943696/bpo01-20

...No, but the editorial review looked interesting. I would, however, ask the author to define "Evangelical." For example, I am an evangelical, pentecostal, charismatic, but I would part ways with dominionists and, though I have a strong sense of social justice and aspects of the church we attend are "emergent," I, myself, do not necessarily adhere to all the politics of my emergent friends or my ultra-charismatic friends. Our "evanglical" church would be best described as "inter-denominational" as opposed to "non-denominational" (embracing denominational traditions instead of dropping them), an "open" church, as well as both pentecostal and emergent (unique in this day an age).

As I know you know, when one encounters even multiple instances of folks who either self-identify or are identified or both as "evangelical," the same categorization which enables human beings to make sense of reality kicks in and folks make assumptions based on initial (or even long-term) impressions.

This year, I am studying the complexities of race and culture. For example, not only are Haitian Immigrants in general different - as all are - from each of the other immigrant groups in space and time, Haitian immigrants, themselves, differ from each-other. Over-generalization, as I know you know, is not the monopoly of any one particular "paradigm" (I, myself, overgeneralize), so whereas your friend, the author, seems to have blazed some exciting new trails, as is this case with any of my own "stories" they describe a part of the picture...

=)

Musing -- solution to the immmigration crisis?

Mike Crockett
It's how I am going to solve the immigration crisis.

=p

I'm going to "buy" the small square of land the juts into Mexico from New Mexico and create an "international enterprise zone" employing u.s. citizens and migrants, hoping to minimize make the conflict that arise from border crossings (death of cattle, death of hundreds who do not realize it takes days in 120-degree desert to reach Phoenix), despite "growing pains" of any "government" project. The area's half-way between Tuscon and El Paso too and hopefully far enough away from anyone who would be a bit "unhappy..."... See More

=p x 2...

I figure if the federal government is willing to put so many billions into this and that, they would have no problem funding the project for, say, 20 billion to have me solve the immigration crisis for them. That's only 4 billion more than the "big dig." And who knows? I might even be able to finally build a decent car in this country too, though I'd have to cut some sort of deal with the Auto Workers Union, I'm sure. I'd probably leverage with Ford - they seem to put out a few decent autos every once in a while...

Now, though, for the hard part: I need to learn Spanish...

Mike Crockett
I was just remembering that I forgot to write what was I was going to write: "All this is hypothetical anyway - I am too old, 'too old to begin the training...' Daniel, on the other hand... There may be something to Al Gore's SNL skit-spoof about Arnold Schwarzenegger being the governor of 'Mexifornia...' Daniel could be the governor of 'NEW-NEW MEXICO'..." =p

ON TAP... -- sympathy for the anarchist...

Misinformation is not the monopoly of conservatives...

Just sayin'...

I still hold in my hand the September 11, 2006 ($4.50) issue of NEWSWEEK where, on page 29, in an article entitled, "The Year of Living Fearfully," now chief international correspondent Fareed Zakaria (who obviously had better things to do then to answer the inquiry of a Salem Public Librarian) writes, "...Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons -- and because he was a madman, he would use them."

The reason this article stuck out at me is that, though I never served a day of active duty, being trained as an intelligence analyst, I had played pretty close attention to the evidence cited on numerous occasions by the administration as a reason to issue an "arrest warrant" for Saddam Hussein via a second invasion of Iraq, and had never been "assured" that Saddam possessed nuclear weapons.

I re-researched the evidence [please, ANYONE, correct me if I am mistaken - I truly am trying to find out...] and discovered a gross inaccuracy: anyone who paid attention to any of the details of the build-up to the war in Iraq knows full well that “we” were never assured Saddam possessed nuclear weapons. If that were the case, why the pointing to forged documents of uranium purchased from Niger? If Iraq already had nuclear weapons, Saddam would already have enriched uranium. The argument was always that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to build a nuclear-type weapon/dirty-bomb in two years. But because the words: “We were assured Saddam possessed nuclear weapons…,” thousands in our generation and in generations to come will be under the false assumption that we were assured Saddam possessed nuclear weapons.

...just sayin'...

Trained to “win” since youth, I wish I knew more how to win God's way...

Trained to “win” since youth, whether in sports or in a battle against the Warsaw Pact, I am finding it difficult, in this season of Lent, to “unlearn what I have learned.” Just as Neo only “won” by allowing himself to be engulfed by the Agent-Virus Smith in THE MATRIX TRILOGY, and just as Luke Skywalker, a Jedi with only nominal Jedi powers was only able to defeat Emperor Palpatine, who not even Yoda could defeat, through the result of endless imploring for his father, Darth Vader, to see the good still in himself, I get excited about walking in way of the Master (or, as we say at the Gathering, “the way of the serpent and the dove”) but cannot resist trampling a vanquished foe.

I still feel the freedom of creativity which I find in a chess game or scoring a goal in soccer with a half-volley floater, curving just under the crossbar, as well as freedom and creativity in enterprise – whether business, financial, or organizational. I just wish I were gentler as a rule.