Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 01:32 PM CDT

Seize?

[Edit]

The day! (and the post).

Please forgive my petulance and my insipid lack of "a life".

"Before a raucous crowd and against formidable odds and a worthy set of opponents, Chronologic today seized the coveted POST 300 in one of MacJams.Com's most frustratingly enduring threads. While many bystanders to the incident commented 'who gives a rat's a$$', there were many who applauded the audacity of Chrono for his obvious dedication to the thread and the participants. Chrono himself had only this to say 'I love you all!!!, let's bury the Clapton thread... actually... let's not! But it has been fun!'"

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 01:37 PM CDT

Quote by: chronologic Seize?

or desist, that is the question

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 01:40 PM CDT

Quote by: Rocha Malhada Quote by: chronologic Seize? or desist, that is the question

lol! Well said. Desist is likely the better part of valor!

* Post Removed *
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 02:22 PM CDT

* This message has been removed *

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 02:37 PM CDT

Quote by: jgurner Quote by: chikoppi We have almost no idea what gravity is or why it works at all. It's love.

ha! that's beautiful.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 03:36 PM CDT

Quote by: Richard_Schletty Ole Dead-eye Jack missed another opportunity to usher in "the next hundred."

Somehow, I think he'll probably have a shot at 400.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Thursday, July 30 2009 @ 09:47 PM CDT

Just. like. J.C.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, August 03 2009 @ 10:58 AM CDT

. . . pant, pant . . . puff! . . . must catch up . . . can’t read fast enough . . . too many posts . . .too many thoughts . . . racing in my brain . . .

First, to the whole discussion forum thing. I guess most everything we share is personal and so, to a degree, tainted by our understanding and perspective and our ability to communicate what we hold as truth. From raising children (now grandchildren) I see that much of my perspective and wisdom (I hope that’s what it is) cannot be directly translated into a mind that has no similar perspective to relate it to (That makes me appreciate those with the teaching gift even more). Even as adults we find this is true between ourselves and people with differing perspectives. We both tend to look askance at the other fellow thinking he must be missing a few cogs because he just doesn’t “get it”. That is what makes love and compassion so important in our relationships as human beings. Extending grace and patience as an act of love not only gives the other person the release to express themselves free from judgment, it gives us the reminder that we are to listen ‘without prejudice’. For even from someone with whom we have strong disagreement, we may learn if we can hear (hey, why don't I try this with my wife??!!).

Now I have observed a strange thing among humans. In an effort to more easily comprehend something or someone we tend to pigeon-hole. You do it, I do it, we all do it. However, when we do it we also tend to lose those shades of meaning that may really be the defining ones that help us understand the person or what they are saying. That is why the experts tell us that when someone is explaining something to us, we should stop and clarify it as they go. When we write in a forum like this, we may be leaving someone off in the woods somewhere because there is no opportunity to clarify as we go. If my scattershot writing leads anyone into outer space I apologize in advance. I am only trying to convey my apologia (pun not intended).

Now, as to the specifics. Someone here said he thought that we either had a scientific bent or a religious bent and that people fall into one of the two categories. I find that although there are people that do seem to fit that model, it is not the predominant model. I find myself to be a lover of science, well versed as a layman and engineer in all manner of popular science and technology. I also find myself to have a spiritual or metaphysical side to me. At various times in my life this spiritual curiosity led me to inquire into and participate in my formative religion (Catholicism), Hinduism, Buddhism, occultism and various and sundry philosophies ‘du jour’.

It has always been my position (by instinct first, then later by intellect) that the ‘mythology’ of a given sect was to be understood more in a metaphysical sense than a literal one. I think it is there, at least, that some clarity can be had with respect to science and religion. Science is empirically understood. The spiritual realm is, well, spiritually discerned. When we try to apply the rules of science to metaphysics or visa-versa, we are mostly in for disappointment.

I say mostly, because there is some commonality in the area of faith. Faith, the bible says “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Many times a physicist will build a mathematical model based on evidence that points to something that cannot be observed. The model works and explains (maybe not perfectly) a certain phenomenon. Until the applied physicist can, through experiment confirm the model, many in the scientific community will take it on ‘faith’ that the model is correct. It is not blind faith, but rather, it is informed faith. There is certain evidence that seems to indicate a certain relationship that we can model substantially through mathematics (E.G. string theory?) and we are hoping to see the fruits of that someday. So here, at least, there is some common ground between science and religion.

I think where we get into trouble is that we try to take the way we model and evidence science and apply that to our spiritual beliefs. That, I think, is not a very practical approach. I do agree that philosophy and science both share logic and that logic can be a helpful tool in both pursuits. However, I tend to think of philosophy as a science and religion or spirituality as the pursuit of a given philosophy (indeed, in many religions standard logic may have no real application to the belief system). I think this is accurate because we can often observe, for instance, a person of a certain religion who either does not know the entire system of thought (or philosophy) of his religion, or does not possess it as part of his religious experience. Sometimes we call this hypocrisy, sometimes immaturity, I would call it humanity. It is one thing to know all the rules of golf, quite another to move the ball effectively from tee to green (I don’t judge the duffer though, because there but for the grass of God go I, and I go there often). However, I find in my spiritual development, just like in my human development, much of what I hold true is not something I can just hand over to another human being by way of a convenient explanation.

I can attempt to explain myself somewhat. At this stage of my spiritual growth I am what is regarded by some as a modern spiritual enigma. I am a believer in Jesus Christ. I have no denominational affiliation and attend no particular church (although I have been known to grace the insides of one from time to time). I have, in the past, been a member of various Christian denominations, but found that I could not continue to pursue openly or freely my beliefs about Christ and claim to be a member of those denominations. That does not mean that I am not connected in fellowship to people who are still members of those denominations (and even their leadership). Its just that I think that if we are to adhere to strict denominationalism, we must in good conscience adhere to those truths (and practices) that the denomination demands or depart in peace. I have chosen to do the later, but of course I still love and cherish my fellows. I make no demand that they follow me, only follow Christ.

Neither will I attempt to explain why one would or should follow Christ by my resorting to methods of crushing logical argument for that is not my gift. Indeed, I believe that one may make a pretty good case either for or against (depending on how one deals with Christ himself and who they say he is in their argument). I will say that I agree with Keller(utube’ed here earlier) that there are many levels on which a person comes to faith. In his model he calls them Intellectual, Personal (experiential) and Cultural (social). While I don’t argue with this I will say for example that I pursued spirituality for years intellectually (even Christianity) and did not find my answers that way. That being said, it is important to note that for me, (stealing this quote from somewhere) “My heart cannot rejoice in what my mind cannot accept.” So, for me, the intellect must be satisfied. Its just to say that I didn’t come to belief because I ‘figured it all out and it goes like this . . .’.

I have to admit that I have, as long as I can remember, believed there was a God. The question was always “Who (or what) is he, how can I know him, and what the heck does he want anyway?” Along with this line of questioning (or maybe it’s the same) was also the thread “Who (or what) am I, how can I know myself, and what the heck do I want anyway?” I think however, that I quested after the first line of reason and I am living through second (if that makes any sense).

So how did I come to faith in Jesus Christ. It was actually pretty simple. I had been challenged over a period of years by many Christians with regard to faith in Christ and what it really meant. To me, I believed that Jesus Christ existed, had a ministry, was crucified, died and was buried. You know, he said some cool stuff, maybe did some really cool things and then the ‘Man’ said “you got to move”. These Christians also said he was raised from the dead and that he was the Son of God, that is, divine himself. I guess I didn’t really get on board with that part. However, I soon realized that the whole Christianity thing was stupid without Christ. It really started to bug me.

Two things were evident. First, I needed to deal with this Jesus thing and determine if he was who these people said he was. Second, if he was who they said, then it put anything he said into a whole new light for me. As I said earlier, I tried to work my way through it intellectually. I found however that I could not escape the fact that I had to deal with Jesus’ claim to be the Christ and that the Christ was divine.

Now, let me stop a moment and say that I realize my experience may not have validity for someone who does not believe in God. Well, let me rephrase that. My experience may not have validity for someone who chooses not to believe in God. For someone who already believes that there is a God and even for someone who believes there may be a God, but is unsure, my story may prove of some benefit.

When we last saw our hero, he was impaled on the horns of a dilemma. I found myself in the uncomfortable position of dealing with this upstart Jesus who claimed to be God. The more deeply I looked the more I resented the fact that this guy really thought he was “the” Son of God. Not in the sense that you and I are children of God, but in the sense that “Hey I am the only begotten, divine Son of God.” Again, I just could not get a handle around that whole Son of God thing and the implications of it. I can understand my Jewish and Moslem brothers when they stumble over it as well. Here I was raised as a Christian and I am really having a hard time with it. “How can the one true God have a Son?” “Who’s really in charge of this outfit anyway?” “What if Dad says go left and you say go right?” “What if I believe you and tomorrow some other guy comes along and says ‘Sorry, I am really Gods Son’?”

So now I realized that I had to take my request upstairs to a higher authority. Again, as I said, I believed in God and even prayed when in trouble, or for guidance and sometimes even for others. So, I decided to ask God prayerfully and honestly about Jesus. I told God all about my resentments and all about my questions and just the fact that if this stuff was really true then I needed Him to help me get through it all and make sense of it.

In the months that followed, I found myself more and more in the scripture examining the claims of Christ against the expectation of Christ in scripture. I don’t want to say that I intellectually figured it out because many of the same passages I had read many times before. However, now there was a clarity in what I read. The language was not different, but the murk was gone. I realized that I had been given revelation. That is, I had received a knowledge from outside myself that I did not previously possess.

I now believe that is how God answered my prayer. He opened my eyes and lead me through his story. Now I realize that many people have many different issues and questions. The world view issues, and personal suffering and issues on religion of man versus relationship with God, and heaven versus hell and many other issues both private and public. I have had many of these same issues and time would fail me to tell you of what I believe and what I don’t believe, of what I know and (the much larger universe) what I don’t know. In the end, the only thing I think I can share that is of value is what I did find at the end of one journey (and as it turned out the start of the great adventure). In my personal walk I needed to come to grips with this Jesus and (like Lewis) either line up and pity him as a pathetic mumbler, personally crucify him as a liar or regard him as Lord and Savior.

Thank you for your time (you may now throw stones),
Stephen

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, August 03 2009 @ 01:44 PM CDT

Quote by: sschedra . . . pant, pant . . . puff! . . . must catch up . . . can’t read fast enough . . . too many posts . . .too many thoughts . . . racing in my brain . . . First, to the whole discussion forum thing. I guess most everything we share is personal and so, to a degree, tainted by our understanding and perspective and our ability to communicate what we hold as truth. From raising children (now grandchildren) I see that much of my perspective and wisdom (I hope that’s what it is) cannot be directly translated into a mind that has no similar perspective to relate it to (That makes me appreciate those with the teaching gift even more). Even as adults we find this is true between ourselves and people with differing perspectives. We both tend to look askance at the other fellow thinking he must be missing a few cogs because he just doesn’t “get it”. That is what makes love and compassion so important in our relationships as human beings. Extending grace and patience as an act of love not only gives the other person the release to express themselves free from judgment, it gives us the reminder that we are to listen ‘without prejudice’. For even from someone with whom we have strong disagreement, we may learn if we can hear (hey, why don't I try this with my wife??!!). Now I have observed a strange thing among humans. In an effort to more easily comprehend something or someone we tend to pigeon-hole. You do it, I do it, we all do it. However, when we do it we also tend to lose those shades of meaning that may really be the defining ones that help us understand the person or what they are saying. That is why the experts tell us that when someone is explaining something to us, we should stop and clarify it as they go. When we write in a forum like this, we may be leaving someone off in the woods somewhere because there is no opportunity to clarify as we go. If my scattershot writing leads anyone into outer space I apologize in advance. I am only trying to convey my apologia (pun not intended). Now, as to the specifics. Someone here said he thought that we either had a scientific bent or a religious bent and that people fall into one of the two categories. I find that although there are people that do seem to fit that model, it is not the predominant model. I find myself to be a lover of science, well versed as a layman and engineer in all manner of popular science and technology. I also find myself to have a spiritual or metaphysical side to me. At various times in my life this spiritual curiosity led me to inquire into and participate in my formative religion (Catholicism), Hinduism, Buddhism, occultism and various and sundry philosophies ‘du jour’. It has always been my position (by instinct first, then later by intellect) that the ‘mythology’ of a given sect was to be understood more in a metaphysical sense than a literal one. I think it is there, at least, that some clarity can be had with respect to science and religion. Science is empirically understood. The spiritual realm is, well, spiritually discerned. When we try to apply the rules of science to metaphysics or visa-versa, we are mostly in for disappointment. I say mostly, because there is some commonality in the area of faith. Faith, the bible says “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Many times a physicist will build a mathematical model based on evidence that points to something that cannot be observed. The model works and explains (maybe not perfectly) a certain phenomenon. Until the applied physicist can, through experiment confirm the model, many in the scientific community will take it on ‘faith’ that the model is correct. It is not blind faith, but rather, it is informed faith. There is certain evidence that seems to indicate a certain relationship that we can model substantially through mathematics (E.G. string theory?) and we are hoping to see the fruits of that someday. So here, at least, there is some common ground between science and religion. I think where we get into trouble is that we try to take the way we model and evidence science and apply that to our spiritual beliefs. That, I think, is not a very practical approach. I do agree that philosophy and science both share logic and that logic can be a helpful tool in both pursuits. However, I tend to think of philosophy as a science and religion or spirituality as the pursuit of a given philosophy (indeed, in many religions standard logic may have no real application to the belief system). I think this is accurate because we can often observe, for instance, a person of a certain religion who either does not know the entire system of thought (or philosophy) of his religion, or does not possess it as part of his religious experience. Sometimes we call this hypocrisy, sometimes immaturity, I would call it humanity. It is one thing to know all the rules of golf, quite another to move the ball effectively from tee to green (I don’t judge the duffer though, because there but for the grass of God go I, and I go there often). However, I find in my spiritual development, just like in my human development, much of what I hold true is not something I can just hand over to another human being by way of a convenient explanation. I can attempt to explain myself somewhat. At this stage of my spiritual growth I am what is regarded by some as a modern spiritual enigma. I am a believer in Jesus Christ. I have no denominational affiliation and attend no particular church (although I have been known to grace the insides of one from time to time). I have, in the past, been a member of various Christian denominations, but found that I could not continue to pursue openly or freely my beliefs about Christ and claim to be a member of those denominations. That does not mean that I am not connected in fellowship to people who are still members of those denominations (and even their leadership). Its just that I think that if we are to adhere to strict denominationalism, we must in good conscience adhere to those truths (and practices) that the denomination demands or depart in peace. I have chosen to do the later, but of course I still love and cherish my fellows. I make no demand that they follow me, only follow Christ. Neither will I attempt to explain why one would or should follow Christ by my resorting to methods of crushing logical argument for that is not my gift. Indeed, I believe that one may make a pretty good case either for or against (depending on how one deals with Christ himself and who they say he is in their argument). I will say that I agree with Keller(utube’ed here earlier) that there are many levels on which a person comes to faith. In his model he calls them Intellectual, Personal (experiential) and Cultural (social). While I don’t argue with this I will say for example that I pursued spirituality for years intellectually (even Christianity) and did not find my answers that way. That being said, it is important to note that for me, (stealing this quote from somewhere) “My heart cannot rejoice in what my mind cannot accept.” So, for me, the intellect must be satisfied. Its just to say that I didn’t come to belief because I ‘figured it all out and it goes like this . . .’. I have to admit that I have, as long as I can remember, believed there was a God. The question was always “Who (or what) is he, how can I know him, and what the heck does he want anyway?” Along with this line of questioning (or maybe it’s the same) was also the thread “Who (or what) am I, how can I know myself, and what the heck do I want anyway?” I think however, that I quested after the first line of reason and I am living through second (if that makes any sense). So how did I come to faith in Jesus Christ. It was actually pretty simple. I had been challenged over a period of years by many Christians with regard to faith in Christ and what it really meant. To me, I believed that Jesus Christ existed, had a ministry, was crucified, died and was buried. You know, he said some cool stuff, maybe did some really cool things and then the ‘Man’ said “you got to move”. These Christians also said he was raised from the dead and that he was the Son of God, that is, divine himself. I guess I didn’t really get on board with that part. However, I soon realized that the whole Christianity thing was stupid without Christ. It really started to bug me. Two things were evident. First, I needed to deal with this Jesus thing and determine if he was who these people said he was. Second, if he was who they said, then it put anything he said into a whole new light for me. As I said earlier, I tried to work my way through it intellectually. I found however that I could not escape the fact that I had to deal with Jesus’ claim to be the Christ and that the Christ was divine. Now, let me stop a moment and say that I realize my experience may not have validity for someone who does not believe in God. Well, let me rephrase that. My experience may not have validity for someone who chooses not to believe in God. For someone who already believes that there is a God and even for someone who believes there may be a God, but is unsure, my story may prove of some benefit. When we last saw our hero, he was impaled on the horns of a dilemma. I found myself in the uncomfortable position of dealing with this upstart Jesus who claimed to be God. The more deeply I looked the more I resented the fact that this guy really thought he was “the” Son of God. Not in the sense that you and I are children of God, but in the sense that “Hey I am the only begotten, divine Son of God.” Again, I just could not get a handle around that whole Son of God thing and the implications of it. I can understand my Jewish and Moslem brothers when they stumble over it as well. Here I was raised as a Christian and I am really having a hard time with it. “How can the one true God have a Son?” “Who’s really in charge of this outfit anyway?” “What if Dad says go left and you say go right?” “What if I believe you and tomorrow some other guy comes along and says ‘Sorry, I am really Gods Son’?” So now I realized that I had to take my request upstairs to a higher authority. Again, as I said, I believed in God and even prayed when in trouble, or for guidance and sometimes even for others. So, I decided to ask God prayerfully and honestly about Jesus. I told God all about my resentments and all about my questions and just the fact that if this stuff was really true then I needed Him to help me get through it all and make sense of it. In the months that followed, I found myself more and more in the scripture examining the claims of Christ against the expectation of Christ in scripture. I don’t want to say that I intellectually figured it out because many of the same passages I had read many times before. However, now there was a clarity in what I read. The language was not different, but the murk was gone. I realized that I had been given revelation. That is, I had received a knowledge from outside myself that I did not previously possess. I now believe that is how God answered my prayer. He opened my eyes and lead me through his story. Now I realize that many people have many different issues and questions. The world view issues, and personal suffering and issues on religion of man versus relationship with God, and heaven versus hell and many other issues both private and public. I have had many of these same issues and time would fail me to tell you of what I believe and what I don’t believe, of what I know and (the much larger universe) what I don’t know. In the end, the only thing I think I can share that is of value is what I did find at the end of one journey (and as it turned out the start of the great adventure). In my personal walk I needed to come to grips with this Jesus and (like Lewis) either line up and pity him as a pathetic mumbler, personally crucify him as a liar or regard him as Lord and Savior. Thank you for your time (you may now throw stones), Stephen

Very well put friend. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I found your testimony moving, even though I no longer consider myself a Christian in the official sense.

Lest anyone think me hostile to my former faith, let me just say that Jesus of Nazareth remains perhaps my greatest inspiration. (He's not the only one though.) I accept the basic account---in spite of the irreconcilable contradictions---of his life as true enough. However, I do not take the birth and resurrection stories literally, but love them as profound myths, employed---in common Eastern fashion---to "frame" a remarkable life.

I too, have always "known" that there is a "god." I just prefer less anthropomorphic conceptions than those offered by by the Judeo-Christian-Muslim franchises.

As for the famous C.S. Lewis quote: Well, even when I was a devout and orthodox evangelical I thought it was idiotic. The choices certainly do NOT reduce themselves to the two he mentioned! The claims of Lewis, like the so-called "claims of Christ" (which are actually the claims of the Christian sects and NOT of Jesus himself), are ridiculous. I read several of his books when I was young. "The Problem Of Pain" turned me away from Mr. Lewis forever. What an inhumane abomination that book is! But enough about him.

For my money, Lao-Tzu and Plotinus are closer to the truth than the anthropomorphic monotheism's are.

"Science"---though it has it's place as well as it's limitations---is irrelevant, and it's conclusions are far more mythical than most people realize. All meta-narratives partake of the mythical to a greater or lesser degree, and they always will. That's why there's no room for hubris or fanaticism. The Map will NEVER be the territory. Ever!

I should probably bug out here...

Love you all!

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, August 03 2009 @ 05:03 PM CDT

Quote by: Calchas That's why there's no room for hubris... Love you all!

Mike, I couldn't agree more.

D