New Kind of Theology

I propose a way of doing theology (God’s-logic, God’s-way) that is concerned more with God’s way of life than with God’s existence. God’s way of life is given to us in God’s story, in the Bible, a fact even the staunchest atheists cannot deny. All there is to doubt is what kind of life God lives, which is to say the nature of God’s character, and what God’s story promises.

My kind of theology delves into these questions by delving into the Bible. It wonders about God’s way and whether it leads to God’s promise. It asks what God’s way and God’s promise are according to this text, and says it is to love and that everything will be good. In Genesis 1, God promises that the multiplication of love will allow us all to finally rest. It will enable each and every one of us to live like the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, like children at play, which is to say without care.

But does God’s way lead to God’s promise? If God’s way of life was multiplied, would there be Heaven on Earth as I’ve described it? In my humble opinion this is the claim of the Bible. Those who say the Bible is a waste of time, that it contains no wisdom or following its way is irrational, need to bring their reasons against what I say here rather than God’s existence or the historical quality of God’s story. (Neither of which can survive scrutiny.)

In support of this claim - which is to say as a goad to all atheists - I say to love is to serve, and that God is greatest because God serves even the least. If we were to multiply love, if everyone were to serve like God, then everyone would be served by all. What a wonderful effect that would be… But then again, maybe I didn’t portray God’s way or God’s promise accurately. Then again maybe I’m missing the point of theology…

So you’re proposing that we should live our lives based on your interpretation of what you consider a fictional character?

This is what theology is.

Anyone that takes theology to be something other than a description of a deity’s life outline and guidance of living thereby is greatly mistaken.

Yes, that’s precisely what I’m proposing. But not on a whim, but because this character in particular promises everything will be good if we take up its way of life.

And again, it’s not just the promise of goodness to come that I advocate this, but because reason backs up the claim.

If we were to multiply God’s way of life so that everyone was an image of God, then the promise made in the Bible logically follows, i.e., we would have dominion over all of creation.

This, of course, depends on what we take to be God’s way of life, which I say is to love/to serve.

What do you mean by having dominion over creation?

How do you know this promise is true?

In saying we are granted dominion over all of creation I mean we are served by all of creation.

Genesis 1 describes the multiplication of life, which to me means God’s way of life, which to me is to love/serve. In other words, Genesis 1 describes what the world would be like if everyone lived/loved/served like God. In this depiction, everything is good and we’re granted dominion over all of creation. This is what I call the promise.

How do I know this promise is true? All I know is that logically speaking it makes sense: if we multiply God’s way of life (which is love/service) so that all of creation lives/loves/serves like God, then each and every one of us would be loved/served by all creation. Thus each of us having dominion over all creation is the logical result of the multiplication of God’s way of life.

Make sense?

So if all creation lives/loves/serves like God, all creation would be loved/served…I guess I’m missing the profundity…Seems pretty obvious.

If we all love one another, we’re all loved by one another. What’s your point?

Hey, alyoshka, no offense here honestly, but all of your threads read nearly the same thing.

You could have successfully accomplished this with a single thread titled, “Peace: Living like God”, or some such.

Stumps:

Repetition is the way to eternity. I also keep mentioning it because it’s my central argument and it has yet to be countered. All you’ve said about it is that it’s impractical. I agree, but I don’t think this means it doesn’t go to the core of the Bible.

Dorky:

Yes, it is pretty obvious. I’m not saying it’s a hard thing to grasp. Christianity is a simple idea and that’s what I find so appealing about it. People like to complicate it with ideas like the Trinity (i.e., Shotgun), but in reality the only point it’s trying to make is that we should love each other, and that if we did there would be Heaven on Earth.

Well if that’s the only teaching of Christianity, then I can say with certainty that loving and serving one another didn’t originate with the Bible…it was around in literature long before then.

Dorky:

I didn’t mean it was the ONLY idea, but the core idea… My apologies.

I don’t think there is a soul alive that wouldn’t state that the core message in the Bible, for the advice on living, is always brought about with the message of mercy and charity involved.

That said, this is not the core message of the Bible.
The core message of the Bible is, This is God, this is Jesus; these are the ways to life eternal.

Can you tell me the way to eternal life Stumps?

How does the Bible overcome the fact that nothing stays the same? This is what I can’t answer. I know it promises it, but I can’t see how it delivers…

I have this vision in my head, where a child is dying in bed. Everyone comes to the aid of the child but nobody has what it takes. Everyone is willing to give everything they have, their lives even, but nothing they have is enough. The child dies.

I believe God shows us a way of facing up to the flux, but God doesn’t defeat it. God never delivers on the eternity promised…

But please, if you can explain how…

God never delivers eternity in the Bible to any person outlined in the Bible, save for a select few prophets pulled directly into heaven without death.

Other than this, the concept of eternal life is outlined in the New Testament to be a following of the law (which would be seen as the Torah by the Jewish, but Paul outlines the law for the Gentiles differently, probably because the Torah doesn’t mean much to Gentile’s) and Jesus specifically lays it out that no man goes to His Father but through Jesus’.
Whether divinity is established or not for Christ, the obvious assumption by Jesus is that his human sacrifice of himself will atone for all of Israel.
And that staying with the law from that point will allow them to Heaven.
Keeping it in mind that it is through the Apostles that this atonement is shown to extend further beyond the children of Israel.

It is unclear if Jesus intended a salvation beyond his lost sheep; either way, the Bible does extend out to Jew and Gentile alike in the end.

It is said many times in the Bible that God does not break a covenant made with him, or from God to man.
Further it is said that a man may make a covenant with the Lord and through this and by Jesus willing sacrifice, a man may gain Heaven.

However, a man will not do that which is counter of God and hold the covenant with God and gain entry; God shows in the Bible that he will ignore that man.

So what is the way a man should live, how does one accomplish this?
Titus and Timothy are good books where the Bible discusses it’s consideration of how a life should be lead in the Gentile manner.

Their are direct instructions in those books on how to live.

Live as guided through the Law (New Testament if you are Gentile), and believe that the sacrifice of Jesus was blood enough for your sin.

What is sin?
Anything that diminishes the relationship between one that accepts a covenant with God.
Most people understand what this is without being told what it is.

The Lawyer attempted to wiggle around this by asking Jesus for a specific list of how to get to heaven, by which he received the parable known as the Good Samaritan (which actually would have been about the three classes of Jewish men, the last not being a member of clergy, as Samaritans did not walk the road path described in the parable…it is often assumed this was changed once the Bible was brought into the Latin text to bring the point out of compassion more.)

Quick comments:

So to you the eternal life spoken of in the Bible is a life in some ethereal realm after our physical death on earth? If so, how does this follow from “following the law” as you put it? If the law is love, how does living a life of love lead to an afterlife in heaven? How does God’s covenant coupled with Jesus’ death on the cross (which you call a sacrifice) lead to an afterlife in heaven?

Is it possible to show the logic here or is this just something that calls for faith? If faith, I’m afraid I lack it…

Also, I have a hard time thinking of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice, or even more so as some sort of coin that enters into a grand economy and pays for our sins/debts. To me, Jesus’ death was an injustice, and sacrifice, as a voluntary giving of oneself to others, cannot be called an injustice. If Jesus’ death was a sacrifice, I don’t see how it can be thought of as paying for the sins of humanity. Jesus death can only be construed as a sacrifice insofar as it was an answer to the people’s call. The people asked for Jesus’ blood, and so Jesus gave it to them. Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t save us all from sin, but only quenched the bloodlust of the crowd…

The more important thing to take from Jesus’ death is that God is not always there. Sometimes love is missing and there is great injustice in the world. More than this Jesus’ death shows us that the Christian way is to forgive in the midst of injustice… Jesus’ death is not the payment of debt… Nor is Jesus’ death our salvation. Rather Jesus’ life was our salvation in the sense it showed us a way of life that saves (in life Jesus saved countless souls through his sacrifice, but not in his death…).

Then again, you seem to think of sin as something different from debt… So I welcome rebuttal…

That is simply what the Bible outlines.
It’s not my take on it, remember, I’m Mormon, so I add more concepts in than the Bible has, but I’m not bringing these in to the conversation because these are not part of the theology that you recognize.

It’s not an interpritation; again, this is the Bible’s take on Jesus.
For instance, Hebrews 2:9-18

That being said, if you don’t agree with the Bible on this, then take it as it’s best for yourself.

The Bible doesn’t paint an absent God in Jesus’ death, but a death that Jesus would rather not do, but understands must occur.

That is among the lessons shown in the Bible, yes.

Again, the Bible, if you are to take it as the guidence to faith, says otherwise.
If you prefer to ignore portions relating to the faith of the religion and just use the guidelines of living, then one can do that as well.

The Bible is approached by many for different reasons.

I don’t; the Bible does.

Sin is defined in the Bible and in short one can simply say, transgression against man and that which destroys one’s relationship with God.
That’s the quick version of what’s outlined in the Bible.

The debt, isn’t much of a debt, it is a cleansing in the Hebrew culture.
It is like a rug that is walked on with dirty shoes; you must clean it at some point to return the carpet to it’s clean state.

So to is the Bible’s take on sin and sacrifice.
Sacrifice is the steam cleaner of the sin that is soiled carpet.

The Hebrew custom was sacrificing the best and purest animal at the temple for sins to be cleaned.
Under this, Jesus adopts the motif of being a lamb of sacrifice unto God.
For instance:
Rev.13:8

John 1:29

John 1:36

And finally, this pretty much summarizes the Bible’s take on Jesus’ role:
1 Peter 1:18-21