It is significantly worrying how any forum inviting discussion of religious themes brings people to the fore who have distinct problems. Whether it is a conspiracy theory syndrome or just a drunken rant, we seem to get them all here.
It is also telling that we haven’t progressed very much, except technically, and I have the suspicion that the inability to look at our sources from an open-minded perspective is the same problem that is causing so much disruption in the pandemic crisis. There seems to be few people who are able widen their perspective and process the information they receive without falling into a crisis.
The ability to accept that the Gospels (or the rest of the Bible) are composed with a certain aim in mind, whilst at the same time containing wisdom that is worthy, seems to be a problem that is widespread. Differentiating seems to be an artform.
“The Gospel of John is a relatively late theological document containing hardly any accurate historical information that is not found in the three synoptic gospels, which is why most historical studies have been based on the earliest sources Mark and Q”.
John’s Gospel differs greatly from the other three, stating claims on what Jesus said and did, that the prior three do not.
In the three prior Gospels …as Felix has pointed out… Jesus neither spoke at length, nor spoke about himself much at all… yet in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks much of himself, notably in the “I am” statements.
Felix and MagsJ, absolutely granted. I was just reading John recently, and it struck me how robotic it is. I had some fun comparing the Jesus in it to a Terminator.
I also agree with Felix’ point about the (alleged) words of Jesus sometimes hardly being decipherable from the comments of the author. The author also jumps forward in time with certain “spoilers” to point out the significance of things which the audience might otherwise not take note of. It’s a rather forceful piece of writing.
Bob, Im not sure I understand your attitude here, but hell, who understands anyones attitude these days. What was it that pissed you off?
A problem with reading the Gospel of John historically is that then it becomes a challenge to read it mythologically. There’s no way back to reading it with pre-critical naivete. And given the known unknowns of the origins of the book there are many factual gaps that must be filled theoretically in a probabilistic way. Jesus goes from being a semi-divine man like a Greek demigod in the Gospel of Mark to being the incarnation of God himself in John’s gospel. Contrast Jesus crying out in agony on the cross in Mark with John’s picture of Jesus calmly laying down his life because no one can take it from him.
In the Gospel of John Jesus is the incarnation of the I am that Moses saw in the burning bush. Thus he incarnates Being Itself in humanity. He is the reality of every positive thing. He’s the light, the bread of life, the water of life, the Vine, the healing serpent, the Good Shepherd, the truth, and the bridegroom. In the Gospel of John I see a Platonic theologizing of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
Basically that’s nature doing its thing. But, if the climate scientists are right storms like that are going to continue to get stronger and more frequent. The greenhouse gases industrial society is producing are not without consequences. Most Christian literalists expect things to get worse until the parousia.
Where Christ comes in is in acts of kindness toward the people that are suffering there. Jesus said “When you did it to the least of these you did it to me.” Are you doing anything to help them?
With the 24-hour news cycle comes increased awareness of global suffering which can result in compassion fatigue. Thanks for reminding me of the importance of human kindness.
Although there are so many people affected by such catastrophes who can’t be personally blamed for the causes, I can’t help thinking of the children who, although warned by their parent, put their hand on the stove plate and get burned. There are so many things that happen that are a result of misadventure or in spite of knowing better, either by individuals or societies. It is tragic, but it doesn’t work to blame anyone else.
And how is nature not but doing its thing at the behest of the God that created nature itself? Back again to Kushner’s God or God’s mysterious ways.
Or however those like Bob and Ierrellus and others rationalize it.
Either God created planet Earth with all of its built-in “natural disasters” or He didn’t.
Instead, the grim reality for hundreds in Kentucky right now is that they either fall back on their faith in order to at least have something to explain their terrible losses, or they accept that sans God their lives are essentially meaningless and this tragedy is but one more manifestation of the “brute facticity” that is the “human condition” in a No God world.
Again, from the perspective of some: unbelievable!
Christ/God is solely responsible for the very existence of tornadoes. A tornado did its thing in the city of Mayfield. Now those who were devastated by it are asked to choose acts of kindness in responding to others who were devastated by it.
This is what he comes up with in the way of rationalizing this particular “act of God” in Mayfield.
But again: what else is there for him?
And I can only be honest and admit that my reaction to Bob revolves in part around how much I envy what I construe to be his capacity to delude himself like this. As I once did.
All that comfort and consolation in having God there to put these things in.
Thus all the more reason for Bob to keep me out of his head.
Yet me still clinging to the hope that someday someone like Bob might actually nudge me back into the flock.
Only you recognize how really awful it all is. And in that you’re superior to God and Christ and the victims and the helpers and Bob and I. Well played. Congrats!
Naturally, I’m disappointed when I reduce you down to completely ignoring the points I raise and then “coming back” with something that is basically straight out of the substanceless [and witless] Mr. Fun playbook.
But, hey, if, as with him, you’re not embarrassed by it, then bully for the both of you.
Right right right “the points you made”. That’s your other pastime, where are you ostensibly seek solutions to a problem and then proceed to dismiss all possible solutions. I’ve been there and done that with you once. That was enough for me.
The sort of points that would be brought up in a philosophy venue where members are intent on taking such things seriously.
Or is that basically now just a long-lost part of the “old ILP” agenda?
What are the solutions that serious and sincere believers might propose when confronted with the events in Mayfield? And note where on other threads I merely dismissed them?
Of course, the content varies from thread to thread. But your process is usually the same. And the outcomes are often negative. For which you usually blame the other. Given that history what would motivate someone to engage you on your terms?
Exactly, there is a limit to being patient with people who seem to be wasting everyone’s time. I have no doubts that there are people here with conditions and disturbances, with trauma and sadness, but it is unreasonable to think that they can be helped with arguments for or against anything. I have learnt a lot in exchanges with people here, but I have listened and accepted another’s point of view, or I have challenged it. But there is a limit, and the failure to accept this is their problem.
Posting here is a pastime for all of us. Those of us who are capable of insight ought to be aware of the games we’re playing and take responsibility for the results. That from a purely pragmatic consequentialist standpoint if nothing else. From my point of view there are still many people here who are doing that. I Hope You know who You are. Thank you!
