When is good, good enough?

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes. Most of the time I don’t think we are arguing about what spiritual truth is, but what it looks like from our perspective.

I was trying to get some sleep, when I had a crazy thought. I’m not sure I can get it out right. But I thought of it in terms of a spiritual exercise, a spiritual askesis that is indirectly, like psychological ju ...[text shortened]... out the Judeo-Christian paradigm, I’ve got a lot of ground to cover.

We’ll see how it goes...

Typically that is how I enter into worship, so I'm not sure if I get what
you mean.
Kelly

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Please, don't twist my words.

Words tend to wriggle all on their own. Dogmatic, anti-intellectual attitudes are convenient devices for those inclined to oppress others, even "for their own good". Of course I don't mean to imply that you should espouse such notions--just pointing something out (with a joke).

If I responded to your statement with "why" would you have a better answer than "because"?

Originally posted by vistesd
Much is sometimes made on here of human fallibility—moral and otherwise. Standards are set that humans seemingly cannot meet. Perfection is taken as a divine norm to which humans are held, though they cannot meet it. Nothing short of errorless perfection is considered acceptable.

Divine standards, it is sometimes asserted, are necessary even for ...[text shortened]... s in some philosophy that I have chosen to commit to.

Why should this not be “good enough”?

Good morning, vistesd. I trust all is well with you and your world.

You and I (not considering the varying degrees of intelligence which distinguish us individually) are equals. As such, I can desire happiness for you and trust that you wish the same for me, neither of us expecting any diminutive effect on our own happiness in the process. Quite the opposite, we are warmed by our friendship, not chilled.

We share this warmth and communion by virute of our equality: there exists an affinity between us which makes it possible. We can approximate this relational communion with other like subjects. For instance, although the level is greatly reduced, I can commune with my dog regarding the things we have in common. In fact, communion with my dog is more readily available than with, say, a two-week old infant--- despite the fact that I share more fundamental characteristics with the infant. In his current state, the infant and I are unable to relate much: any warmth generated by the relationship is almost entirely one-sided.

When God created the man and the woman, there existed affinity, thus communion was possible. The man and the woman were created perfect--- without flaw--- and were each therefore acceptable to God. There was nothing objectional in them which would have rendered personal love impossible.

Until such time as God's righteousness was again imparted to man, man has been in a position of offensiveness toward God. John 3:16 tells us nonetheless that God "so loved the world..." How so? Impersonal love. In the stage marked by God's impersonal love toward him, man has been standing outside of the gate, as it were, wondering how to get in. He assesses the gate and the walls (rightly) as impenetrable. He is frustrated by the knowledge that even his best key--- while it goes in the lock--- does not turn the tumbler.

Man knows inherently that the puzzle is perfect and that somehow he is called upon to muster up the perfect solution. That's at least one of the reasons why there exists many outside-in conduct standards: man 'sees' the inside and knows perfection-leading-to-acceptance cannot be found therein. As Paul said:

"What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?"

And, thankfully, he didn't leave us hanging. The only perfect key, the only one capable of moving the tumbler and accessing the perfection of God's presence for us:

"Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good morning, vistesd. I trust all is well with you and your world.

You and I (not considering the varying degrees of intelligence which distinguish us individually) are equals. As such, I can desire happiness for you and trust that you wish the same for me, neither of us expecting any diminutive effect on our own happiness in the process. Quite the on of God's presence for us:

"Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

I hope you and yours are very well, also.

I want to respond to two points:

(1) I understand (I think), your distinction between personal and impersonal love. But it is simply not Biblical. Now, that does not particularly bother me, since I am not a sola scripturist. But I thought you were. Do you have a source for this, or is it your own thing? (It also seems to be absent from the patristics.)

(2) With regard to “outside-in” conduct standards, the only ones that really count are those that are imputed to a divine agent (otherwise, although society may set standards, they are “inside-out” for whoever promulgated them). With regard to those imputed to divine agency—well, I’ll just take the Christian one: one has to first assume a priori that the Bible represents the voice of that divine agency (God), without any interference or interpretation by humans. So, basically, you are simply asserting the necessity of “divine command” standards.

Also, you are making God, it seems to me, a totally external agent. (No basileia tou theou to be found “within”.) This may be modern evangelical Protestant theology, but it is neither ancient nor Orthodox Christianity—that is, not in the strict way that I am inferring here (and I may be inferring incorrectly).

Originally posted by vistesd
I hope you and yours are very well, also.

I want to respond to two points:

(1) I understand (I think), your distinction between personal and impersonal love. But it is simply not Biblical. Now, that does not particularly bother me, since I am not a sola scripturist. But I thought you were. Do you have a source for this, or is it your own th ...[text shortened]... ty—that is, not in the strict way that I am inferring here (and I may be inferring incorrectly).

But it is simply not Biblical.
Will we find the terms personal and impersonal in any translation? No. Nonetheless, the principal runs throughout the entirety of Scripture. We find language of accomodation, anthropomorphisms, anthropopathisms and etc., all requiring accurate interpretation, as well. Dogmatic statements of doctrine must guide our understanding of uncertain passages.

... otherwise, although society may set standards, they are “inside-out” for whoever promulgated them...
I disagree in part. The "inside-out" standard may be partially informed by one's self-opinion, however, one is still addressing conduct based upon concepts. Anyone advanced to a degree as to contemplate such topics clearly cannot also be deluded to the point that they consider themselves "truth," for instance. Therefore, the standard avers its authority from the realm of "ought to" based on--- at minimum--- reason and/or nature.

So, basically, you are simply asserting the necessity of “divine command” standards.
I don't know that standards/commands/etc. would be necessary, were everything hunky-dorry. Although in the Garden, there was but one command (stay away from the fruit of the one tree), that one standard seems extremely minute, given the freedom of myriad other fruit available. Meaning, no matter which way we turn on this earthly level of understanding, we are faced with imperfection: physically and otherwise. It is painfully obvious to even the casual observer that this thing called life is broken and in need of repair. Our very desire for a standard, any standard, testifies to this very thing.

Also, you are making God, it seems to me, a totally external agent.
If so, only for the purposes of momentary clarification. Quite the contrary, the very purpose for creation was communion--- made possible now by the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. Once far off, we are brought near. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit each take up residence within each and every believer. We cannot get any closer to God than that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But it is simply not Biblical.
Will we find the terms personal and impersonal in any translation? No. Nonetheless, the principal runs throughout the entirety of Scripture. We find language of accomodation, anthropomorphisms, anthropopathisms and etc., all requiring accurate interpretation, as well. Dogmatic statements of doctrine ...[text shortened]... up residence within each and every believer. We cannot get any closer to God than that.[/b]

Nonetheless, the principal runs throughout the entirety of Scripture.

No, it runs there because you put it there. Freaky, you are a good exegete, and—insofar as I can tell—apply your hermeneutical standards consistently. But you seem a bit like a midrashist who denies that they are doing midrash.

Dogmatic statements of doctrine must guide our understanding of uncertain passages.

In which case, of course, it is inescapable that you will interpret the text to those doctrinal conclusions.

If so, only for the purposes of momentary clarification.

Okay, understood.

Originally posted by vistesd
Nonetheless, the principal runs throughout the entirety of Scripture.

No, it runs there because you put it there. Freaky, you are a good exegete, and—insofar as I can tell—apply your hermeneutical standards consistently. But you seem a bit like a midrashist who denies that they are doing midrash.

Dogmatic statements of doctrine must guide our ...[text shortened]... lusions.

[b]If so, only for the purposes of momentary clarification.

Okay, understood.[/b]

But you seem a bit like a midrashist who denies that they are doing midrash.
Nothing nearly as poetical enters my thinking when studying doctrine(although I must admit that the ramifications of doctrinal thinking lend themselves to all manner of application). As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and here (Scripture) the pudding is rife with the stated distinctions within the original languages.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes. Most of the time I don’t think we are arguing about what spiritual truth is, but what it looks like from our perspective.

I was trying to get some sleep, when I had a crazy thought. I’m not sure I can get it out right. But I thought of it in terms of a spiritual exercise, a spiritual askesis that is indirectly, like psychological ju ...[text shortened]... out the Judeo-Christian paradigm, I’ve got a lot of ground to cover.

We’ll see how it goes...

As I told you the first time I read your post that for me it seems like
a point of worship to tell God what I know about him and how I
believes He does things. If that isn't what you are asking, maybe you
should go first so I get a feel for it.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is eternal life all that matters to you? What is so important about it? Do you realize that such and attitude is extremely selfish and apparently contradictory to Christs teaching?
Do you act morally or according to what you perceive to be Gods will solely to gain eternal life or do you actually think that is the right thing to do regardless of the rewar ...[text shortened]... eward/consequence for doing so, would you become a murderer / thief / general all round bad guy?

Don't you realize that the whole purpose of Christ's coming was to secure eternal life for all who would believe?
I don't "act" morally to gain God's favor. If I did I would fail the test every time. It is God's will that we believe in his son. That is what pleases God.
I used to be a "general all around bad guy". I'm still not nicer than Jesus.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But you seem a bit like a midrashist who denies that they are doing midrash.
Nothing nearly as poetical enters my thinking when studying doctrine(although I must admit that the ramifications of doctrinal thinking lend themselves to all manner of application). As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and here (Scripture) the pudding is rife with the stated distinctions within the original languages.[/b]

As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and here (Scripture) the pudding is rife with the stated distinctions within the original languages. (Italics added.)

I dispute that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I told you the first time I read your post that for me it seems like
a point of worship to tell God what I know about him and how I
believes He does things. If that isn't what you are asking, maybe you
should go first so I get a feel for it.
Kelly

I think that telling God you believe he is just, compassionate, etc. is what you mean.

What I meant was arguing to God, just as we do on here, that the putative acts of genocide in the OT are clearly just acts of God, because... (That’s just an example.) Or, tell God that he must condemn some people to eternal torment (can’t recall if that’s your view, however) because... Or, argue to God that he dare not save everyone, because...

Our arguments on here so often take the form of insisting on our own expectations of God (however we view God, or use that word). It just strikes me that some of our theological insistences to each other on here would sound pretty silly if we were to declare them to God in just the same way. (Try telling God that he’d just better do X because the Bible says so.) Quite frankly, I couldn’t pull it off... I can’t even bring myself to seriously declare to the grand mystery of the universe that it had better conform to my understanding.

I realize that this may fall outside your whole theological paradigm—but it clearly doesn’t for all.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think that telling God you believe he is just, compassionate, etc. is what you mean.

What I meant was arguing to God, just as we do on here, that the putative acts of genocide in the OT are clearly just acts of God, because... (That’s just an example.) Or, tell God that he must condemn some people to eternal torment (can’t recall if that’s your ...[text shortened]... alize that this may fall outside your whole theological paradigm—but it clearly doesn’t for all.

I'm not sure I like that idea, I wouldn't treat my manager that way who
is just a guy, why would I treat God that way?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not sure I like that idea, I wouldn't treat my manager that way who
is just a guy, why would I treat God that way?
Kelly

I agree. It was really intended as a thought experiment (and perhaps not a very good or well-defined one). The point is, whether it makes one feel uncomfortable or just plain silly, people tend to assume that God is (and must be) in their corner when they make such arguments on here with great insistence. And I think they would feel uncomfortable or just plain silly telling God that he must be in their corner—for whatever reasons, scriptural or other—when they make various theological arguments.

As I said, when I tried to carry it off, I felt just plain silly.

EDIT: Actually, I think this whole thread was not one of my better efforts, and would like to see it die now... 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I agree. It was really intended as a thought experiment (and perhaps not a very good or well-defined one). The point is, whether it makes one feel uncomfortable or just plain silly, people tend to assume that God is (and must be) in their corner when they make such arguments on here with great insistence. And I think they would feel uncomfortable o ...[text shortened]... think this whole thread was not one of my better efforts, and would like to see it die now... 🙂

I believe President Abraham Lincoln said something along the lines of
I cannot say God is on our side, I only hope we are on His. I guess I
should look that up, but to tired to care right now. 🙂 I believe God is
not on my side or even in my corner alone, I believe God loves me,
but He does everyone else on this site too, even those that I
disagree with the most and claim to hate Him. So I don't worry about
or trust in that side stuff, as much as I want to be doing and saying
those things that I should in the spirit I should. I can lose the debate
and win the soul if God blesses me, it isn't about winning here, it is
about being faithful. God is my shield and my great reward of that I
am certain, but God isn't a genie in the bottle for me to use as a club
against anyone else.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe President Abraham Lincoln said something along the lines of
I cannot say God is on our side, I only hope we are on His. I guess I
should look that up, but to tired to care right now. 🙂 I believe God is
not on my side or even in my corner alone, I believe God loves me,
but He does everyone else on this site too, even those that I
disagree wit ...[text shortened]... ain, but God isn't a genie in the bottle for me to use as a club
against anyone else.
Kelly

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln