Comment by Forrest Curo on 1st mo. 9, 2018 at 5:01pm

It must take someone very pious to imagine that God has the soul, and the twisted sense of "justice", of a usurer.

Jesus was not sent to face the "justice" of human beings because God needed a human sacrifice to balance His books (as if that would help)

but because we needed to see that God is unwilling to achieve His purposes by Divine violence (which would probably turn out, in fact, entirely counterproductive.)

Jesus told us not to fear "those who could kill the body" -- refused to 'defend himself' or to be defended by violence -- stood up for justice and was therefore killed by human beings. God's justice was to return him to life.

Comment by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 9, 2018 at 5:59pm

Forest:  Not really.  Just someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus.  We have two different understandings of Jesus.  Depending on those understandings we either see God as submitting himself through His only begotten son Jesus to the worst this world has to offer or as using a human as a pawn in His battle against evil.  You are not alone but neither am I, at least outside of the liberal Quaker community.  I will never attempt to convince you that I am right.  I write for those who share my view.  I thought this site was to open the way for us to understand the diversity in the Quaker community.  I didn't think it was to be a safe place where our personal beliefs would not be confronted by the personal beliefs of others.  In spite of our differences I often understand and appreciate your positions as they come from a different perspective but have many of the same facets.  I knew when I posted this you would respond.  Just doing my part to keep the site interesting.  Have a great and blessed New Year.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 1st mo. 9, 2018 at 7:40pm

"Divinity of Jesus" is open to a wide range of interpretations, including the one I consider implied by some passages in 'John': the divinity of all human beings.

So I'm not talking about God [up There] manipulating events with a human instrument, but saying that Jesus' actions were God's as well -- that God is immanently at work in all that happens, just as immanent as in every physical location. When a person's intent is in accord with God's -- as would have applied to Jesus' doings -- what we'd think of as two separate actions are in fact one.

I'm not at all sure that God is involved in a "battle against evil." Evil doesn't seem the sort of thing that gets overcome by "battling" (any more than any particular evil we hold a 'War Against.") Evils seem more to thrive on that kind of opposition.

We've got a lot of evil to outgrow (largely by seeing how well things go when we give in to it, oy veh!) and at times we try to fight it by fighting -- but God? Evil, from God's perspective, is just an affliction His human children need to be cured of.

Comment by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 9, 2018 at 8:48pm

"battle" is also open to a range of interpretations:

1Sa_17:47  And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD'S, and he will give you into our hands.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 1st mo. 10, 2018 at 12:36am

'Battle' in that example definitely meant 'to thump or poke hostile persons with sharp or heavy objects, including flying rocks [slings being a traditional military weapon in the Middle East, where there happened to be far more rocks than sticks.]'

People do things like that; and God can make good use of any silly thing people do. If there's a good purpose served by fixing a fight, why not? But the fact that people still imagine we can help stamp out evil that way... That's not God's problem, it's ours -- a problem which God is supposed to help us overcome some day, yes? Not when 'all those evil people are dead' but 'when people stop trying to get our way by doing evil.'

Better metaphors for what God is doing about evil? Teaching us to do better. Or 'raising His children until we grow up.'

Comment by Kirby Urner on 1st mo. 10, 2018 at 2:16pm

I'm really enjoying the take on Genesis provided by Peter Sloterdijk, German language philosopher, in his book 'Bubbles' (book 1 of 3): that in giving the breath of life to Adam, He created an otherness that likewise defines Himself.  Not until Adam was God a God of Man (the one we share breath with).

Anyway, I can't do it justice in a short post, just wanted to recommend a good read (the prose is dense to the point of flowery and I've taken to reading it out loud to myself). 

What it means that we are "created in God's image" certainly doesn't mean that, as doll-like bi-peds, we outwardly look like Him. It's a subjective immersion, not an objective one. 

Contemplation of Jesus gets us back to wondering about Adam & Eve (us), this creation that seems perpetually in trouble (fallen) and in need of drastic measures to save: first by flood, then by confusion of tongues (another reset button), then by direct participation, as God seeks to intervene directly, in human form.

Jesus wanted friends, not sycophantic acolytes, meaning he wished for humans such as himself who would do likewise in the world, and not put it all on him to bear the sorrow.  Those who put Jesus on a pedestal (or cross) and absolve themselves from all need to join in the project of salvation, are part of the problem.  Saying "Jesus could do what he did because he was divine as I'll never be" is hardly the posture of friendship.

Comment