If the stories contained an epiphany of Love, starting with Jesus', then that would be an instance of the finger post.
What would an epiphany of Love look like, in your view?
The perfect question. What it did look like to me was the Pericope Adulterae, The Woman Caught in Adultery. I perceived that as displaying divine intelligence. Now, nothing less than the Parousia I suppose.
But that follows the Love-less narrative. Because Love has never shown itself, it will not. Can not. Is not. Brute fact realism. Love cannot undo Lovelessness.
So, to be clear - Love is not? There is no Love and there never will be an epiphany of it?
Thanks @KarlLB. Old dog, new tricks. 1 return from the vet left, then I'm put down. I hope that's not too allusive.
Then you can all rest in peace. No one else will feel that they're being gaslighted by declarations of Love, God's humanly, naturally impossible, transcendent, pure, total, absolute, nothing but love, from the Jesus story.
I haven't seen anyone say they feel they are being gaslighted, have I missed something?
Aye @Nenya. For me Love is not. There is no Love and there never will be an epiphany of it. For there has not been. There is not. Not in in the Bible. Not in Jesus. love, yes.
I'm the one being gaslighted by and from the Bible. By the claim that God is love, that Jesus reveals the love of God, the Father; that Jesus loved and loves us in some meaningful way and that his death, his blood, is the seal of that love covenant.
You see Martin? Same old same old?
My answer is the same as Puddleglum's to the Green Witch.
I know Our Dear Lord was with me in critical and intensive care (and worse)! How? Every way, every feeling!
A story? Yes, but better (for me) than yours, and I try to live it!
This posting shd be in Epiphanies of course. I wrote a poem about this which was quite widely shared in Xian circles.
Blessings!
I couldn't be more glad for you that that was your experience and how it motivates you. And yes it was obviously better for you than my encounters with death, which so far were all as a believer. The next won't be. I envy you : ) And I try, aspire, to live in all my losses in gratitude - which I speak to nature, to being - and kindness too. While keeping busy. What else is there? But the beholder's share of the art of life.
I'm glad for all of those who find what they are looking for, Love, in the story, that I cannot.
Again, lovely theology built on derived orthodoxy; still fundamentalism.
I'm thinking that this is some kind of redefinition of "fundamentalism" I'm not acquainted with. What do you mean by "fundamentalism" here?
I mean any degree of literal belief in the Jesus story. Any positive believing take on Jesus' beliefs. Which necessarily mean that he was correct, to speak, live and die as he did. That it's all Love.
This isn't atheism. This is rational scepticism, doubt. Critique. That could lead to atheism, or emergent belief.
I’m sorry, but that’s redefining fundamentalism in a way that I don’t believe anyone else takes it.
The way you have expressed everything connected to this comes across to me as atheism, with no openness to any kind of religious faith at all.
I think if people actually believe something to be true, I don’t think they’re gaslighting people telling them about it. They may still be spreading false information, but in good faith.
I think if people actually believe something to be true, I don’t think they’re gaslighting people telling them about it.
They’re not. “Gaslighting” means to psychologically manipulate someone with the intent of having them question their own sanity or emotional or psychological stability, or having them doubt their perception of reality.
Excuse me, but you do. Lower case, only as good as it gets human admittedly : ) The idea of Love transcendent is inspiring and motivating admittedly, and without it, or losing it we can be less loving. And I would see it in your fellowship I know, love in the name of Love. I would love better if I had, apprehended Love. No question. Apart from the question of why didn't I then...
To some questions the only good answer is Philip’s: “Come and see.” John 1:46
It couldn't reconvert me. No matter how beautiful to see. I've seen the best of British, and it doesn't. But I need you to keep doing it of course! It's inspiring nonetheless.
I know you're not. Because it's inspiring. It's a great demonstration of Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Any meaning that promotes kindness is completely valid, never to be mocked.
Never say never! But of course what happens between you and God is between you and God.
It's entirely up to Him.
Is it? Don’t you need to provide an open mind, even if only barely open? If you’re absolutely, positively convinced that, in your words, nothing could reconvert you, no matter how beautiful, then haven’t you shut and locked the door, regardless of what God does?
I think if people actually believe something to be true, I don’t think they’re gaslighting people telling them about it.
They’re not. “Gaslighting” means to psychologically manipulate someone with the intent of having them question their own sanity or emotional or psychological stability, or having them doubt their perception of reality.
Misuse of “gaslighting” is one of my pet peeves.
Indeed.
I don't see how the Bible can be said to be gaslighting anyone; maybe @Martin54 could enlighten me?
ETA: Apologies to @Gamma Gamaliel , whose thread seems to have gone rather off-topic.
I know you're not. Because it's inspiring. It's a great demonstration of Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Any meaning that promotes kindness is completely valid, never to be mocked.
Yikes! Then I'm more absent-minded than I thought.
There have been interesting discussions so I'm not going to play amateur Host and complain.
It is the case, though, that almost any discussion on whatever subject becomes focused for a time on @Martin54's loss of faith. I'm not going to complain about that - although I have griped about it on the past - because I've probably turned each and every thread I've frequented into a both/and not either/or fest or something in recovering charismatic mode when I was a recovering charismatic.
I feel I've recovered sufficiently not to do that so much these days, although I do lapse sometimes.
I can't promise to tone down the both/and stuff though or whether puddings are over-egged or not.
I know you're not. Because it's inspiring. It's a great demonstration of Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Any meaning that promotes kindness is completely valid, never to be mocked.
Yikes! Then I'm more absent-minded than I thought.
There have been interesting discussions so I'm not going to play amateur Host and complain.
It is the case, though, that almost any discussion on whatever subject becomes focused for a time on @Martin54's loss of faith. I'm not going to complain about that - although I have griped about it on the past - because I've probably turned each and every thread I've frequented into a both/and not either/or fest or something in recovering charismatic mode when I was a recovering charismatic.
I feel I've recovered sufficiently not to do that so much these days, although I do lapse sometimes.
I can't promise to tone down the both/and stuff though or whether puddings are over-egged or not.
As I keep saying, the critique has nothing to do with my loss of faith, which I never had in the first place; I had certainty, directly. Indirectly that has facilitated the critique, that God is not (transcendent, eternal, perfect, competent, obvious) Love, especially as none is demonstrated in the Jesus story. Many here have faith beyond faith that he is anyway.
Indirectly that has facilitated the critique, that God is not (transcendent, eternal, perfect, competent, obvious) Love, especially as none is demonstrated in the Jesus story.
Indirectly that has facilitated the critique, that God is not (transcendent, eternal, perfect, competent, obvious) Love, especially as none is demonstrated in the Jesus story.
In your opinion.
In my critique. The qualification, the false ownership, arrogation of the discourse, is superflous.
And please disabuse me. Show me the Love. Not some of course!
I think maybe it's time to ask what precisely what constitute something, or someone, being Love, in your opinion. What are the signs?
Because according to my signs, I've seen them, and Jesus meets them.
Since we're not in agreement, clearly you are using a different set of standards.
could you lay them out for us?
The kind that everyone and anyone would recognise. That nobody has to work at to see. Not accompanied by anything obviously that isn't. And miraculous. Impossible. The kind that everyone would stop what they're doing at. In wonder. Never accompanied with threats let alone violence. The kind that would make every knee bow in gratitude, humility, joy. That.
But if you make it impossible for anybody to choose to do anything BUT believe… aren’t you forcing them? I mean, i wouldn’t want to force people to believe in me or love me against their will. And i think that’s what would happen. If i were God and made myself that overwhelming. It would be taking away their consent… I think consent matters very much to him.
I think maybe it's time to ask what precisely what constitute something, or someone, being Love, in your opinion. What are the signs?
Because according to my signs, I've seen them, and Jesus meets them.
Since we're not in agreement, clearly you are using a different set of standards.
could you lay them out for us?
The kind that everyone and anyone would recognise. That nobody has to work at to see. Not accompanied by anything obviously that isn't. And miraculous. Impossible. The kind that everyone would stop what they're doing at. In wonder. Never accompanied with threats let alone violence. The kind that would make every knee bow in gratitude, humility, joy. That.
Might not such Love want to keep itself from overwhelming us? And avoid making us do anything?
But if you make it impossible for anybody to choose to do anything BUT believe… aren’t you forcing them? I mean, i wouldn’t want to force people to believe in me or love me against their will. And i think that’s what would happen. If i were God and made myself that overwhelming. It would be taking away their consent… I think consent matters very much to him.
Love couldn't and wouldn't make me believe anything that didn't comport with reality. I'm not interested in believing. Only in knowing. Love never forces. Except against injustice, against abuse of power. It liberates. Stands with the weak and defends and levels them up against all opposition. Evil has no right to consent, but to surrender. Evil has no right not to consent to the compensation of the underprivileged.
It can consent to f*ck right off to outer darkness. Where Love would get its mind right.
Why would Love give a sh*t about evil's right to consent to believe?
I think maybe it's time to ask what precisely what constitute something, or someone, being Love, in your opinion. What are the signs?
Because according to my signs, I've seen them, and Jesus meets them.
Since we're not in agreement, clearly you are using a different set of standards.
could you lay them out for us?
The kind that everyone and anyone would recognise. That nobody has to work at to see. Not accompanied by anything obviously that isn't. And miraculous. Impossible. The kind that everyone would stop what they're doing at. In wonder. Never accompanied with threats let alone violence. The kind that would make every knee bow in gratitude, humility, joy. That.
Might not such Love want to keep itself from overwhelming us? And avoid making us do anything?
How would Love overwhelm us? Except with Love? The thing in I Corinthians 13:4-8. How can we be overwhelmed with patience, kindness, generosity, joy, humility, honour, other-seeking, peace, forgiveness?
But Love can only be believed in beyond believing in Jesus.
I've known God to overwhelm me with patience and kindness, for starters. But leave that aside. I think you're agreeing with me. I mean, you say "Love couldn't and wouldn't make me believe anything that didn't comport with reality. I'm not interested in believing. Only in knowing. Love never forces."
And that's exactly the problem.
Because there's a line beyond which it turns into forcing. If you take away every other possible and impossible option but one--if people have no choice but to admit Jesus Christ as Lord, God, Love... if even the ones who want to avoid him, can't.... well, that's force. People can't get away from you, even if they want to. And that kind of thing breeds resentment, not love in return.
Have you never seen it in an earthly relationship? One person finally manages to arrange matters in such a way that their partner has no choice but to admit they are right about X. It doesn't matter what X is, what matters is, the partner now feels trapped and angry.
I've known God to overwhelm me with patience and kindness, for starters. But leave that aside. I think you're agreeing with me. I mean, you say "Love couldn't and wouldn't make me believe anything that didn't comport with reality. I'm not interested in believing. Only in knowing. Love never forces."
And that's exactly the problem.
Because there's a line beyond which it turns into forcing. If you take away every other possible and impossible option but one--if people have no choice but to admit Jesus Christ as Lord, God, Love... if even the ones who want to avoid him, can't.... well, that's force. People can't get away from you, even if they want to. And that kind of thing breeds resentment, not love in return.
Have you never seen it in an earthly relationship? One person finally manages to arrange matters in such a way that their partner has no choice but to admit they are right about X. It doesn't matter what X is, what matters is, the partner now feels trapped and angry.
That isn't love.
Love and freedom go together.
I don't see any problem at all with Love revealing itself. By whatever means. From passive to interventionist. From a cosmic sign that every eye sees, even slugs', those of Euglenae, and knows is intentional, to stopping all violence, all injustice. Anywhere on that line would be absolutely fine. Force for good. OK by me. And all victims. And if people don't like that, they can cast themselves in to outer darkness. Foxtrot Oscar. They'll get hungry, cold, lonely and either be so stubborn as to die, but they wouldn't be hurting anyone else apart from those, if any, who love them. Then Love would fix them in the transcendent. Might take a while. But nothing can separate them from the love of Love. Or come in from the cold before dying.
We are created by others. In every way. There is no freedom from that. My best day last year was climbing a mountain alone in Wales and getting caught in a storm. Awesome. Had to keep moving, at 69, or die. God it was great. It was so energizing. So was the seething musical pub.
If my partner put me right on anything, I should be grateful shouldn't I?
But if you make it impossible for anybody to choose to do anything BUT believe… aren’t you forcing them? I mean, i wouldn’t want to force people to believe in me or love me against their will. And i think that’s what would happen. If i were God and made myself that overwhelming. It would be taking away their consent… I think consent matters very much to him.
I've known God to overwhelm me with patience and kindness,
The argument here, from your own experience, appears to be that we need to consent to being overwhelmed.
for starters. But leave that aside. I think you're agreeing with me. I mean, you say "Love couldn't and wouldn't make me believe anything that didn't comport with reality. I'm not interested in believing. Only in knowing. Love never forces."
And that's exactly the problem.
Because there's a line beyond which it turns into forcing. If you take away every other possible and impossible option but one--if people have no choice but to admit Jesus Christ as Lord, God, Love... if even the ones who want to avoid him, can't.... well, that's force. People can't get away from you, even if they want to. And that kind of thing breeds resentment, not love in return.
Have you never seen it in an earthly relationship? One person finally manages to arrange matters in such a way that their partner has no choice but to admit they are right about X. It doesn't matter what X is, what matters is, the partner now feels trapped and angry.
You should be; but would you be? Aye, that's the rub. And that's a general human problem.
From where I stand, the nature of the problem is, bluntly, that you are looking at life (and life as a follower of Christ) from the perspective of avoiding coercive relationships.
Why would Love give a sh*t about evil's right to consent to believe?
Because “evil” is not a person. Love cares about our right to consent to Love. (“Our” here includes any created beings, even Satan, with free will.)
. Had to keep moving, at 69, or die.
But you still had the choice.
The evil I'm talking about is metonymic; personal, embodied. I'm totally mystified by the idea that Love has to care about our right to consent to it, without even demonstrating itself, and not responding in any way when we consent to it regardless. The paradoxical nuances of the natural mind are fascinating. God's respect of Satan's free will ends in annihilation it looks like. Or is it just endless torture?
But if you make it impossible for anybody to choose to do anything BUT believe… aren’t you forcing them? I mean, i wouldn’t want to force people to believe in me or love me against their will. And i think that’s what would happen. If i were God and made myself that overwhelming. It would be taking away their consent… I think consent matters very much to him.
I've known God to overwhelm me with patience and kindness,
The argument here, from your own experience, appears to be that we need to consent to being overwhelmed.
for starters. But leave that aside. I think you're agreeing with me. I mean, you say "Love couldn't and wouldn't make me believe anything that didn't comport with reality. I'm not interested in believing. Only in knowing. Love never forces."
And that's exactly the problem.
Because there's a line beyond which it turns into forcing. If you take away every other possible and impossible option but one--if people have no choice but to admit Jesus Christ as Lord, God, Love... if even the ones who want to avoid him, can't.... well, that's force. People can't get away from you, even if they want to. And that kind of thing breeds resentment, not love in return.
Have you never seen it in an earthly relationship? One person finally manages to arrange matters in such a way that their partner has no choice but to admit they are right about X. It doesn't matter what X is, what matters is, the partner now feels trapped and angry.
You should be; but would you be? Aye, that's the rub. And that's a general human problem.
From where I stand, the nature of the problem is, bluntly, that you are looking at life (and life as a follower of Christ) from the perspective of avoiding coercive relationships.
Not sure I see why that is a problem. Among other things, we are discussing the nature of love with a capital L, and a refusal to coerce is surely one major characteristic of Love—and thus of God.
To be clear, my experiences of being overwhelmed by God take place in an existing relationship where I’ve already consented to that sort of thing. If I can use the analogy, we’re married, and happily so. For God to overwhelm people who do not have that relationship and consent in place is to fail to respect the freedom and dignity of the person—And that’s not a loving thing to do.
The evil, those abusing power, have no right to freedom to do that, and have dignity in doing it. They can go to Hell.
I can relate to Love doing nothing at all, just, theoretically; once They've revealed Themselves. But They haven't. But I'm expected to believe beyond belief that they have.
Never say never! But of course what happens between you and God is between you and God.
It's entirely up to Him.
Is it? Don’t you need to provide an open mind, even if only barely open? If you’re absolutely, positively convinced that, in your words, nothing could reconvert you, no matter how beautiful, then haven’t you shut and locked the door, regardless of what God does?
Sorry, missed this in the tumbling stream. I have a completely open agnostic mind (as well as a totally atheistic one; I have no knowledge of God, just as Richard Dawkins has no knowledge of fairies at the bottom of the garden), just like Thomas Henry Huxley, to Love revealing itself. Any time it likes. Human beings being naturally wonderful, like Captain Mbaye Diagne, who always comes to mind, have nothing to do with God doing anything at all. All God has to do, is demonstrate unnatural Love. Whereas the natural God, the one we make up, is said by liberals and others to epitomize Love despite not showing it at all. In the entirely natural Jesus story.
Show . me . the . Love.
You can't Nick. You can't show me God being Love. Tho' you have entirely natural untransferable gnostic faith that he does, is. No? You know that God is Love. No? The God revealed in the Bible is not Love without Newspeak. Jesus is not the Son of Love. He was truly the son of humanity, primus inter scant pares. The story is an ugly sister's foot, that does not fit the Cinderella shoe of Love. No matter how we hyperbolize the bunions. Let alone make the Bart Ehrman fit.
And I was converted. Fallaciously. And all the fallacies were pruned away. But my knowledge of God in Christ remained, thrived. Because of the most beautiful part of the story. As you know. Which does not survive the Ehrman saw. Which cannot touch it for you. Cannot touch your belief.
@Martin, is there a word missing here? I cannot make sense of this sentence.
Sorry, it refers back to 'the most beautiful part of the story'? The Pericope Adulterae, with which Nick is most familiar, cut down by Bart Ehrman following on from it being flagged up for fifteen hundred years.
@Martin, is there a word missing here? I cannot make sense of this sentence.
Sorry, it refers back to 'the most beautiful part of the story'? The Pericope Adulterae, with which Nick is most familiar, cut down by Bart Ehrman following on from it being flagged up for fifteen hundred years.
@martin54 - why couldn't you have said "Because of the Pericope Adulterae, the most beautiful part of the story, which Ehrman showed to be likely a later interpolation"?
Then we'd have understood without having to play cryptic crosswords again.
Ok, so I've done a search, and I can see that your post, @Martin, follows on perfectly from a post on the trauma of losing faith thread posted by you on 21 April.
But you can't expect people to remember a post from six months ago on a different thread to be able to follow your train of thought.
As @KarlLB said above why couldn't you have said "Because of the Pericope Adulterae, the most beautiful part of the story, which Ehrman showed to be likely a later interpolation"?
Why would Love give a sh*t about evil's right to consent to believe?
Because “evil” is not a person. Love cares about our right to consent to Love. (“Our” here includes any created beings, even Satan, with free will.)
. Had to keep moving, at 69, or die.
But you still had the choice.
The evil I'm talking about is metonymic; personal, embodied. I'm totally mystified by the idea that Love has to care about our right to consent to it, without even demonstrating itself, and not responding in any way when we consent to it regardless. The paradoxical nuances of the natural mind are fascinating. God's respect of Satan's free will ends in annihilation it looks like. Or is it just endless torture?
I had the will to live.
The personification of Love leads, inadvertently or intentionally, to the personification of Evil - whether as individual people or beings, or even as people groups.
@Martin, is there a word missing here? I cannot make sense of this sentence.
Sorry, it refers back to 'the most beautiful part of the story'? The Pericope Adulterae, with which Nick is most familiar, cut down by Bart Ehrman following on from it being flagged up for fifteen hundred years.
I am familiar with it, though I didn’t realize it’s what you were referencing here. I’m also familiar with the fact that the PA being a late addition to its current spot in John’s Gospel was known long before Ehrman came on the scene. And I’m familiar with Ehrman also saying that despite being a late addition to John, it likely is an older story, attested to as early as the early 1st Century CE.
With regard to your response to me, Martin, I’m afraid I can’t parse most of it. I know what all the words mean in sentences like “In the entirely natural Jesus story,” or “Tho' you have entirely natural untransferable gnostic faith that he does, is,” but I simply can’t figure out what you mean when you string those words together.
You say you have open mind, but then you say this:
Show . me . the . Love.
You can't Nick. You can't show me God being Love.
I’m afraid I don’t see how your mind can be open when you’ve already made up your mind that you can’t be shown the thing you say you want to be shown.
I’m sorry, Martin, but it seems to me that you’re still working from one unalterable and unassailable assumption—that you cannot be wrong, that even if you were wrong before, you cannot be wrong now.
@Martin, is there a word missing here? I cannot make sense of this sentence.
Sorry, it refers back to 'the most beautiful part of the story'? The Pericope Adulterae, with which Nick is most familiar, cut down by Bart Ehrman following on from it being flagged up for fifteen hundred years.
I am familiar with it, though I didn’t realize it’s what you were referencing here. I’m also familiar with the fact that the PA being a late addition to its current spot in John’s Gospel was known long before Ehrman came on the scene. And I’m familiar with Ehrman also saying that despite being a late addition to John, it likely is an older story, attested to as early as the early 1st Century CE.
With regard to your response to me, Martin, I’m afraid I can’t parse most of it. I know what all the words mean in sentences like “In the entirely natural Jesus story,” or “Tho' you have entirely natural untransferable gnostic faith that he does, is,” but I simply can’t figure out what you mean when you string those words together.
You say you have open mind, but then you say this:
Show . me . the . Love.
You can't Nick. You can't show me God being Love.
I’m afraid I don’t see how your mind can be open when you’ve already made up your mind that you can’t be shown the thing you say you want to be shown.
I’m sorry, Martin, but it seems to me that you’re still working from one unalterable and unassailable assumption—that you cannot be wrong, that even if you were wrong before, you cannot be wrong now.
It's very simple Nick. There is nothing of supernatural, transcendent, divine Love in reality. Nothing anyone can point at. Certainly not in a two thousand year old story of weakest provenance. Let alone now.
I have read everything relevant on the Pericope Adulterae. There being stories of earlier stories is not contested. I know the story of the story as well as anyone. But it isn't the highly polished C5th one, that we have to make excuses for not being in attestably C1st text.
We should not have to apologize for Love's failure to show unequivocally.
You know, the actions of Christ’s people even today are a form of evidence. As always, flawed by the ongoing presence of sin. But if you care to PM me, I’ve got a story which shows Love as clearly as ever the PA did, though for obvious reasons it can’t be shared openly on the internet. And you could see for yourself.
Of course I care to! Consider it done! I don't doubt that it shows love as good as it gets. But that's not Love. It will not be humanly impossible. And if it is, that's in the completely honest completely human telling. So it's entirely natural.
We should not have to apologize for Love's failure to show unequivocally.
I’m not apologizing for anything, Martin. As @Lamb Chopped said, we don’t have to.
If your mind is open, how can you know, with certainty, that LC’s story will not be humanly impossible Love* when you haven’t heard it yet? And why is “humanly impossible Love” the standard you’ve set?
*Again, I’m really not sure what you really mean when you put these words together.
Why would Love give a sh*t about evil's right to consent to believe?
Because “evil” is not a person. Love cares about our right to consent to Love. (“Our” here includes any created beings, even Satan, with free will.)
. Had to keep moving, at 69, or die.
But you still had the choice.
The evil I'm talking about is metonymic; personal, embodied. I'm totally mystified by the idea that Love has to care about our right to consent to it, without even demonstrating itself, and not responding in any way when we consent to it regardless. The paradoxical nuances of the natural mind are fascinating. God's respect of Satan's free will ends in annihilation it looks like. Or is it just endless torture?
I had the will to live.
The personification of Love leads, inadvertently or intentionally, to the personification of Evil - whether as individual people or beings, or even as people groups.
In human minds, people think that way, but the existence of Love Himself does not (in traditional Christian belief) intrinsically lead to “evil” actually being incarnate. Even the Devil isn’t that. He’s just an angel that went wrong.
Comments
Aye @Nenya. For me Love is not. There is no Love and there never will be an epiphany of it. For there has not been. There is not. Not in in the Bible. Not in Jesus. love, yes.
I'm the one being gaslighted by and from the Bible. By the claim that God is love, that Jesus reveals the love of God, the Father; that Jesus loved and loves us in some meaningful way and that his death, his blood, is the seal of that love covenant.
Show me the Love.
I’m sorry, but that’s redefining fundamentalism in a way that I don’t believe anyone else takes it.
The way you have expressed everything connected to this comes across to me as atheism, with no openness to any kind of religious faith at all.
@RockyRoger said:
If I ever get to that point of doubt I pray that that will be my same answer as well.
Misuse of “gaslighting” is one of my pet peeves.
Excuse me, but you do. Lower case, only as good as it gets human admittedly : ) The idea of Love transcendent is inspiring and motivating admittedly, and without it, or losing it we can be less loving. And I would see it in your fellowship I know, love in the name of Love. I would love better if I had, apprehended Love. No question. Apart from the question of why didn't I then...
It couldn't reconvert me. No matter how beautiful to see. I've seen the best of British, and it doesn't. But I need you to keep doing it of course! It's inspiring nonetheless.
I'm not being snarky, but why?
I know you're not. Because it's inspiring. It's a great demonstration of Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Any meaning that promotes kindness is completely valid, never to be mocked.
It's entirely up to Him.
Indeed.
I don't see how the Bible can be said to be gaslighting anyone; maybe @Martin54 could enlighten me?
ETA: Apologies to @Gamma Gamaliel , whose thread seems to have gone rather off-topic.
I don't think I started this thread, although there overlaps with some I'm initiated.
I often go off on tangents on my own threads let alone other people's.
As you were ... 😉
Thank you. A good answer.
Yikes! Then I'm more absent-minded than I thought.
There have been interesting discussions so I'm not going to play amateur Host and complain.
It is the case, though, that almost any discussion on whatever subject becomes focused for a time on @Martin54's loss of faith. I'm not going to complain about that - although I have griped about it on the past - because I've probably turned each and every thread I've frequented into a both/and not either/or fest or something in recovering charismatic mode when I was a recovering charismatic.
I feel I've recovered sufficiently not to do that so much these days, although I do lapse sometimes.
I can't promise to tone down the both/and stuff though or whether puddings are over-egged or not.
You're welcome. And thank you.
As I keep saying, the critique has nothing to do with my loss of faith, which I never had in the first place; I had certainty, directly. Indirectly that has facilitated the critique, that God is not (transcendent, eternal, perfect, competent, obvious) Love, especially as none is demonstrated in the Jesus story. Many here have faith beyond faith that he is anyway.
Because according to my signs, I've seen them, and Jesus meets them.
Since we're not in agreement, clearly you are using a different set of standards.
could you lay them out for us?
In my critique. The qualification, the false ownership, arrogation of the discourse, is superflous.
And please disabuse me. Show me the Love. Not some of course!
The kind that everyone and anyone would recognise. That nobody has to work at to see. Not accompanied by anything obviously that isn't. And miraculous. Impossible. The kind that everyone would stop what they're doing at. In wonder. Never accompanied with threats let alone violence. The kind that would make every knee bow in gratitude, humility, joy. That.
Might not such Love want to keep itself from overwhelming us? And avoid making us do anything?
Love couldn't and wouldn't make me believe anything that didn't comport with reality. I'm not interested in believing. Only in knowing. Love never forces. Except against injustice, against abuse of power. It liberates. Stands with the weak and defends and levels them up against all opposition. Evil has no right to consent, but to surrender. Evil has no right not to consent to the compensation of the underprivileged.
It can consent to f*ck right off to outer darkness. Where Love would get its mind right.
Why would Love give a sh*t about evil's right to consent to believe?
How would Love overwhelm us? Except with Love? The thing in I Corinthians 13:4-8. How can we be overwhelmed with patience, kindness, generosity, joy, humility, honour, other-seeking, peace, forgiveness?
But Love can only be believed in beyond believing in Jesus.
What a shame.
And that's exactly the problem.
Because there's a line beyond which it turns into forcing. If you take away every other possible and impossible option but one--if people have no choice but to admit Jesus Christ as Lord, God, Love... if even the ones who want to avoid him, can't.... well, that's force. People can't get away from you, even if they want to. And that kind of thing breeds resentment, not love in return.
Have you never seen it in an earthly relationship? One person finally manages to arrange matters in such a way that their partner has no choice but to admit they are right about X. It doesn't matter what X is, what matters is, the partner now feels trapped and angry.
That isn't love.
Love and freedom go together.
I don't see any problem at all with Love revealing itself. By whatever means. From passive to interventionist. From a cosmic sign that every eye sees, even slugs', those of Euglenae, and knows is intentional, to stopping all violence, all injustice. Anywhere on that line would be absolutely fine. Force for good. OK by me. And all victims. And if people don't like that, they can cast themselves in to outer darkness. Foxtrot Oscar. They'll get hungry, cold, lonely and either be so stubborn as to die, but they wouldn't be hurting anyone else apart from those, if any, who love them. Then Love would fix them in the transcendent. Might take a while. But nothing can separate them from the love of Love. Or come in from the cold before dying.
We are created by others. In every way. There is no freedom from that. My best day last year was climbing a mountain alone in Wales and getting caught in a storm. Awesome. Had to keep moving, at 69, or die. God it was great. It was so energizing. So was the seething musical pub.
If my partner put me right on anything, I should be grateful shouldn't I?
Because “evil” is not a person. Love cares about our right to consent to Love. (“Our” here includes any created beings, even Satan, with free will.)
But you still had the choice.
Martin's argument here (and in response to W Hyatt) appears to be that we don't need to consent to being overwhelmed.
From where I stand, the nature of the problem is, bluntly, that you are looking at life (and life as a follower of Christ) from the perspective of avoiding coercive relationships.
The evil I'm talking about is metonymic; personal, embodied. I'm totally mystified by the idea that Love has to care about our right to consent to it, without even demonstrating itself, and not responding in any way when we consent to it regardless. The paradoxical nuances of the natural mind are fascinating. God's respect of Satan's free will ends in annihilation it looks like. Or is it just endless torture?
I had the will to live.
Not sure I see why that is a problem. Among other things, we are discussing the nature of love with a capital L, and a refusal to coerce is surely one major characteristic of Love—and thus of God.
To be clear, my experiences of being overwhelmed by God take place in an existing relationship where I’ve already consented to that sort of thing. If I can use the analogy, we’re married, and happily so. For God to overwhelm people who do not have that relationship and consent in place is to fail to respect the freedom and dignity of the person—And that’s not a loving thing to do.
I can relate to Love doing nothing at all, just, theoretically; once They've revealed Themselves. But They haven't. But I'm expected to believe beyond belief that they have.
Show . me . the . Love.
You can't Nick. You can't show me God being Love. Tho' you have entirely natural untransferable gnostic faith that he does, is. No? You know that God is Love. No? The God revealed in the Bible is not Love without Newspeak. Jesus is not the Son of Love. He was truly the son of humanity, primus inter scant pares. The story is an ugly sister's foot, that does not fit the Cinderella shoe of Love. No matter how we hyperbolize the bunions. Let alone make the Bart Ehrman fit.
And I was converted. Fallaciously. And all the fallacies were pruned away. But my knowledge of God in Christ remained, thrived. Because of the most beautiful part of the story. As you know. Which does not survive the Ehrman saw. Which cannot touch it for you. Cannot touch your belief.
@Martin, is there a word missing here? I cannot make sense of this sentence.
Sorry, it refers back to 'the most beautiful part of the story'? The Pericope Adulterae, with which Nick is most familiar, cut down by Bart Ehrman following on from it being flagged up for fifteen hundred years.
@martin54 - why couldn't you have said "Because of the Pericope Adulterae, the most beautiful part of the story, which Ehrman showed to be likely a later interpolation"?
Then we'd have understood without having to play cryptic crosswords again.
You're not writing prog rock song lyrics here.
But you can't expect people to remember a post from six months ago on a different thread to be able to follow your train of thought.
As @KarlLB said above why couldn't you have said "Because of the Pericope Adulterae, the most beautiful part of the story, which Ehrman showed to be likely a later interpolation"?
With regard to your response to me, Martin, I’m afraid I can’t parse most of it. I know what all the words mean in sentences like “In the entirely natural Jesus story,” or “Tho' you have entirely natural untransferable gnostic faith that he does, is,” but I simply can’t figure out what you mean when you string those words together.
You say you have open mind, but then you say this: I’m afraid I don’t see how your mind can be open when you’ve already made up your mind that you can’t be shown the thing you say you want to be shown.
I’m sorry, Martin, but it seems to me that you’re still working from one unalterable and unassailable assumption—that you cannot be wrong, that even if you were wrong before, you cannot be wrong now.
I have read everything relevant on the Pericope Adulterae. There being stories of earlier stories is not contested. I know the story of the story as well as anyone. But it isn't the highly polished C5th one, that we have to make excuses for not being in attestably C1st text.
We should not have to apologize for Love's failure to show unequivocally.
You know, the actions of Christ’s people even today are a form of evidence. As always, flawed by the ongoing presence of sin. But if you care to PM me, I’ve got a story which shows Love as clearly as ever the PA did, though for obvious reasons it can’t be shared openly on the internet. And you could see for yourself.
If your mind is open, how can you know, with certainty, that LC’s story will not be humanly impossible Love* when you haven’t heard it yet? And why is “humanly impossible Love” the standard you’ve set?
*Again, I’m really not sure what you really mean when you put these words together.
In human minds, people think that way, but the existence of Love Himself does not (in traditional Christian belief) intrinsically lead to “evil” actually being incarnate. Even the Devil isn’t that. He’s just an angel that went wrong.