The meaning of Incarnation — to Wil

[Quahom1]

Peace.

I feel depressed reading all this speculative philosophy and complex theology and christology.

We need to go back to the simple and pure faith of Abraham, there is only One God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, the Sovereign King and Lord. He alone must be worshiped, don't set up any partners or equals with him.

Jesus the Messiah عليه السلام was only a man and humble servant of God. He preached the people of Israel to worship only one God, like all other prophets that preceded him.

This is the true message of the Messiah. May God guide us all to the Straight Path (Ameen)

Welcome Jibrael! What you state is quite true. However the relationship between God and man is not as simple as we would like. It is a complex, intimate, invasive relationship, wherein God refuses to let man distance himself from his maker. He is a jealous God, over his prized creation. He (God) could care less about the physical (corporial) life of man; rather it is the spirit of a man that God is all concerned about.

Are we growing, are we maturing, are we learning, are we loving...these are the matters that God is intense with. The reason for this is because God had "plans" for his creation, and he intends that nothing will get in his way in insuring those "plans" come to fruition.

We, being made in his image and likeness, means he intends intimate communion with us at some point...Does that make sense?

He wants us to be LIKE him, not be HIM.

Jesus is the example we are to follow...

v/r

Q

 

[Jibrael]

Welcome Jibrael! What you state is quite true. However the relationship between God and man is not as simple as we would like. It is a complex, intimate, invasive relationship, wherein God refuses to let man distance himself from his maker. He is a jealous God, over his prized creation. He (God) could care less about the physical (corporial) life of man; rather it is the spirit of a man that God is all concerned about.

Are we growing, are we maturing, are we learning, are we loving...these are the matters that God is intense with. The reason for this is because God had "plans" for his creation, and he intends that nothing will get in his way in insuring those "plans" come to fruition.

We, being made in his image and likeness, means he intends intimate communion with us at some point...Does that make sense?

He wants us to be LIKE him, not be HIM.

Jesus is the example we are to follow...

v/r

Q

Thanks for your warm welcome.

I agree One-Hundred and Ten Percent with your above quoted comments.

But I would like to ask you, and I assume you are a Christian, and as you know, all three of the Abrahamic faiths emphasize the Oneness of God (monotheism) as the most fundamental aspect of our belief.

You say that Jesus (peace be upon him) is an example we are to follow. I agree with you completely. But don't you feel that modern Christianity is more concerned with the "nature of Jesus", i.e. questions like "is he God?" "is he the son of God?", "is he part divine?" "is he fully divine?" "is he simultaneously divine and mortal?" "does he have only one nature?" "is he of the same essence as the father?" "is he co-equal to the father and the holy spirit?" "is he subservient to the father and holy spirit?" etc., etc., etc.,

Christians have so emphasized upon this issue, since their early days, when different types of Christians were at loggerheads with eachother, i.e. the trinitarians, the arians, the monophysites, the nestorians, the gnostics, the roman catholics, the eastern orthodox, etc., etc., etc.,

Don't you think that Jesus himself was just a righteous man chosen by God and a recipient of divine revelation, and chosen as a moral example for us to emulate and follow? This is what I believe, and I think that if you read about the life of Jesus in the gospels, he was much more concerned about practical things like getting closer to God and following His commands, and not about the speculative philosophy and christology that has come to define modern day christianity.

 

[wil]

Indeed so ... He is present everywhere ... but I am not ... so he is other than I, although I am in Him.

Exactly....

Omnipresent....within you, and wherever you go.

Tis where we access all that is....within.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Jibrael —

You say that Jesus (peace be upon him) is an example we are to follow. I agree with you completely. But don't you feel that modern Christianity is more concerned with the "nature of Jesus", i.e. questions like "is he God?" "is he the son of God?", "is he part divine?" "is he fully divine?" "is he simultaneously divine and mortal?" "does he have only one nature?" "is he of the same essence as the father?" "is he co-equal to the father and the holy spirit?" "is he subservient to the father and holy spirit?" etc., etc., etc.,

That is because our Scripture calls on us to seek Him, not simply seek the message that He brings, or rather, seek the hidden meaning of the message, and that will reveal the hidden nature of the messenger. We are called to honour that quest.

In seeking the moral message alone, such Christianities do not seek the spirit, but the letter.

It is the Traditional Christianities that seek to know God, to understand the Mysteries of His being, and our own.

Christians have so emphasized upon this issue, since their early days, when different types of Christians were at loggerheads with eachother, i.e. the trinitarians, the arians, the monophysites, the nestorians, the gnostics, the roman catholics, the eastern orthodox, etc., etc., etc.,

There are differences in all religions, and this is true of the Abrahamic religions — there are different beliefs in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and man has been at loggerheads on this point ever since. Christians are no different in that regard.

And, given the nature of the inquiry, it's hardly surprising — indeed, it would be surprising were it otherwise. Christ understood human nature only too well: "Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." Matthew 18:7.

But to refute God in the pursuit of a humanist utopia ... He never said that.

Don't you think that Jesus himself was just a righteous man chosen by God and a recipient of divine revelation, and chosen as a moral example for us to emulate and follow?

No, I think He was more than just a messenger of a morality. His own words tell He is more than that. A prophet is a recipient of revelation ... He is more than a prophet.

"Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well. It was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria, to draw water. Jesus saith to her: Give me to drink. For his disciples were gone into the city to buy meats. Then that Samaritan woman saith to him: How dost thou, being a Jew, ask of me to drink, who am a Samaritan woman? For the Jews do not communicate with the Samaritans. Jesus answered, and said to her: If thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."

"The woman saith to him: Sir, thou hast nothing wherein to draw, and the well is deep; from whence then hast thou living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered, and said to her: Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever: But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting. The woman saith to him: Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come hither to draw."
John 6:5-15. He Christ states quite plainly His message is not a moral message alone, nor prophecy alone ... but that He is the source of that which renders a human morality a living spiritually. He is the source of the spirit of the letter, not just a messenger of the letter.

... and I think that if you read about the life of Jesus in the gospels, he was much more concerned about practical things like getting closer to God and following His commands, and not about the speculative philosophy and christology that has come to define modern day christianity.

I agree that modern Christianity has, in many instances, reduced the message of Scripture to one of a humanist morality — but also that God is effectively unnecessary in the reasoning of that morality — A Christian morality expressed thus is the same as a humanist morality, and many atheists and agnostics agree that Christian morality is 'good' without the need to talk about God.

Christ is not talking primarily about morality per se, but rather He brings the message of participation in the Divine Life. The morality is necessary, but subsequent to that.

And as you say, to get closer to God, one has to get close to Jesus:
John 6:58 "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me."

John 10:9 "I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in, and go out, and shall find pastures."

John 14:6 "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
These are not the words of a prophet, for no prophet claims divine authority as his own. Only Jesus does that.

Jesus constantly asked "Who do men say that I am?" and in answering the question, said "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17.

The fulfilment of the Law and the prophets is the coming of God. He claims to fulfil that prophecy. And the coming of God to man is not simply a morality, but a spirituality which deifies the morality.

Modern Christianities are Christianities of the critical minimum that reduce the transcendental dimension to the purely human — they rationalise what God can offer, and what man can be, according to a closed human nature. Traditional Christianities — Roman Catholic, the Orthodox Patriarchies, the Lutheran and some post-Reformation doctrines, preserve than transcendental dimension and the possibility of a Divine Union that is more than merely a moral paradigm.

In short, they are the Christianities of blind faith that accept the letter but do not seek the spirit.

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

Thanks for your warm welcome.

I agree One-Hundred and Ten Percent with your above quoted comments.

But I would like to ask you, and I assume you are a Christian, and as you know, all three of the Abrahamic faiths emphasize the Oneness of God (monotheism) as the most fundamental aspect of our belief.

You say that Jesus (peace be upon him) is an example we are to follow. I agree with you completely. But don't you feel that modern Christianity is more concerned with the "nature of Jesus", i.e. questions like "is he God?" "is he the son of God?", "is he part divine?" "is he fully divine?" "is he simultaneously divine and mortal?" "does he have only one nature?" "is he of the same essence as the father?" "is he co-equal to the father and the holy spirit?" "is he subservient to the father and holy spirit?" etc., etc., etc.,

Christians have so emphasized upon this issue, since their early days, when different types of Christians were at loggerheads with eachother, i.e. the trinitarians, the arians, the monophysites, the nestorians, the gnostics, the roman catholics, the eastern orthodox, etc., etc., etc.,

Don't you think that Jesus himself was just a righteous man chosen by God and a recipient of divine revelation, and chosen as a moral example for us to emulate and follow? This is what I believe, and I think that if you read about the life of Jesus in the gospels, he was much more concerned about practical things like getting closer to God and following His commands, and not about the speculative philosophy and christology that has come to define modern day christianity.

As this is the Christian forum Jibrael, I am extremely loathe to discuss matters of Jesus as the Christ here, as not to offend you, or have others take offense. (I may not express issues my contemporaries may agree with). Perhaps we can discuss further on the general Abrahamic Faith's main section. I would enjoy the discussion, in English or Arabic, or French, or Russian as would suit you.

v/r

Q

 

[bob x]

No, I think He was more than just a messenger of a morality. His own words tell He is more than that.

The words you quote are John's words, which may or may not have anything to do with anything that Jesus ever said. You can believe in the Johannine Jesus or in the Synoptic Jesus, but you really cannot believe in both without seriously discounting one or the other.

I agree that modern Christianity has, in many instances, reduced the message of Scripture to one of a humanist morality — but also that God is effectively unnecessary in the reasoning of that morality — A Christian morality expressed thus is the same as a humanist morality

That is the ABSOLUTE morality: that which would be right or wrong regardless of what your metaphysical beliefs are, or whether you maintain any metaphysical beliefs at all or humbly remain agnostic. Medieval Christianity displaced that for a morality which was relative to the institution's dubiously accurate interpretations of what God is like and wants. Pope Benedict frequently denounces absolute morality as "relativism" and claims his relative morality to be "absolute": I do not understand how he can think that is sensible. If you do something only because your religious beliefs tell you it is right, but you know that it would not be right if you are in error about your beliefs, then your morality is not absolute.

 

[wil]

The words you quote are John's words, which may or may not have anything to do with anything that Jesus ever said. You can believe in the Johannine Jesus or in the Synoptic Jesus, but you really cannot believe in both without seriously discounting one or the other..

It seems the GoT provides us a differing view from John as well. What thoughts have you on it regarding this conversation?

 

[bob x]

The Gospel of Thomas mixes early material with late material, and the later material is of distinctly poorer quality, in my opinion, both philosophically and in terms of its probability of accurately reflecting what Jesus said. The early material, however, in some places is demonstrably better than the Synoptics.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bob —

you can believe in the Johannine Jesus or in the Synoptic Jesus, but you really cannot believe in both without seriously discounting one or the other.

Well that's quite an opinion, but something of an overstatement, if you don't mind me saying. Certainly theologians would not agree. As far back as Origen, exegetes have been commenting on the distinctions between John and the Synoptics, without having to discard one or the other.

Pope Benedict frequently denounces absolute morality as "relativism" and claims his relative morality to be "absolute": I do not understand how he can think that is sensible.

The relativism which Benedict denounces ... and I have heard a political commentator denouncing exactly the same philosophy as the rule in modern politics, without recourse to religion ... is the relativism of the personal narrative.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Certainly theologians would not agree.

Do theologians ever agree?

Tis like climate scientists, politicians and scripture, you can always find some to support your view, and the 'other' side can find some to support their view.

Then folks think well we should go with what the majority think.

Well the majority in the US (by sales volume) think Budweiser is the best beer available.

So much for that line of thinking.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Do theologians ever agree?

Yes.

Tis like climate scientists, politicians and scripture, you can always find some to support your view, and the 'other' side can find some to support their view.

That alone does not validate the viewpoint, I think. Statements can be shown to be erroneous, or no more than opinion, as opposed to fact. All I'm saying is Bob's comment was his opinion.

Then folks think well we should go with what the majority think.

D'you think so? Seems to me if that were true, nothing new would ever get off the ground?

Both Plato and Aristotle realised the power of rhetoric — people generally prefer to be told what to think, rather than think for themselves. Fair enough, thinking is hard work. Only when it gets uncomfortable do they start to question.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Well that's quite an opinion, but something of an overstatement, if you don't mind me saying. Certainly theologians would not agree. As far back as Origen, exegetes have been commenting on the distinctions between John and the Synoptics, without having to discard one or the other.

I said "discount" rather than "discard" because of course I see Christians trying to interpret them both together; but this does mean discounting the Synoptics severely. The Sermon on the Mount teaches that nothing is important except what we do for others: Jesus does not say to any of the sheep on the right, "You fed the hungry, tended the sick etc. but YOU DID NOT BELIEVE IN ME ME ME ME ME! so to hell with you." But you, like a lot of Christians, decide that this is all of secondary importance.

The relativism which Benedict denounces ... and I have heard a political commentator denouncing exactly the same philosophy as the rule in modern politics, without recourse to religion ... is the relativism of the personal narrative.

He identifies anybody who does not accept a morality which is relative to whatever the Vatican comes out with as part of the "relativism", which I consider not just a distortion of the truth but an inversion of it.

 

[Amergin]

Among the issues that separate us, there is one I'd like to discuss, so perhaps we can both get a clearer picture of where the other stands. It came to mind from a reply you'd made to the 'errant priests' thread, and it's this:



I am assuming 'collective historic mythology' refers to the reality of miracles, the Eucharist, the Resurrection, etc? Something in the past which we have clashed over ... you say they didn't happen, I say they did ...

Oi Thomas. I do not think that the miracles, Eucharist, and resurrection were reality. Their importance is the effect that belief in them has on believers. I personally admire the teachings and life example of Jesus of Nazareth. He was one of the great thinkers of History.

I wish people actually read his words in the Gospels and take them seriously. Let us not debate if Jesus was a good and very wise man or a mixed god-human, or a trinity God. Those beliefs tend to distract people away from the real message of Jesus. Jesus did not ask us to deify him. He asked us to follow his lead. He taught us moral lessons and lessons on altruism, charity, and healing. The Church unfortunately in the late 4th century deified Jesus into a Trinity-God. That is fine if they wish to believe that. But unfortunately, people forgot the teachings of Jesus and concentrated on ritual and worship with a litmus test for "correct belief."

I think that one can be a good "Christian" despite the unfortunate name, by following Jesus no matter if they consider him a great man, a prophet, a messiah, or a god. Jesus never claimed to be God and never demanded worship. It is his teachings and life story that is more important.

My point is this:
If we say that all these 'marvellous', 'miraculous' or 'supernatural' events did not happen, then by what claim does Christianity have any contemporary meaning at all? What happens today? The answer is, and can only be ... nothing.

I disagree of course. It seems ludicrous for one to believe that a Solar Disc of bread is the actual body of Jesus. Again it is a distraction generated by Roman Pagans who redesigned Jesus and his teaching into a carbon copy of other Indo-European Pagan religion with a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At that point (from 393 CE to present) worship and dogma have put the words of Jesus on the back burner.

I mean, by the same token 'Christ in me' or 'me in Him' doesn't mean any actual or spiritual affinity between the historic personage of Jesus Christ and myself (spirit itself becomes an empty term) ... rather it's just a way of saying we share certain — but by no means all – residual or indeed primitive ethical and moral values.

I agree.

Likewise, 'in him we live and move and have our being' is, in the same way, actually meaningless, because there is no actual 'Him' for us to live in, move in, or be. He is just a construct, a synonym for the intelligible dimension in universe, an intelligibility which is itself an unforseen and unplanned by-product, a fluke of chance, a construct to make sensation manageable.

I think it is far more likely that Jesus of Nazareth did exist. I think he likely made the teachings for which he is quoted in the gospels. Possibly the gospels did not manage to include all of Jesus' teachings. The volume of teachings seems uncharacteristically small in volume. I suspect that the Organised Christian Trinitarian Church may have deleted much of his teachings that threatened their investment in the myth. That is why many of us are interested in the banned gospels and why they were banned.

The same with the idea of 'brother', or 'way-shower', or whatever term one favours, it's just an association of ideas, nothing more ... it doesn't actually mean anything.

I disagree. I think we live better lives if we pay attention to his parables, the sermon on the mount and other aspects of his life such as concern for the sick and poor, and suggesting God will forgive sinners.

This is why I cannot accept it. Eventually the idea of God is reduced to a construct, a myth, an emptiness upon which we hang ideas ...

I guess I fall into this category. I think God and all other gods are simply metaphors early humans used to explain the mysteries of the natural world. Unexplained events are called miracles. We still do that today. We call the survival of one person in a plane crash that kills 100, a "miracle." A chance recovery of a cancer patient is called a miracle.

If all that is myth, if none of that actually happened, then nothing that Christianity preaches, it seems to me, can actually bring forth any fruit that we can call 'Christian'. It becomes an empty term that is just a useful label, as I have said, for tagging together a number of different societal and personal ideas and ideals.

It does not matter if any gods are real. The mere belief in them served an important role in human social evolution. It spawned the evolution of organised religion which benefited the development of larger human societies by laying down rules and giving powerful leaders a tool to maintain discipline in early infighting savage humans. Without that social order, however brutal, was necessary for later civilisation. In time, with further social selection, human societies have moved to a more orderly community with greater altruism and freedom without harsh dogma or angry gods to fear. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Netherlands are good examples of this.

I mean, why not just dump the myth and stay with the morality ... you don't need Christ to explain or justify the idea of virtue, or charity, or whatever ... ?

That is true. We live today in democracies founded on principles of Lord Acton, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and George Washington. We know that those great men, like Jesus are now dead. That does not lessen our reliance on their ideas and venerate (not worship) them as men of great ideas and ideals. We can attribute many virtues, charity, and healing to Jesus even though he died 2000 years ago. We can still attribute many ideas of personal freedom, human to human equality, human rule of republics (or nominal monarchies like ours), and human rights to Thomas Paine and Lord Acton. The fact that they are all dead does not make their ideas go away.

An Bhliain Úr Shona, (Happy/holy New Year.)

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

I do not think that the miracles, Eucharist, and resurrection were reality.

OK. Everyone is free to believe in what they believe.

But it's evident the Evangelists did think them a reality. Indeed there are many scholars who argue that the miracle accounts are the oldest and the foundation of the testimonies, each evangelist draws his own conclusions from the miracles, and presents his narrative accordingly.

I wish people actually read his words in the Gospels and take them seriously.

So do I. But then, by your own account, you don't, you exercise selectivity with regard to what you think are His words, and what aren't.

Let us not debate if Jesus was a good and very wise man or a mixed god-human, or a trinity God.

So, no questioning the meaning of the text then? Are you not promoting 'blind faith'? Sorry, I can't do that. I question, I want to understand.

Those beliefs tend to distract people away from the real message of Jesus.

I don't think so, in fact I think the opposite. Of course, you are rather assuming you have the 'real message' ...

Jesus did not ask us to deify him. He asked us to follow his lead.

He also told people they could not follow where He was going, that He was from above and they below, and that their vision and knowledge of God, and their eternal life, was entirely and utterly dependent upon Him. What does that make Him then?

He taught us moral lessons and lessons on altruism, charity, and healing.

Quite, and He taught they are all relative to Higher Reality.

The Church unfortunately in the late 4th century deified Jesus into a Trinity-God.

No, that's a common but erroneous assumption.

I think that one can be a good "Christian" ...

Depends how you define 'Christian'.

As I have said, many today see no more than an idealism, tagged onto the historic personage of Jesus Christ, OK, but I can think of a dozen other contenders straight off the top of my head, if you strip out the theurgy — Plato, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius ...

Jesus never claimed to be God and never demanded worship.

Yes He did.

I disagree of course. It seems ludicrous for one to believe that a Solar Disc of bread is the actual body of Jesus.

Not if one understands the principle at play, which people rarely bother to investigate. Quantum Mechanics is ludicrous, the speed of light as a constant, is ludicrous, if you don't understand the principles.

Again it is a distraction generated by Roman Pagans who redesigned Jesus and his teaching into a carbon copy of other Indo-European Pagan religion with a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At that point (from 393 CE to present) worship and dogma have put the words of Jesus on the back burner.

This is your thesis, and may I say shows assumptions that evidence a lack of understanding. You assume something about triunes in nature religion, you then assume the Christian Trinity is the same.

Most scholars would tell you that the Doctrine of the Trinity is in no way a 'carbon copy' of Indo-European pagan religion. Listing triunes, often that you have thrown together with precious little evidence to suggest anyone else did, is no proof of anything.

I think it is far more likely that Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

So do I.

I think he likely made the teachings for which he is quoted in the gospels.

So do I.

Possibly the gospels did not manage to include all of Jesus' teachings.

Quite probably. John's gospel says as much.

The volume of teachings seems uncharacteristically small in volume.

Against what?

I suspect that the Organised Christian Trinitarian Church may have deleted much of his teachings that threatened their investment in the myth.

Really? Well, you'd have to prove that. A negative argument is no argument at all, really.

We have references to materials from quite early on, long before your assumed 'Organised Christian Trinitarian Church'; we can trace the unfolding and development of doctrine; we also have materials that counter contrary doctrines (just about all we know about the gnostics is from Christian theological refutations of their doctrines) ...

I can agree that there is much that was lost, but then there is still stuff coming to light ...

I disagree. I think we live better lives if we pay attention to his parables, the sermon on the mount and other aspects of his life such as concern for the sick and poor, and suggesting God will forgive sinners.

My point was that without God, then the parables, the sermon on the mount, etc., are just platitudes. It's the kind of thing a tyrant would say to keep the poor in their place.

I mean, one could present Jesus as promoting a suprematist doctrine in support of the status quo: 'Know your place, stay there, put up with it, and everything will be OK in the end.'

I guess I fall into this category. I think God and all other gods are simply metaphors early humans used to explain the mysteries of the natural world. Unexplained events are called miracles. We still do that today. We call the survival of one person in a plane crash that kills 100, a "miracle." A chance recovery of a cancer patient is called a miracle.

No, they're far more than the explanation of miracles. Believe it or not, we've moved on a long way since placating the gods at the first sign of a thunderstorm.

Metaphor (and analogy) are means of explaining often complex and, in this instance, transcendental ideas. You seem to have gone no further than the wonder-worker level ... I would suggest writers like John and Paul were trying to develop a cohesive metaphysic in light of the data made known to them by Christ. 'The deeds underpin the words, the words explain the deeds' as we say ... you seem to dismiss the deeds, and the words that refer to them ... it seems to me you ignore philosophy and metaphysic altogether, trading it for a warm and cosy fuzzy altruism.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I said "discount" rather than "discard" because of course I see Christians trying to interpret them both together;

OK. My error.

but this does mean discounting the Synoptics severely.

I don't think so.

The Sermon on the Mount teaches that nothing is important except what we do for others...

OK. But that is within the context of a whole testimony ...

He identifies anybody who does not accept a morality which is relative to whatever the Vatican comes out with as part of the "relativism", which I consider not just a distortion of the truth but an inversion of it.

I think that's something of an over-simplification.

The basic premise is that relativism says nothing absolute can be known, so truth is subjective — I heard a radio journalist offering a critique of Tony Blair's politcs as an example of the relativist position: It doesn't matter that there were no WMDs, TB believed there was, and therefore TB believes he did the right thing. He is justified in taking the country to war ... the journo pointed out that in the 'old days', a minister would have resigned on principle, but ministers resigning these days is a rarity (some labour politicians did, and recently a Scots minister did over the critical response of Scotland's preparations for the bad weather).

Then again, Benedict XVI has called on traditions East and West to defend what he sees are common values, which invariably include a sense of the Absolute, and man's relation to it.

That he promotes his own tradition is, I would have thought, understandable.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Let me tell you why you are here. You're here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You've lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage.

 

[Quahom1]

Let me tell you why you are here. You're here to be salt-seasoning that brings out the God-flavors of this earth. If you lose your saltiness, how will people taste godliness? You've lost your usefulness and will end up in the garbage.

That is the truth...for all of us.

 

[wil]

That is the truth...for all of us.

Matthew 5:13

 

[Quahom1]

Matthew 5:13

Indeed...thank you.

 

[Thomas]

As ever, the crucial point has been missed: not everyone is the salt of the earth, the appellation is conditional:

Matthew 5:11-13
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men."
It seems to me that those who profess the Christ are promised their eternal reward, and those who seek to explain Scripture (and Him) away, are those in whom the salt has loses its savour.

But then that's me ...

God bless,

Thomas