Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
pattimax said:
Are they simply "wrong?" Not from their point of view. Moreover, even if they are "wrong," how could the poor buggers possibly know?
If we think about it, their reasoning isn't unreasonable if the reasoning we have presented is not adequate to justify them accepting our beliefs. They don't feel justified thinking as we do. We can't exactly blame people for thinking that way . . . If try to force our reasoning on them, they'd either think we're arrogant or that we're trying to manipulate them. People must be given a reason to think and believe in something. Otherwise they have no moral obligation to do so. In that sense, we can't accuse them of being "wrong" because we haven't justified it to them, why they are wrong. It's only when we convince them that they are "wrong." So we have a moral obligation to justify ourselves. Otherwise, it is not they who are wrong, but we who are wrong.
I disagree with the timing of the assessment of them being "wrong." We haven't even justified it to them. That's a bit premature don't you think? Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here?
While you may find my defence of so-called "outsiders" unacceptable, there is also the question of whether our assessment of them is premature. Our assessments of them may be wrong if they are premature. Were we wrong about them?pattimax said:
I am hoping we are not starting off on the wrong foot here. Just to let you know I have done my homework, I thought I might list a few different ways I would have of conceptualising the "praying in Jesus' name" thing. I would say they are alternatives to John 14:9-14. You may recall me saying that I was "thinking outside the box" when I said that we could inherit the privileges of an honourable man if we were his brothers and sisters. Well, that actually came from ideas I got from reading the Bible. I just didn't tell you the whole story.
The Bible has a lot of metaphors, allegory and symbolism. It can express the same thing in different ways.Hopefully I have not given you the wrong impression here. I do draw my ideas from the Bible, but I don't always make that explicit in my conversations with people. I am not sure if it's because I am in the habit of being vague . . .
1. "Spiritual Descendents"
A descendent inherits the glory of his/her ancestor. One would think that the nation of Israel inherits all the blessings heaped on their forefather Jacob. The Israelites, and more presently the Jews inherit these blessings from Jacob by blood. Some Jews are not blood descendents of Jacob, but still inherit the blessings bestowed on him because they follow the same religion as that given to early descendents of Jacob.
Speaking of ancestors and forefathers, Paul describes Abraham as "the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised" (Romans 4:11). Galatians 3:29 says that "we are Abraham's seed" and "heirs according to the promise" God gave Abraham concerning his "seeds." Galatians 3:7 says that "those who believe are children of Abraham." Paul is basically talking about what we might call "spiritual descendents" of Abraham, people whom God accepts because of their faith.
My impression is that what Paul is really trying to convey is the idea of how Christ is a "spiritual ancestor" of people who try to emulate him. Because we are not blood descendents (not "physical descendents") of Christ, we must consistently assert that we are his followers. So when we pray in Jesus' name, we are asking for the same privileges that Jesus received in being resurrected because of the life he lived. We are "spiritual descendents" because we live with the same attitude as Jesus and because we are a eligible for receiving the same privileges.
2. The Cornerstone
1 Peter 2:4-5 says that we are the "stones" of God's temple. We, God's people, are the building blocks of God's home. The "Living Stone rejected by men but chosen by God" in 1 Peter 2:4 was Jesus. 1 Peter 2:5 says our "spiritual sacrifices" are "acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Jesus was the Foundation Stone. But that means something else -- we can't be a part of God's temple if we're not built on top of the Foundation Stone. We can't be built on top of that First Stone if we're not "spiritual descendents" of Christ.
3. The Door-Opener
How did Jesus become the Cornerstone? He must have been very special to be ordained the cornerstone. How did he earn that place in God's temple? How else? He died an honourable death.
He died an honourable death and was resurrected because he lived an honourable life. What next? Well, being the one privileged enough to gain entry into heaven, Jesus was granted a wish. His wish was to let other people into heaven, in exchange for his life, in heaven. So Jesus didn't just give his life on earth, but also in heaven. He became the Cornerstone. His destiny is sealed. That's his life-long career -- his life long job -- to be the Foundation Stone of God's temple. He can't quit. There is no such thing as resigning. But here's the point -- we pray in Jesus' name because he opened the door into God's temple. He was the first into heaven and the only one who could open the door to let us in.
4. The Mansion
John 14:1-3 says Jesus would be preparing "places" for us in heaven. This might actually have a connection with what it says in 1 Peter 2:4-5 about us being the "stones" of God's home/temple. Moreover, Jesus says in John 14:2 that "my Father's house has many rooms." Ring a bell? We all have a place in God's heart. We are the rooms. The rooms are filled when we fit in with our future destiny.
5. Summing it all Up
I guess it all has to hang together somehow . . . I would say I don't think it stops with just quoting John 14:9-14 -- that it's because Jesus was "the Son of God." There are half a dozen "sub-stories" in other places in the Bible to do with why we "pray in Jesus' name." Any one of them is a candidate for being a reason why we invoke Jesus in our prayers. Because each of these sub-stories are really part of the greater story of what Christianity means, it's just a matter of figuring out where things fit in.
While I did say I was "thinking outside the box," that was only to understand how I might "think inside the box." My ideas are still based on what I find in the Bible.
The point I was making was that John 14:9-14 would probably have been the most obvious answer to the question of why we invoked Jesus in our prayers. I would have classified it as "the Bible Thumper's response" in the sense that it's the kind of answer you would most likely expect. The guy just quotes directly from the Bible! The trouble, I think, though, is you'd then be under-representing Christianity. John 14:9-14 just isn't the only reason why Jesus is invoked in our prayers.
That was the reason why I might have "overlooked" that passage. I was looking for a different way of seeing things. The idea of being stereotyped for following rules and formulas and stating the obvious didn't quite appeal to me . . . I guess then that that's the nice thing when Christianity allows you to have a different way of seeing things. You don't have to be stereotyped if you don't want it to happen.
Concerning thinking "outside the box," my idea is to spend some time not reading the Bible and to think conceptually, theoretically and hypothetically about what I've read and learnt. Only after I'm satisfied with the ideas I've spawned do I open the Bible to read it. Even then, it's just to confirm that my ideas fit in with what the Bible says. Speculating about the meaning of Christianity takes a lot of thinking. So when I do read the Bible, it's only to consult it, and use it as evidence of whether my reasoning was right or wrong. So I think before reading, and when I do read, it's usually only to consult or confirm. If there's a part of the Bible I have never read, then I'd be exploring.
But I guess that might lead to another insight -- the Bible is perhaps just one instance of Christianity. You could say it's a book of examples of what Christianity might mean. So perhaps the purpose of the Bible is not to specify what Christianity is or isn't, and nor may its purpose have been it define it. For most of us, then, the Bible, as a book of examples, is sufficient for the purpose of explaining the meaning of Christianity . . .
