hey, long time...

yeah, i think it's a very good point. i like your current signature quotes too...

also, i agree with the easy target thing... i pity most christians as they know not what they do.

i'm probably preparing my best ammo for the movement of christian fundamentalists around the globe.

we had a lady come in to our school from abroad and give a little talk about it. maybe you already know that it's not just the islamic fundamentalists literally arming-up and globalising.

[myths of election are so passe!]

...and we saw how at the bottom of it all were the little things we were all quite ignorantly involved in, like prayer for prosperity and songs of power, just to name a couple.


anyway, in relation to the first post, my basic understanding is that 'god' is what people use to explain the unknown. basically, jesus' real dad was unknown or mary didn't want him to be known.

boy, did she create a monster!

disclaimer: reading of anonymous labels like 'christian basher' causes me to react extremely. i am, of course, aware that i don't know anything. but when people think they do, i like to go extreme in the other direction. you know, slap 'em back, intead of turning the other cheek. i'll probably jump on the bandwagon that says there is a good place in the world for organised religion and complete 'secularisation' might be scary. diversity is good. monotheists generally think other wise: its black or white.

basically, i don't know if there is a 'god' or nott either, and i don't think i really care because you can spend your life trying to prove or disprove it and it the end the answer is a personally experience/relationship/emotion. once again i'm thinking as i type, so its all subject to change.

perhaps, if god IS everything, then everything IS god. pretty simple really. another similar idea is that everything includes a bit of god in it... so, jesus is part divine (?), but so are you and i and the stones jesus said might cry.

and apart from jesus admitting he didn't know something, there are also the bits where he said he is not good, that no-one but god is good. he also said 'ye are gods' to the crowd.

maybe we could work through this (?)

i agree that it sucks as soon as that christian arrogance (as opposed to my arrogance) emerges with presuppositions of an ultimate truth that apparently some people have. maybe if it was worded like 'our understanding, which is different to the others' undertanding'. or maybe even refer to it as an explanation, as it probably actually is. basically, if you believe an explanation, your mind somehow understands it, right? something about rationality. i mean, the whole belief thing is not completely divine, if humans have to read the words of scripture, for instance, is it? they have to process the information.

and speaking of the information age, maybe we are all a bit guilty of this, but the human thing of thinking we know it all is enhanced, i think. which goes for christians too. and their belief requires the presence of plausibility structures, so it is not just the word and some divine power keeping them there. they are constantly hearing man's interpretations from the pulpit and all the other words he slips in between. plus all the comedy and current world events chucked into the script for effectivity.

so, i agree about you sentiments on the concept of 'understanding', although i failed to notice it at first. the paragraph was interesting in ways. sounds like the person as a brain cell or two anyway, just lacks a bit of understanding!

basically, i don't want to feel like i have to read the theological theory of self-emptying and i guess that makes a big difference. maybe its what ideology one chooses to read that influences one's understanding.

discussions are interesting because the participants only use what information and understanding they have on them at the time.

so, if there is a god and he IS everything, then are we all a part of god?

if god was an intelligent persona, it's still hard to picture the creation of the world because where did the 'raw' materials come from? or was it a part of 'his' body that was used to create it? if so, maybe we are all part divine. when it was separated from his 'body' did it 'die'/lose divinity? if so, humans are separated from the divine. even a starting point is difficult to suggest.

it can be hard to control the mind when it comes to these concepts. well, mine, anyway. and then i also choose to be ingnorant to certain studies that have probably gone here in depth (usually from a theological/religious perspective, hence, 'tainted' in a way IM'H'O). i would be approaching the idea from the angle (my belief/understanding) that Jesus was JUST A MAN.

therefore, when (for example) two people are approaching this problem of half man/half divine is possible, like a lot of discussions that involve belief and/or so called 'understanding', it's almost as if a conclusion was never possible. unless the more persuasive person convinces. which brings us back to law, politics and academia (especially today?). its all about persuasion/argumentation the way i see it. then you see why so much money is poured into advertising, marketing and political campaigns. ideology.

in the end you wonder whether divinity is just at the top of a hierarchy of power-knowledge.

is it possible for jesus (or anyone) to be a slave AND a master?

thanks

oh, im with you now, FULLY god and FULLY man...

ok, the only logical (human) explanation is that man is god (?)

eg.all man = all god

but would that mean there are as many gods as people or that each person is a part of a collective god?

and then if you can prove that god created the universe, then that would mean that man created the universe.

if it means representation of the universe, then perhaps this is the oldest surviving references to the simulacrum (matrix)!

didn't scientists create the universe or at least images of it in our heads?

it's late