tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post4243882088752770719..comments2023-08-06T07:02:49.496-04:00Comments on Little Steps Home: The Shocking AlternativeAmberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09002997517784638068noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-6925655692775321092011-09-16T09:46:57.125-04:002011-09-16T09:46:57.125-04:00Suroor,
I call it the 'everyone's misguid...Suroor,<br /><br />I call it the 'everyone's misguided but me!' mindset. :) And it crops up pretty much everywhere. <br /><br />The Trinity is a very difficult concept and it's hard to explain even to other Christians who are coming from more or less the same background. So it's not a surprise that Muslims and others who don't have the same frame of reference have trouble with it.<br /><br />I agree there should be ongoing and positive dialogue between Christians and Muslims. It's hard to get something like that going in a calm and rational manner for some reason. Wacky people always sneak in.Amberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002997517784638068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-18122631225146525362011-09-16T08:10:49.521-04:002011-09-16T08:10:49.521-04:00You are right. I guess this is how many evangelica...You are right. I guess this is how many evangelical Christians view the situation - those who deny Jesus' divinity are misguided, like Muslims think all Trinitarians are misguided. <br /><br />I also agree that removing mindsets is very difficult. <br /><br />"From the point of view where Jesus is God, the concept of shirk doesn't apply. After all, if he is God then we're not associating partners with God."<br /><br />That is a valid pov. I think 90%, if not more, Muslims don't understand the concept of Trinity - it isn't an easy concept, I know. It is difficult to explain how God can be one and yet three persons who exist simultaneously. I sometimes feel that there should be active and positive dialogue between Christians and Muslims so that confusions about Trinity are removed from the minds of Muslims.<br /><br />Thanks Amber for this discussion :)Suroorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07151400258859526990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-44070923061554128662011-09-15T11:01:27.784-04:002011-09-15T11:01:27.784-04:00Suroor,
I think they'd take a different persp...Suroor,<br /><br />I think they'd take a different perspective and say that they are just trying to share the real Jesus with the people who have misunderstood him. From their perspective these people are missing a really big and important aspect of their lives and the whole reason that Christ came to earth. So they'd certainly never feel that they're possessive and unwilling to share.<br /><br />But it's all a matter of perspective isn't it? They don't want people to be (as they see it) misled their entire lives about who Christ really is. And the people who see Christ as something else it can come off as if the Christians don't want them touching their Christ. Which might be a little true, since they don't want 'wrong' understandings of his nature to be around. *waggles hand* Like I said. It's all about the perspective.<br /><br />From the point of view where Jesus is God, the concept of shirk doesn't apply. After all, if he is God then we're not associating partners with God. /random comment that doesn't do anything but sit there<br /><br />The conversion thing goes both ways though. There are plenty of Christians who have converted to Islam or Judaism, both of which reject the concept of the divinity of Christ. <br /><br />Changing your mindset is incredibly hard, especially the parts that have been taught you from birth. I mean, I've questioned many times whether I return to Trinitarian Christianity because I really believe it to be true or because it's the default setting since that's what I was raised with? And how could I tell the difference?<br /><br />Lewis did leave off the option that what we have is simply not a true accounting of events. Sanil pointed that one out, and I thought it was so obvious I just left it off. :) I'm honestly having a really hard time understanding why Lewis is recommended to everyone as such a fabulous Christian apologist. He's an excellent writer and I believe in his sincerity but I'm not finding his arguments persuasive. Perhaps it's a matter of different knowledge because of the time periods, or just a different mindset.Amberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002997517784638068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-54218144651772412232011-09-15T01:38:28.950-04:002011-09-15T01:38:28.950-04:00I have heard that before...the only problem with t...I have heard that before...the only problem with that is that I feel like Christians who say that become possessive of Jesus and are unwilling to share him with those who don't believe he is God. Jesus never asked us to share him with only those who worship him. <br /><br />However, there is also the problem of what we have been taught. I realise that part of why I never considered Jesus as God is because I grew up Muslim and in Islam *shirk* is something deeply frowned upon. On the other hand, many Muslims have converted to Christianity and have been able to accept Jesus as God. And we can argue similarly that perhaps Lewis always accepted Jesus as God because it was not a belief that was frowned upon by his family.<br /><br />I have tried to approach it (many times) by first abandoning my mindsets and what was taught to me. I think that the fact that Arianism existed and Unitarian Christians still exist and that there are former Trinitarians who now are Unitarian makes it quite problematic. I find it simplistic to think that those who think Jesus was only human treat Jesus as a liar or a madman. There are also people like Erhman who think that Jesus never said that he was God and that the Gospel is forged. I don't really believe that, but I'm not a Bible scholar to challenge Erhman :) I believe that worship meant something completely different in Jesus' time and being called the son of God was an honorary title. I understand that this is also being simplistic but I'm failing to really explain what I think :DSuroorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07151400258859526990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-64477624273216338552011-09-14T15:51:02.531-04:002011-09-14T15:51:02.531-04:00I'm thinking that Lewis would say you've m...I'm thinking that Lewis would say you've misunderstood what Christ said. The belief of Christians is that Christ *did* say that He was God. So from that point of view taking a man as a moral teacher, as a prophet or what have you but ignoring the fact that he stated he was God is sort of disingenuous. Because he either was correct in what he said, in which case you're choosing to ignore the truth or he was wrong or lying. If the later, then he can't have been a good moral example. Just being wrong (crazy) wouldn't make him a bad moral example (though that is the tack that Lewis takes).Amberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002997517784638068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-36732030748880807622011-09-14T15:13:11.078-04:002011-09-14T15:13:11.078-04:00Interesting post, Amber! Thanks for this. I paused...Interesting post, Amber! Thanks for this. I paused and read the last paragraph again because I follow Jesus as a moral teacher but I don't worship him. <br /><br />"Lewis is trying to show that Jesus must either be who he claimed to be, with pressing reason and authority to make such claims, or he's a mad man."<br /><br />But what if we have not understood what Jesus claimed? I believe he died on the cross. I believe he was more than just a teacher or prophet. But did he say he was God? I don't know if we understand that correctly. What would Lewis say about that?Suroorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07151400258859526990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-83225013099922470042011-09-08T17:45:45.182-04:002011-09-08T17:45:45.182-04:00Thanks for the opinions on Ehrman! :) I'll def...Thanks for the opinions on Ehrman! :) I'll definitely look when I get a chance. I like the description of him as the pastor's "favorite atheist/agnostic." :D<br /><br />I've never heard of Kirsch...another one I'll have to find! Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07382787889525110718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-31120177546262916722011-09-08T13:43:42.794-04:002011-09-08T13:43:42.794-04:00I've not read a lot of Ehrman's work, but ...I've not read a lot of Ehrman's work, but I did like the one book I read. Even if he completely goes against most all that I believe. :) A second cousin of mine is a pastor and he said Ehrman is his favorite atheist/agnostic.<br /><br />yes, that's the lady! Hate you missed her talk!<br /><br />Amber, another one that is good that I'm reading now is by Jonathan Kirsch about the war between monotheism and polytheism. So far monotheism is *terrible*!<br /><br />Have either of you read anything by him? I don't know him, but just found one of his books in my local library and thought the topic seemed interesting. I like reading about ancient Rome and this fits the bill somewhat.Susannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03115294023069458287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-12703578443471914892011-09-08T13:07:53.864-04:002011-09-08T13:07:53.864-04:00I looked that book up, Susanne, and had to add it ...I looked that book up, Susanne, and had to add it to my wish list. It looks really good.<br /><br />Really? You've read nothing by Ehrman? I like his stuff, personally. Of course there's always differing opinions on what the textual issues he bring up mean and if they do have the impact he says that they do, but he writes on a level that makes the issues easy to understand for people who don't have a background in textual criticism (me!).Amberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002997517784638068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-13111203334513957982011-09-08T12:46:29.321-04:002011-09-08T12:46:29.321-04:00Susanne - Oo, is that Amy-Jill Levine! She's g...Susanne - Oo, is that Amy-Jill Levine! She's good. She came to speak at my school once, and I'd been looking forward to it for weeks, then was sick and completely forgot it was that day. I was heartbroken. <br /><br />Would you believe I haven't read <b>anything</b> by Ehrman? Several of my professors have his books as textbooks, but none of them have used them the semesters I took their courses. Weird. I keep meaning to check them out but forget. Did you like his work? I like his "legend" answer...and how he made it all alliterative. :D I'll have to remember that.<br /><br />Also. *blushes* Thanks, guys.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07382787889525110718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-52694856579533270712011-09-08T09:17:01.136-04:002011-09-08T09:17:01.136-04:00*nods* It's yet another one of those things th...*nods* It's yet another one of those things that's a matter of your perspective and what you choose to believe. There is no 'proof' for the claims of Christ. Just like every other religion there are claims or miracles and sayings, things that happened thousands of years ago. And there's a chain of documentation to those claims, but there's always the possibility that the original claims were false or incorrect. I can imagine archaeologists thousands of years from now finding some of our fiction and due to context issues thinking that these were true tales, or at least that we thought they were true.<br /><br />Ultimately, for us, we make the choice to believe or not to believe. There's a metric ton of things that go into that choice, some things we can't really articulate.<br /><br />Ooh...that sounds interesting. I can't wait to hear what you have to say about it!<br /><br />Sanil always raises the tone of any conversation. :)Amberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002997517784638068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-18175627085293879562011-09-08T07:13:52.567-04:002011-09-08T07:13:52.567-04:00I really enjoyed this summary! I remember when I ...I really enjoyed this summary! I remember when I read Bart Ehrman's book he said another option to the Lord, liar or lunatic was legend and that's what your post reminded me of. :)<br /><br />I got a book the other day about the Misunderstood Jew. Apparently it's by a Jewish lady who put Jesus into a Jewish context. I'm eager to read what she has to say about him in that regard.<br /><br />I enjoyed Sanil's comments as usual.<br /><br />Interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing! You always make me think. :)Susannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03115294023069458287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-55786711736839404922011-09-07T21:56:44.647-04:002011-09-07T21:56:44.647-04:00I think Lewis would agree with her to a point, but...I think Lewis would agree with her to a point, but the reasoning behind it would probably be different. I'm guessing, anyway, since I don't know your friend's theology. <br /><br />Lewis doesn't really talk about angels at all so far. That was my random moment. :D<br /><br />*thinks* I don't recall where I heard that for certain. I *think* it was in my class to convert to Catholicism, but I could be wrong.<br /><br />I think you're right about the 'Satan' = job thing being Jewish. Or something very similar at any rate.<br /><br />*nods* Yeah. I just left that one alone because I thought the other options and the problems with Lewis' position were so freaking obvious. But I hear that all the time. He was either a liar, a madman or who he said he was. The largest problem with that is that it ignores the possibility that nothing we know is correct. That it was all written after the fact. And, as you point out, one does not have to be perfectly sane to have some very good ideas or a grasp of something new and important. Heck, sometimes being a little off kilter makes it easier! You're more willing to look at things from a new angle.Amberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002997517784638068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080372433953859587.post-56211671446928793482011-09-07T17:57:05.579-04:002011-09-07T17:57:05.579-04:00This time when I read your description of his pseu...This time when I read your description of his pseudo-dualism, it reminded me of one of my friends. She likes to say that if it's good, it's God, so if an atheist does good things, they're acting for God, and if someone worships another god but that makes them better, they're really worshiping God. And that reminds me of...one of the Narnia books, so I think Lewis would agree with her. And I kinda like that idea. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but I can understand it and I think it's a good way of getting around the whole "evil" question. Because, really, if God is everything good and everything has the potential to be good, evil is just the absence of God. So of course the Evil entity wouldn't be created evil, and might not inherently <b>be</b> evil...it just got a little lost on the way and stopped acting for God.<br /><br />Out of curiosity, does Lewis voice the idea that angels can only choose once? Where does that teaching come from? I've never heard it.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I like your theory that "Satan" is a job. I think it makes a lot more sense than the more common interpretation and <b>I think</b> (but it's been awhile and I can't be certain) that it is more or less the Jewish interpretation as well. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but you're not alone or naming some crazy new idea out of your own head or anything. It means that it's entirely possible <b>Jesus</b> believed the same, considering he was raised Jewish rather than Christian. ;)<br /><br />The last part, one of my pastors used to say that all the time. It drove me crazy because, like a lot of things Lewis says, it sounds good but misses a lot of other options. For example, Jesus might have meant something different than how it was understood by his followers after his death. He might never have said it at all but it became a teaching later. (The problem with that one is that maybe none of what is in the Bible was actually from Jesus, but all that means to a skeptic like a few I know is that Jesus is a great <b>mythical</b> teacher and the church has great teachings even if it's not always right.) Or he might have believed it but been wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean he's insane, lots of people believe wrong things. Furthermore, even if he was insane that has nothing to do with whether he also had some good teachings. Just look at John Nash.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07382787889525110718noreply@blogger.com