anti-christ discussion, from middle p. 3 to end.

[huckelberry]

Honorentheos, In truth your question about the concept of a fallen world and its relationship to the idea of Christ is something which has puzzled me many times.What a fallen world means is seen quite differently by different people. There are the anti science phantasies about the earth having no death before a fall and no floods earthquakes volcanoes and fires either. Perhaps both more subtle and dangerous is the idea that people no longer can trust their judgement and sense of right and wrong. We all need some caution about our sense of judgement, we all make mistakes, but we all really need to use our sense of judgment.

I can see how the idea of a fallen world can be used by authoritarians trying to maintain power. If you undermine people sense of self confidence it is easier to make them follow. If a person thinks they are evil their abilities are undermined and limited.

On the other hand one might understand a fallen world as conatining uncertainty dangers and a necessity for work and sturggle. It is a place where there is an attraction to the possiblity of evil but people can do good and understand that. This is the sort of world I see around me. It is not divorced from good but has problems.

The world, or that is humans living in it, needs more than one simple thing. It requires courage and a certain openness to the wonder of life which motivates people to make things better, explore and find wisdom. A certain openness to wonder is needed to build relationships with people. It is in those relationships that the matters of justice, mercy, foregiveness and peacemaking become central.

In relation to Jesus the title Christ is about his role giving a lead on mercy and forgiveness between people and between people and God. Honorentheos you have repeated concern that the idea of Messiah remains linked to the earlier idea of conquering divinely anointed king. I have read that there were a variety of Jewish ideas about the messiah. Even attatched to a particular person there are various ideas that persist.I believe in a prince of peace through mercy and personal respect which is what I read of Jesus. I remain in horror watching so much American Evangelism sell out to a debased theocratic aspiration.

[Jersey Girl]

Hey huck. What do you think about calling it a corrupted world? That's how I think about it.

[huckelberry]

Hey huck. What do you think about calling it a corrupted world? That's how I think about it.

Jersey Girl,
Makes good sense to me. I see all of the quality in the world now which I think God first declared good. I give thanks daily. People have however gotten into some problems.

[huckelberry]

Stem, the phrase "I never knew you" is not part of the ten virgins parable. It is in Matthew followed by the explicit explanation I mentioned. Jesus returns again and again to his dislike of people who make show of their piety without being helpful to others. Those would also be the people with no oil in their lamp.

If you are thinking of other stories than I am you might note chapter verse so we can are speak of the same things.

Hey Huckleberry, I'm aware that we are speaking about two different parts of the New Testament. (I am the one who mentioned them). One part is found in Matthew 7 where it is taught that God never knew many believers, even though it suggest they tried to do good by him. He seems intent on telling them they failed. the closest thing he indicates was their evil was they were like a foolish person who built their house on sand, or heard his "sayings" but "doeth them not". I was commenting on your idea that his statement of not ever knowing these many believers is really just a figure of speech. I was also curious about your characterization that it's ok because "The people he says he does not know are specifically those who do not bother to help others". Which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me, since 1. Everyone helps others to some extent or another--it's not an either/or thing. 2. Jesus is declaring he won't help many believers? If it is good to help others, then why is he intent on teaching and exemplifying the notion that he only wants to help some others, even though, as it turns out, he supposedly has the power to help all others? Also, I would be curious to know who doesn't help others?

Then I commented too on the Parable of the virgins because as I saw it we both were commenting on these last week and I hadn't got back to it until today. I don't see how it's helpful to append to the parable of the virgins your notion that what he really means is what is summed up in verse 41 and 42--eemingly suggesting that half of the virgins, by not getting oil in their lamps refused to give to the needy and such. I don't think that works. The parable is already explained with it's moral being: you don't know when Jesus is coming so you have to do the arbitrary sounding thing he's commanded. As I suggested people have taken that to mean many things. We don't know specifically what he meant. I suppose one can think he meant "you didn't give enough money to poor people" and that's reasonable. But we don't know. And again, everyone gives. If he's being reasonable he'd have to suggest something more like, "well, you didn't give enough. Jim here gave enough...but you only gave a little in comparison". That'd make more sense.

Stem, it helps your pointing out you are looking at ch 7 while I was looking ch 25. the phrase, I never knew you appears with a similar meaning both both places. In the sermon on the mount only the cryptic, did not follow the will of the father is used to explain while ch 25 has the more explicit explanation about feeding and clothing. I think your complaints about legal ambiguity are fair. The sermon on the mount can be inspiring and suggestive. It is also puzzling, impossible and legally vague as you point out.

I wonder what you mean by arbitrary commanded things that the five virgins did not do. Are you thinking of specific things or thinking they must be some secret. I suppose one can think of it as a puzzle. I find it more helpful to fit it into the larger picture of what Jesus tells people they should care about.

Ok, I have a vague memory of hearing Mormon talks applying the five virgin story to taking care of some specific Mormon requirement not to be missed. I suppose as you suggest that the story is open to somebody attaching a variety of things to it if they wish.

[Jersey Girl]

Hey huck. What do you think about calling it a corrupted world? That's how I think about it.

Jersey Girl,
Makes good sense to me. I see all of the quality in the world now which I think God first declared good. I give thanks daily. People have however gotten into some problems.

You know what? I started to write another reply in response to your above when I realized I wasn't making any sense. I tend to get gaps in my thinking and writing about certain issues involved in belief and just when I think I'm on a roll with explaining myself, I discover that I mess it up! I might get back to you on this, but don't wait for it. I seem to be darting around this place a lot just now.

[honorentheos]

Honorentheos, In truth your question about the concept of a fallen world and its relationship to the idea of Christ is something which has puzzled me many times.What a fallen world means is seen quite differently by different people.

The myth begins with a world that wasn't fallen, with human beings who couldn't die, where innocence prevailed. It fell by transgression of God's command to the first humans to not eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Disobeying god caused both humanity and the world to "fall" from a supposed higher state to a lower state. And Christ is supposed to redeem the world and some category of humanity back to a higher state.

My concept of fallen is that, whether literal or metaphorical, is garbage.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps Adam kicked off vacuum decay from the 4th dimension to the third, and the Eden story is just allegory?

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

Honorentheos, In truth your question about the concept of a fallen world and its relationship to the idea of Christ is something which has puzzled me many times.What a fallen world means is seen quite differently by different people.

The myth begins with a world that wasn't fallen, with human beings who couldn't die, where innocence prevailed. It fell by transgression of God's command to the first humans to not eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Disobeying god caused both humanity and the world to "fall" from a supposed higher state to a lower state. And Christ is supposed to redeem the world and some category of humanity back to a higher state.

My concept of fallen is that, whether literal or metaphorical, is garbage.

Explain to me how if the story including the concept of a fallen world if metaphorical is garbage if it offers an explanation of the state of the world and in particular the darker side of human nature? I'd like to hear more from you on that.

[honorentheos]

Explain to me how if the story including the concept of a fallen world if metaphorical is garbage if it offers an explanation of the state of the world and in particular the darker side of human nature? I'd like to hear more from you on that.

Assuming the world we observe is the world as it is, what are we to compare it to?

[dastardly stem]

Stem, it helps your pointing out you are looking at ch 7 while I was looking ch 25. the phrase, I never knew you appears with a similar meaning both both places. In the sermon on the mount only the cryptic, did not follow the will of the father is used to explain while ch 25 has the more explicit explanation about feeding and clothing. I think your complaints about legal ambiguity are fair. The sermon on the mount can be inspiring and suggestive. It is also puzzling, impossible and legally vague as you point out.

I wonder what you mean by arbitrary commanded things that the five virgins did not do. Are you thinking of specific things or thinking they must be some secret. I suppose one can think of it as a puzzle. I find it more helpful to fit it into the larger picture of what Jesus tells people they should care about.

Ok, I have a vague memory of hearing Mormon talks applying the five virgin story to taking care of some specific Mormon requirement not to be missed. I suppose as you suggest that the story is open to somebody attaching a variety of things to it if they wish.

While I appreciate you commenting, I can see this isn't really going to go anywhere. As I go back and re-read how this all transpired I feel good about how I've made the case--it doesn't appear to me that the central theme is love but is something more like worship. These two examples I brought up in ch 7 and 25 of Matthew were meant as nothing more than examples where it doesn't appear the moral of the story is love, or has much to do with love at all. And as I said earlier if I were convinced of the Christian story and felt the New Testament was a good representation of Jesus' teachings, I too would feel compelled to read the passages in question as something other than what is said and would interpret them, if you will, as something clearly not intended.

I will make a few closing comments on the two passages, though, for clarification. I'll do my best to leave this as my last word and leave you to have the final say. Matt 7:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon fa rock:

And the foolish builds their house on the sand.

I want to make clear this is talking about believers who come to him saying "Lord, lord..." This is not everyone. No Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, animists of all stripes, or agnostics. But many of these believers are people who don't do the will of the Father. And these people will be said to have done the work of iniquity. Roughly less than 1/3rd of the world is Christian, that is assuming Catholics and protestants and all other sects are Christian. If we extrapolate that back and say 1/3rd of the people are somewhere in the realm of Christian, then perhaps we have 2/3rds of the people who are supposedly put here by God don't get to say something like "lord, lord...but..." Ok so I think we get that. Just setting the stage a little... So of the 1/3rd remaining there are many of these who apparently don't do anything pleasing unto God. It is God who tells them, no, you have done nothing useful or helpful, or thoughtful. It was all iniquity...

My first question would be, who are these people? Are there really Christians out there who have done nothing for God in any sense? Are there any who God could say something like "well, I see you tried in some sense but you didn't do enough"? Or is it all or nothing? If there are such people are there really "many"? I would assume such a number would amount to a very few, to somewhere around exceedingly rare. I don't really expect a response, just a question.

Next, I'd wonder how it would be to be one of those many who thought they were in correct worship of God? You pray daily, or however much maybe skip sometimes...you try to help your neighbor, in some sense. You give money to charities....You speak kindly to co-workers and are fair to them...you raise kids in the Church (pick whichever Christian church), but you also live a little lavishly, meaning you could give more to others...you pray but sometimes you skip...you attend church but sometimes skip and go to a movie or something...you curse at your kids once in a while as frustrations arise...stuff like that. Now imagine you're that person (which in truth is everyone--let's face it) and in the end Jesus says "Well, I never knew you" to make a point? That suggests every effort you put in to seeking him was actually rejected, no?

Additionally, we're all foolish and we're all wise. What could possibly be the judged difference between a foolish believer and a wise one? And what difference could that make to Jesus? "well, you questioned too much and didn't really believe when distractions arose and you wondered if I was really there." It's all a tortuous painful life on Jesus' teaching at this point. Granted Jesus had many more thoughts and to me they only add to this torture because in every case he's specifically vague and terribly black and white...which is not reality in any sense.

I already made the point that the moral of the story of the 10 virgins is not 5 virgins would not help others. It's that they simply didn't do something arbitrary in time. Jesus will come again and you don't know when or how, but you better do something before that. You can pray to Jesus pleading and begging what it is you might do to fulfill this metaphorical putting oil in your lamp. You can be nice to everyone and helpful as much as possible, like the 5 foolish virgins might have been, but as it turns out when he came and you went off to purchase that essential arbitrary item, the party started and you, as it were, are told again, "I don't know you" by Jesus Himself. As you pointed out this purchasing oil in a timely manner could mean anything.

In truth the biggest problem I have with this inspiring=with-fear is Jesus uses the least helpful and most manipulative approach. I mean it's obviously greatly inspiring, I won't question that. The question I have is, of course, what is the act of purchasing oil? everyone knows but no one really knows, right? I mean it could be anything. And yet it's likely nothing at all--it's just a matter of if you had the seed tossed upon you when you were in the right mood (as in the parable where the Lord tosses seed and they randomly fall on the type of ground you are at the time it's tossed), it's a matter of if Jesus will accept your efforts as enough, I suppose. "Well, she was nice to her sister, but she had a real problem with her mother..,"

"But you said to hate my mother for your sakes...I felt she wasn't doing enough for you so I hated her for it."

"oh dear...your mother was just enough. She made it..."

"BUt I loved her too. I mean, she tried so hard.."

"ohp...nope. You said you hated her. And I can see in your heart, you did. There's conflict, for sure...but it's not enough. I never knew you>"

Sadly rejected the lady, puts her head down...then, "wait...what? you never knew me but you...?"

"DEPART! ye that do iniquity."

But as it is, you can set up any scenario, I think, and end up with this arbitrary, fear-filled, approach to Jesus' teachings.

And again, granted, to be clear...I do think most Christians do not see it the way it's preached. They are far more relaxed and willing to change Jesus' teachings to something more palatable, which is a good thing. I mean living breeds a hope to grasp reality and Christians tend to do that when they embrace the more secular life's not black and white approach. As they do that, though, of course, their favored teachings become less purposeful and meaningful.

I like the two examples from Jesus' teachings because they illustrate the problem so well, and yes these types of problems are throughout his teachings.

If you read along, thanks for the effort.