+
     More Absurd Logos-Theology
.
/ Subject >  Re: God talking in NT [#7] / 8Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup >  soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
      "Listening to the Logos rather than to me, it is
          wise to agree that all things are in reality one
              thing and one thing only." -- Heraclitus
.
> On Jan31 Matthew Johnson (matthew_member@newsguy.com)
> wrote: I am going to let Frank answer the details of your post,
> since it is, after all, response to his ideas. But there are
> a few odd ideas of yours, 'textman', that I cannot resist
> commenting on. See below. <snip *much* gratuitous insulting
> type behaviors> You cannot possibly understand the NT as
> long as you blindly pretend  that being 'very dramatic
> indeed' implies it is 'Shakespearean'. But even this
> fallacy is not as bad as your denying the historicity:
.
>> tx: Historical value of these verses? ---> Zero!
.
> Don't expect many to be fooled into agreeing with you here.
.
 textman replies: Hi, Matthew. Great article there. I laughed
myself silly more than once, and so decided (very reluctantly)
to say a few words in return. Firstly, I'm not trying to fool
anyone about anything. What I *am* trying to do is to get
believers to adopt a far more critical stance toward the
Christian biblical-paradigm in general. So I don't expect
many to agree with my sometimes extreme declarations and
odd notions, but this is because believers (such as yourself,
4X) refuse to take the NT documents seriously (by which I
mean realistically and historically). Taking *everything* that
the scriptures say at face value is NOT my idea of showing
respect and reverence for the multi-dimensional Word of God.
But no doubt you'll disagree with all this?
.
>> <snip> who, we may say, "speaks" through the universal
>> Logos (who in turn speaks through Jesus and his prophets).
>> What this means is that every rational human creature
>> (literacy is not a requirement) has/contains/is this tiny
>> puny spark of divine reason (aka: the tao, the atman, the
>> buddha nature, the inner light, etc), and this unknowable
>> and unpredictable "logos-spark" is the spiritual source
>> of the inspiration that inspires ALL the authors of
>> sacred scripture.
.
> "Logos-spark"? Where _do_ you get your mumbo-jumbo?
.
 Much of my philosophical and theological substructure
comes from the ancients actually. From the Hebrew and Greek
scriptures, of course, from early Christian writers, and from
the early Greek, later Graeco-Roman and Hellenistic-Jewish
thinkers (eg. Philo). So, for example, a spiritual-giant such
as Heraclitus carries as much authority with me as the
Hebrew prophets do. After all, the idea that the universe is
in process (ie. constantly changing), and that there is an
underlying Logos (order or reason) to this process is still
the chief unspoken assumption of all Science; as well as the
essential foundation of all sound philosophy. Therefore, any
theology that does not recognize Heraclitus is incapable of
grasping the *whole* truth.
.
> No, the term 'logos-spark' is completely inappropriate here.
> Indeed, you seem to have confused the different modes of
> being of the Holy Spirit in the world. For somewhere in the
> Psalms, the Holy Spirit is described as present in all
> creation;
.
 'Transcendence within immanence' is a good definition of
the gracious and providential activities of the Spirit.
.
> but He is present again in a more 'intimate' way in all
> who follow the Divine Law, whether Mosaic or Christ's. And
> again, He is present in a yet more intimate manner in all
> Christians. Finally, He is present in the most intimate
> manner in all those Christians who have fully laid down
> their lives for Christ and pick up their cross _daily_.
.
 I agree that the Holy Spirit is both an objective and
subjective reality, and that *SHE* enlivens some believers
more than others (especially the prophets), but I think you
fail to appreciate the essential and fundamental nature of the
inner-essence of all human being. In Genesis 1:26 God says
“Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness ...".
Does this mean that the Father and the Word are bipedal
mammals? No. The image and likeness does not consist in
our material or animal natures, and so instinct and emotion
are not what is intended here. The thing that makes humans
different from all other creatures is our capacity to generate
ideas, to communicate, to think, to be aware of the reality
of things which we cannot immediately see.
.
 In a nutshell, the image and likeness refers to our ability
to *reason*. Hence the divinely infused logos-spark is that
which makes us different, makes us more than mere animals,
makes us human and spiritual creatures. Christians have no
major advantage over the rest of the human race in this
regard. In fact, judging from the current sad condition of the
Faith, it would appear that Christians (especially fundies)
are much LESS able to reason *rightly* and *fruitfully* than
almost everybody else! This is the shame of Christianity today.
.
> So no, there is not a 'logos-spark' present in Buddhists,
> Taoists and Christians. The belief that there is is
> fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
.
 It is incompatible with a narrow and exclusionary vision of
the Faith, to be sure. And I agree that some verses are quite
strong to that end. Even John's gospel is clear about drawing
the line just so. John certainly had a nasty bug in his ear
about something, but I suppose he had his reasons. However,
these reasons are no longer available or justified today; just
as the exclusionary approach has long since proved to be bloody
and counter-productive. And even, I dare say, fundamentally
incompatible with the essentially universal and expansive
spirit of the Faith; ie. since the Father of Lights would
rather that all men and women should be saved than not.
.
 Salvation, redemption, liberty, etc, are available to all
(more or less), just as faith, hope, and love are within the
grasp of all *rational* men and women. Better (by far) to
do the will of God with Jesus in your heart, but it can be
accomplished also by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists,
and even perhaps by some agnostics and atheists. And why not,
eh? The Golden Rule is as sensible and compelling to believers
as to unbelievers. Not all have heard and believed the outer
Word (which is often distorted during the imperfect process of
transmission), but the Inner Light is there in everyone just
the same (to some degree) else we could not all be capable
of being-there. Pity the fool who is not all there! :)
.
>> What I mean by "sacred scripture" here is obviously
>> not just those documents within the Holy Bible itself.
.
> That's too bad.
.
 No, actually, it's very good.
.
>> This is because the Logos, being universal, must
>> necessarily express itself in every language, every
>> culture, every society; somehow.
.
> No, that does not follow. Why on earth would anyone
> think that it would?
.
 Duh. Because we are *all* brothers and sisters in both flesh
and spirit! You think that the human race falls into two main
categories: those people who say 'Lord, Lord' with their lips,
and those who don't. But I am not impressed by the fancy
things that people may say, and neither is the Lord; for the
truth of things often lies concealed beneath pleasing words
and happy smiles: "All of a person’s ways seem right in his
own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart" (Proverbs 21:2).
.
 And how could the Logos "weigh" a living heart unless he is
already somehow here inside with us all along? Did not the
Lord promise that he would go along with believers? That
wherever two or three gathered in his name he would be
there? Clearly the Lord's presence among believers is spiritual;
which is to say, NOT an external imposed reality (as with
priestcraft, and witchcraft), but an internal supersensible
subjective reality which is potentially available to everyone
by way of this mysterious, but universal, logos-spark. You
may say that this term is not biblical, but it does not
strike me as any radical departure from the best biblical
teachings. Isn't that right, Matthew?
.
>> Therefore there are saints and prophets and teachers and
>> artists, and visionaries of all shape and size - along with
>> their sacred writings and utterances - in many strange
>> lands and times. Believe it or not, true believers, but
>> this really is *a very good thing*!
.
> Well, if all these people really are 'saints and prophets'
> etc., why do they differ so _sharply_ in their message?
.
 Perhaps you exaggerate the differences overmuch? Centuries
before Christ arrived, the Way was prepared in advance by the
likes of great giants such as Socrates (who confessed that our
ignorance outpaces our knowledge, and later died out of love
for others), Confucius (who formulated a social rule very like
unto the Golden Rule), and the good lord Buddha (who also
practiced compassion, gentleness, forgiveness, self-forgetful-
ness, etc). The latter felt, I surmise, that the general
practice of organized religion only tends to confuse the real
issues, the important concerns, and the really BIG questions.
All in all, I am more impressed by the similarities ...
.
> Why can't they even agree on what God is
.
 Because our Big Daddy is *slightly* more complex and
unknowable than, say, an orange. I guess ...
.
> or what Man is, or what Man's mission in this life is?
.
 Because the answers to these difficult questions are not
at all obvious maybe?
.
> Seems to me that if they are all 'true believers', then
> the 'god' they all believe in delights in confusion and
> weakness. Not like the Christian God at all!
.
 The confusion and weakness are on this end of things, sport.
.
>> Indeed, anything that an apostle or prophet writes is
>> prophetic literature (as orange juice comes from oranges),
>> whether it be gospel or epistle or history or poetry or
>> fiction or philosophy or *whatever*!
.
> Again, where _do_ you get this mumbo jumbo? Or are you
> really unaware of why the rest of the world does _not_
> follow your bizarre definition of 'prophetic literature'?
> [snip]
.
 Well gee-wiz Matthew, I have always assumed that it was
because the *vast* majority of believers have been thoroughly
hoodwinked by the collective efforts of countless generations
of busy little scribes and pharisees working ever so carefully
to blot all thoughts of the prophets out of the tender and
feeble minds of Christians who haven't got the first clue as
to what the heck is going on around here anyway! 
.
>> <snip> Are you suggesting, then, that the
>> "Preacher/Philosopher" was in no way inspired?
.
> That is not what Frank said at all. Nobody else in this
> thread misread him as saying this, so why do you?
.
 It's a plausible conclusion given the premises of his
arguments: "And one might argue reasonably that every
instance of the 'holy breath' was God speaking".
.
> Perhaps because you delight in 'straw-man' arguments?
.
 Nein!
.
>> In no way in contact with spiritual realities?
.
> Again, he didn't say that.
.
 No, but he *might* have implied it, yes?
.
>> ... Wutz it doin in the bible, bud?
>> Did it just "slip by" the Divine-Editor? :)
.
> Now you proceed from scornful 'straw-man' arguments to
> outright scoffing. But _some_ of us know what Solomon said
> about the scoffer: "For every scoffer is an abomination
> before the Lord. And His secret conversation is with the
> upright" (Prv 3:32). You have made it too obvious which
> hemistich best describes you, textman. [snip]
.
 Sheesh! I was just gnawing on his virtual legbone a bit is
all. Friend EgwEimi here is just the sort of believer who
desperately requires the occasional dog-bite from a vicious
and fearsome creature: Grrrrr! Give the mutt a break, I say.
But then I'm partial ... I guess ... ???
.
             - yet another fur-bearin' critter - texttman ;>
.
P.S. "Men have no comprehension of the Logos, as I've
described it, just as much after they hear about it as they
did before they heard about it. Even though all things occur
according to the Logos, men seem to have no experience what-
soever, even when they experience the words and deeds which
I use to explain physis, of how the Logos applies to each thing,
and what it is. The rest of mankind are just as unconscious
of what they do while awake as they are of what they do
while they sleep." -- Heraclitus
x

Goto GodTalk #8

textman
*