 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Jesus as God's Prophet: The Bridge between Islam and Christianity? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 8:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | Similtude:
We can't expect people that don't hold our views of revelation to agree with us MERELY because we're all claiming to use the golden rule. Pacifists think I'm dead wrong. I disagree. But how do we reconcile? See my point? I'm not disagreeing with a thing you're saying. I just don't see how there's some intercourse "mechanism" that's going to undo the impasses that exist between people. Nothing but growing together over time can do that. And that means we have to all actually BE growing UNTO the proper perspective of right-relating by actually SEEKING the truth, however it much it costs us personally in the short run.
I feel ya. For example, having two people sitting at the same table sculpture discussing the table itself doesn't mean that they agree with each others' perspectives on that table. However, both sides can't communicate at all if both sides ain't at the table seeking truth through the communication. The table sculpture itself would be the source of common ground and divergence in perspectives of the two sitting communicators. Pacifistic Christians and non-pacifistic Christians differ on how the Golden Rule applies to situations of justice and force, not whether or not it should be applied. Both sides CAN use the Golden Rule to explore each other's perspective and possibly gain more insight on their own. I'm thinking it's the same thing with Islam and Christianity with respect to the Great Commandments articulated by Jesus. Rather than thinking like some people, that Islam and Christianity are just too divergent to have any real common ground, we should AT LEAST sit at the same "table" of the Great Commandments to continue the conversation. That's what I like about "A Common Word."
*************************************
Similtude:
But God will not allow intellectually-honest truth-seeking Christians to be tempted above what they are able. So whether I'm right or pacifists are right, I have that to hold on to.
Basically, God works with, in, and through the "conscience" of all involved...and each side can live within that before God and be ok...without going against their conscience.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2010 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 9/11/2010 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Yep, folk Islam. It's insular even when it's not associated with an antagonistic branch of Islam. The Muslim of Albania are very pro-west and live side by side with Eastern Orthodox and Catholic with very little conflict; but when the rubber meets the road, the Christian and Hebrew scriptures have been abrogated. Not that they even know that much about the Quran...it is common practice to have a Quran on the dashboard of their cars to "keep them safe", but if you point out passages in the Quran that show commonality with Christian teaching, they are at a loss because they haven't ever read the Quran. Whatever their Baba (Muslim cleric) says is what goes. To be fair, the same is pretty much true in folk Christianity.
Most people just wanna live their lives in pre-structured ways so they don't have to think or do much moral heavy lifting. They are mental and ethical zombies waiting for marching orders. They want to be good, but not too good...and they also want to be bad when it serves them, but not too bad...i.e. they don't mind feeling guilty over some transgression for 15 minutes or so, but they don't want to be haunted by guilt.
So, back to the Matrix, D...how do you wake someone up to reality who is asleep in that certain "sweet spot" that allows them to rest easy with the way their illusion is structured?
And then there is the whole issue of differences even among people you can acknowledge as awake. Look at the contributors to this board. Mostly open theists, so there is commonality. But all of our views across the spectrum are actually so divergent. And there is first the issue of actually arriving at a working knowledge of what the other believes. It is fascinating to really delve in deep with someone; but also a bit like trying to breathe under water when you have lungs, or on land when you have gills. And when you find some concept you both agree on it is exciting, and you FEEL the brotherhood...then you keep talking and find that you both arrived at the concept from different places, and those places you don't agree on...then the brotherhood is downgraded to cousins. And I know the common response to these issues are to try to diminish the importance of the differences and focus on the commonalities...but that can also seem like not being true to your own convictions.
I have two friends. One that I argue with all the time. It seems all we ever do is disagree. But at least we are engaging. The other doesn't want to "argue", so our time together ends up being polite boredom. I think you know which situation I prefer 
I am pro-dialogue, pro-arguing, pro-Buberian opposition, pro-conflict (if we mean verbal, not physical)
I say there is not enough arguing going on in the world! | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/12/2010 1:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
So, back to the Matrix, D...how do you wake someone up to reality who is asleep in that certain "sweet spot" that allows them to rest easy with the way their illusion is structured?
I guess it would have to be analogous to the movie: Work with the "splinter in the mind" that's inside of them. That in them which tells them that "something's not right with the world" Basically, enhancing their ability to perceive the despair that they are already in, sensitizing them to the actual lack that they've anesthetized themselves to. Like SK's movement from the Aesthetic stage to the Ethical stage. Moving from being a walking billboard of one's environment to actually waking up to some feeling of the "More." In the first movie, Trinity helped sensitize Thomas Anderson's ability to perceive his own actual perception of "wrongness" and "More", working with the splinter in the mind...thus Leading him to Morpheus, and ultimate realization of the illusion.
Personally, I think an aspect of this "splinter in the mind" is the human need for love, compassion, and connectivity. It's undeniable...and patently associated with our bodies. Human babies who don't get some form of bonding and connection with another actually die. We are actually "wired" for love and connectivity, possibility of cooperative learning and operation. Not to mention our spiritual yearning for the Uncreated Source of Love.
If the conversations start with how little authentic love, compassion and connectivity that people experience with themselves or others...how they've substituted their need for love, compassion, and connectivity with others things...then maybe that "sweet spot" can be disrupted.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/12/2010 1:29:40 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/12/2010 1:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
Most people just wanna live their lives in pre-structured ways so they don't have to think or do much moral heavy lifting. They are mental and ethical zombies waiting for marching orders. They want to be good, but not too good...and they also want to be bad when it serves them, but not too bad...i.e. they don't mind feeling guilty over some transgression for 15 minutes or so, but they don't want to be haunted by guilt.
People wish to escape the responsibility of their freedom to always operate consciously and conscientiously. Somehow, I think this is related to the inability to give and receive love. Conscious, conscientious living in the absense of love is movement towards despair. Basically, if people really thought about their lives deeply enough and long enough...touching a place in them that knows just how much despair they are in...would they really want to keep living? Rather than to ask that question and risking facing the Void, it's easier to lose oneself in one's social environment, just "getting on with life."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/12/2010 7:04 AM (GMT -6) | | D: it's easier to lose oneself in one's social environment, just "getting on with life."
J: For some people, self-deception is so easy that they don't even WANT to reason things out. Indeed, some people will go so far as to say reason applies to the "IS" world, not the "OUGHT" world just to evade rational argument on the subject. And some people actually believe that precisely because they can't make sense of a RATIONAL, non-relative ethics in terms of atheism or a theism without a theodicy that makes sense to them.
My contention is that to argue AT ALL (even against non-relativistic ethics), you have to believe we are designed to know/apprehend by a benevolent/competent designer. Apart from that ground, all other grounds are literally a-rational in the sense that they have to be accepted arbitrarily from an epistemological perspective. For if the belief that we are designed to apprehend/know by a benevolent/competent designer is arbitrary, then so is belief in the LNC itself, in which case all grounds are equally arbitrary (i.e., absolutely so), rendering all argument a-rational.
But most people will contend that there is, indeed, a benevolent designer and then argue about what it means for that designer to be benevolent. For example, if one believes in eternal torment, to reserve any significant sense in which God is benevolent, one has to posit that humans are WAY more hard-headed and capable of WAY more VOLITIONAL endurance than their life on earth provides ANY evidence for. Alternatively, one has to define repentance so mystically that, for all practical purposes, it is not defined at all, rendering its use in propositions worthless. This is where rationality begins to break down. To hold on to certain dogmas (and I'm not trashing dogma, per se), humans tend to feel compelled, for one reason or another, to jump through epistemological hoops. And this makes convergence very difficult.
But should we try? OF COURSE!--in every way we can conceive is practical. That's what we're doing all the time with each other, even.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 9/12/2010 7:29:57 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|