Thoughts?

HEY STAN

WHAT do you mean by post modern???


dgrimm60

Well, I think the teachings of Jesus will always be a step ahead of modern understanding.

If we see 'postmodernism' as a historical period (most philosophers don't), then Jesus was certainly premodern, since modernism is a phenomenon from the 17th century or so forward.

But a better sense of postmodernism is a suspicion of 'grand narratives': ideas that claim to explain the whole world. The dominant grand narrative in Jesus' place and time was that of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and Jesus certainly challenged that in all sorts of ways.

HEY BRAVUS


WELL thank you for your input it makes sense
to me now....


dgrimm60

A lot of young pastors have bought into the notion that Jesus was postmodern. At the same time, many older pastors take for granted that Jesus was modern.

here's a discussion:

Authentic Lunar Green Cheese and here:
The Gospel vs. "Now"

Good discussions there, sir.

I guess the other point is that none of our simple human category systems is sufficient to contain Jesus anyway, and when we project them onto him it says much more about us than it does about Him.

Although the principles of Jesus' teachings appear to be post modern now, they are in reality truths since before the foundations of the world. Men have forgotten those principles since sin and were foreign to them. That is also why Jesus came to this world to remind us through his life here what a true human being is suppose to be like.

There is also the fact that Jesus was presenting God's laws as opposed to human traditions. Now we can look back with perspective and judge the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc based on the principles we have adopted today throughout our christian experience. Similarly, today we must be careful not to make human traditions prevalent over God's law.

It is very important to refer to the Bible as the only "word of authority".

Amen. Saved me the trouble of saying it, and Bravus, there is good evidence that postmodernism originated in 18th century German universities.

Olger, if you review how Jesus spoke with the "Church" leaders at that time, he was post modern.

There was a sermon at church this last weekend about as postmodern as one can get, and the pastor got the same reaction as did Jesus in His day...

But I encouraged him :) It was the youth pastor, no surprise.

Dear President. Postmodernity refers to the jettisoning of absolutes, and the inclusion of relativism into the world-view.. Thus, our Lord was the opposite of PM, as He dispensed eternal objective truths daily.

Calling Jesus postmodern is a weak attempt to invest dignity into a system built on subjective modern doubt. Call George Reid and he'll say it much more eloquently. That's the news from Oslo,

ya'll be good



g

Maybe Jesus was an Orthodox Postmodern, or maybe a Fundamentalist Postmodern

Jesus is and has always been revolutionary... He would be revolutionary talking even with postmoderns. He is what everyone needs no matter where they are coming from.

Jesus was love incarnate...

For some, yes, but not all. The term, post modern, is rather broad and includes many areas of philosophy.

Yep. Sadly one more area in which Christians seem happy to make big statements about things they haven't put in the effort and study to really understand...

A quick look at the subject and it soon becomes quite obvious that it is difficult to define and put forth an exact definition.

Can it really be discussed without a definition and will each person agree with that def.

I take as a convoluted way of just saying 'thinking outside the box'!!

Not sure if that is even close!!!

I have studied postmodernism at length as a member of the ATS.

Approval of it is but an intellectual conceit of the western world, imo.


regards,



g

I would side with Olger and I would associate post-modern thought with that of Bazarov in "Fathers and Sons"... essentially that of a nihilist. Not to say that all post-modern thinkers are nihilists, but you could say that, as Olger noted, they tend to reject absolutes and authority and lean towards self expression and intellectual self-sufficiency and extreme relativism.

The bases for post-modern thought is that we can not truly know the truth... because there is no such thing according to post moder thinkers :). By defenition, the truth is absolute no matter which angle you look at it, because it's the most accurate reflection of reality. You can't confuse truth with interpretation of reality... two different things.

Ironically, "There's no absolute truth"... has to be an absolutely true statement for it to be true, so you end up running into this paradox of "this statement is false".

Jesus was MILES AWAY from post-modern thought. Not even close.

While postmodernism is essentially "a system built on subjective modern doubt," (although calling it a 'system' is a bit of a stretch, I think it's a coping mechanism), modernism has become a system built on subjective modern certainty (which is also a coping mechanism).

Confronted by the kind certainty so many see, especially in religious people, doubt is almost the only rational response.

Moderns flee to certainty, to escape the need for faith. Postmoderns flee to doubt, to escape responsibility.

The Gospel confronts both, engages both, endorses neither. As Bravus indicated earlier, an infinite God transcends our categories and systems. Every philosophy can be an avenue to Him, or a shield to keep Him out.

Nicely put!

yeah.











g

Yep to your yeah.

Any discussion of fresh concept such as this requires standard lexical definition.

Compact Oxford refers to postmodernism as style and concept characterized by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions.Not simply discarding them, but opening dialogue; ie "question everything, particularly that most widely unquestioned.

The term postmodern is described by Merriam-Webster as meaning either "of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one" or "of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)", or finally of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history or language, and theology/theodicy.


As one who radically challenged the forensic and empirical reductionist Pharisaical teachings of the existent systematic theology of Israel found in his time...by broadening, teaching the "meta message rather" than formulaic, Jesus definitely questioned and upended the status quo. I'd agree that He was clearly postmodern....but not because He merely challenged. previous thought and teaching had veered drastically, and the effect was that religion condemned, divided, excluded...and damned sinners. He clearly brought the teaching back in line with the intended "gathering" of an ever-seeking father.

Great post

Always enjoy the writings of a wordsmith...

Thank you...

Too often folks think postmoderns are those who are too lazy to study God, that is clearly not true. AND thanks for supporting my statement the Jesus was a PostModern...

"To move with the times means to go where all times go." C.S. Lewis.

Postmodernism itself is almost gone.

Tolstoy and Nietszche at the crossroads.
One eschews everything, holds nothing at all.
The other discards nothing, holds all things.

Neither is correct; how do we resolve the God of quantum physics with the God of astrophysics? God is neither relativist nor concrete. Max Planck and Albert Einstein are as far apart as postmodernism and conservatism. Both describe true diametric spectral positions, but neither are severally (or even jointly) complete. An infinite spectrum, with neither limit, demands it. A finite human mind cannot describe it, except in small oft too-far parsed bits.

Limitations of human science, language, understanding, even simple limitations affording reciprocal opportunity of seeming disparate reasoning precludes the definitive answer.

Was Jesus an absolutist? Indubitably.
Did He question dogmatic authority?
Without doubt, always.
Mans dogma veers far, always; Jesus "postmodern" approach steers to the center, forever.

I don't find my postmodern friends, a term they wouldn't apply to themselves, fleeing responsibility. I find, rather, the opposite. They are deeply involved with social change. Their doubt has opened up new ways of thinking and feeling about the world.

To them certainty is an illusion created to avoid the fear of the unknown. And that is the reason they and I reveal the false security of certainty. Certainty often solidifies toxic culture and doubt is only the first step in breaking those toxic cycles. The next natural step is personal responsibility, rather than giving away responsibility to some set of laws or authority.

I would observe that fundamentalist believers of various traditions are simply modernists with different assumed certainties. The Protestant tradition simply moved authority from a Pope to a book and basically treated the Bible as a science to be unlocked. And we have been wasting time trying to unlock its so called secrets about god, rather than observing the world around us.

Now Jesus time and again appeals to the subjective rather than the objective. His most famous sayings reveal the subjective core to his message. Love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

These are not appeals to look at the Bible. They are appeals to look at ourselves and others and how we interact.

I wish that it were so. The great paradox of postmoderns is that they are just as certain about particular unexamined assumptions as the modernists they reject. The two groups differ on which unexamined assumptions they accept.

Postmoderns are deeply involved in "social change," in a totally uncritical way. If it calls itself "social change," or "progress," or "compassionate," they leave all their doubt and questioning behind.

There is nothing new in postmodernism. It has very little to do with thinking and a great deal to do with "feeling about the world."

Modernism became hyper-rational, emotionally barren. Postmodernism, by its name and nature a reactionary philosophy, is increasingly becoming hyper-emotional, and rationally barren.

Our Great Grandparents were brought together during the solidifying days of what came to be called the modern age. Shaped by deism’s absent god, rejection of the supernatural, profound humanistic confidence buttressed by an endemic optimism, it foresaw an unlimited human development as the wave of the future. It was believed that scientific methods would in time meet every human need, leading to a wonder world. And it could stand free from all references to God.

Darwin’s explanation of origins rested on the doctrine of inevitable progress, a theory that he thought proved sound in the forward march of science & technology. Underlying all of this is the premise that nature is but an inert object to be manipulated by human ingenuity through objective examination and testing. May I point out to you that today, that view has been all but abandoned. Now we have New Age understanding of nature in which mother nature is being invested with some sort of deity. That’s far from an inert object, isn’t it?

The conquest of disease became a laboratory process free of the human body, a process of identifying the offending organism and fashioning an antidote. In time all illness would be subdued and even death itself would be challenged.

Late nineteenth-century Christians had suffered similar rejection with their message of a pre-millennial Advent that they proclaimed to a world already certain that it was on its way to a glorious earthly kingdom. But in recent times, disillusionment has overrun modernism. Today it opens the gates to post-modernist values.

What is Postmodernism?

Still intensely humanistic, today’s mindset follows its forerunning prophets: John Dewey, Neitche Freud, and Skinner, among others. Their perspectives now dominate in education, philosophy, anthropology, government, human relations, entertainment, and a myriad other of the decision-making activities where the macro directions of society are set.

Are you sensitive my friends, to the power of the television now, in swaying the opinion of the public? It’s absolutely terrifying. And who is in charge of the television cameras, and what will be shown, and under what circumstances it will be shown, becomes actually the controlling factor in modern thought in the United States.

Well, the macro directions of society are set in such orders. So pervasive is its influence, that every person in this forum has been substantially affected. And what are the driving concepts of postmodern thinking? To cite only a few, I’m sensitive that quite a number of you are aware of these: Every person is now crafting for himself the true reality in which he or she lives. It does not come from outside, it is not something learned from outside, but the tools already reside within the person to work upon what factual material may be acquired. This means that there are no absolute, universal truths that apply to everyone. For reality is an individualized creation (several people who post on here believe this way).

Since reality for each person is an internal construct (different in every person because no two are the same), the idea of one sovereign Creator who defines right and wrong becomes untenable. On this basis we must be prepared to accept all other ideas and behaviors as equally correct.

Another religion may be the product of a culture, and culture may not be criticized. It must be accepted as valid for the person holding it. The idea of trying to win a person from one faith to another is immoral (in postmodern thinking). All religions are of equal merit and legitimacy, so any attempt to replace one with another is oppression! On these grounds the Christian missionaries who went out from Europe or America, were in fact, oppressors, imposing a foreign religion on innocent victims (this ideology runs rampant in the majority of our universities). Parents, take note. Do you want your children’s worldview manipulated by the faithless cynicism of our educational system?

All systematized organizations must be regarded as suspect, in fact, as oppressors. Each person is therefore essentially his or her own lone self, and no activity has a right to intrude upon that person’s private rights. The idea of melding into a family of God becomes a reject. The impact of such thinking increasingly invades our world today. Postmodernism’s influence on society has led the editors of our magazines to modify both the appearance and the content in an effort to capture the imagination of today’s public. Some would call this progress. Others would see it as a moral surrender akin to the last breaths of Rome. You have seen these differing views expressed in the “letters” section of the Review, for instance.

Increasing numbers of people think of themselves as Christians by heritage or tradition rather than by conviction. Hence they feel free to shop cafeteria style among the beliefs & practices of the church, assembling for them a suitable selection. True to postmodernist values they find that their demand to be regarded as equivalent as anyone else to be reinforced in the currents of the wider society.

The result is development of a pluralistic value system. I note this not with any attempt to condemn, but to observe what has become now fully apparent. Such break-away from community values of our world minimizes the virtue of unity, extolling in its place "diversity." Do you hear all of the catch-terms? Or, perhaps an amalgam of the two: unity & diversity.

Concurrent with the above we are witnessing a remarkable migration of thought among us. From objective to subjective premise. This exactly parallels the postmodern concept of individualized auto-developed reality.

In summary, there is hope. There is hope for the European millionare who wakes up empty amidst his vast posessions. There is hope for the alcoholic college student, who looks for something better in each dying drink. There is Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ alone.


g

The point is that everyone is uncertain. The proof is the very lack of proof. Uncertain is the default position when there is a decided lack of proof. What you are doing is calling bald a hair color.



Well, that is a generalization and goes beyond what it means to be postmodern. Postmodern is not a set of doctrines. It simply recognizes that there are vast unknowns. The value is an honesty to admit that we don't know for certain. This doesn't reject all rationality or empirical observations. It is simply an openness to change that isn't hindered by mythical laws and gods. A reliance on laws and gods has proven over and over to be just as flawed as those methods it is critical of.



Again, this is an exaggeration and a generalization. All philosophies are triggered by the lack of success of preceding ideas. Postmodernism simply is attempting to admit that as part of the process. Postmodern thought is not some static list of ideas. It is an attempt to make it easier to transition to new ideas.

No, it is an admission that we ALL don't know. It means that no one is completely correct. It is an admission of our humanity, not an elevation of humanity.

It is an issue of freedom to explore our inner self. It is a recognition that one person cannot dictate to another person how they should think, feel, or believe. It allows for an absolute truth, if it is out there, to express itself to each individual.

What you have done is taken the unknown and turned to fear. At least the humanist turns to hope.



It is because all systematized organizations eventually intrude on the individual. What you call melding into the family of God has proven over and over again to be a fear and violence based methodology. Even in this post your main appeal is to fear.

If being in the family of god was so great you wouldn't have to convince people to join it. It is not Rome that is falling, it is Christianity. Christianity came out of Rome and its about time that we figured out how to be with each other without laws and punishment.

Today, there is great interest in personal responsibility, something that Christianity has failed to teach. Personal responsibility has to come from within, not from without. And it seems to me that we need to learn more about our inner selves if we are to understand how to do that.

Christianity teaches that we can't be responsible because we are helpless sinners with no good in us. It teaches people to be victims of an imaginary Satan. And if Christianity does anything good it does it for the most immature reasons.

When Christianity can grow up, maybe then it will gain some respect, but with over 2000 years to get it, it seems to keep going backwards to Iron age thinking.

Did you write that long post above, olger? Kudos if you did, but it doesn't sound like your usual style, and if it's a quote from somewhere it would be good practice to indicate that...

The claim that postmodernism owes something to both Dewey and Skinner is odd, since I would argue that the two had essentially opposite approaches on almost every issue.

Enjoyed your responses, but I do have a question about one of your summations.



Are you saying this is what Christianity teaches or what the Bible teaches, or what Christ taught?

Honesty is fidelity to some objective reality, and objective reality is something postmodernism rejects. Thus the paradox of postmodernity.

The objective reality is that we don't know. Unless you have proof that you know, then you are simply making it up in your own mind. And that is the paradox of certainty.

This is what many Christians believe and teach others to believe.

I won't comment on whether or not the Bible or Jesus taught these things since no one seems to be able to agree an what either teaches, even within Christianity itself.

I guess since there is disagreement, it shows that there is nothing to it, because in things that are certain, such as the law and science, we all know that people are just about unanimous, right?

Motives have nothing to do with how people see things, and besides, everyone is motivated about the same when it comes to the Bible. Also, everyone wants to know truth no matter what the consequences and therefore they are willing to sacrifice anything they need to in order to do what they know is right.

Christians are pretty much the only ones on earth who believe illusions and want people to accept things that are untrue and irrational.

All of the above are common knowledge and beyond rational dispute, right?

This is the point you seem to keep missing: Since we don't know (per postmodernism) what objective reality is, then knowing whether someone is honest is also unknowable.

That is the self-contradicting nature of postmodernism. It claims to value something it claims cannot be known.

Since I didn't say there is nothing to it, the rest of your post is irrelevant. I was simply pointing out the fact that any interpretation that I might give to it would be only one among a myriad of interpretations.

The issue we are talking about is certainty. The fact that no one can agree on what Jesus or the Bible is saying in pretty good evidence that certainty doesn't even exist within Christianity.

This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone else has this problem. Pointing this out is an avoidance, not a position.

I'm not missing this point. It is only further evidence that any claims to certainty on any point are contradictory. Postmodern thought simply accepts this. By nature we are subjective beings and subjectivity is the only thing we have.

Claiming that objectivity exists without being able to demonstrate it, other than pointing out the contradictory nature of other viewpoints, is not objective proof of anything.



And this is the point you keep missing. Postmodernism is not claiming objective proof. It is simply admitting that we ultimately base what we decide is true on a subjective means. This is the default position in the absence of any other demonstration. It is an attempt at honesty, not a claim of ultimate honesty.

Christianity does this same thing by appealing to Faith, which in reality is not evidence of anything even though Paul claims it to be evidence of things not seen.

The only thing I see coming from Christian thought is attacks on other attempts at truth. The implication is that if they are discredited, then Christianity must be true.

It makes far more sense to me that the default position is "I don't know" than Christianity. Christian claims just seem arrogant to me.

The only way postmodernism can ever be championed, is through such gobbledygook, by misusing words so that they have no meaning, and then claiming there is no meaning.

It is not an attempt at honesty. It is an attempt to appear honest, while denying honesty is possible. That's my point about fleeing responsibility. By simply claiming the impossibility of evaluating outcomes, it eliminates accountability and responsibility.



Don't know how Christianity got involved. I have been using nothing other than the simplest logic, which demonstrates the vapid nature of postmodernism.

Does 2+2=4? or 22? Postmodernism avers we can never really know, since all mathematical systems are merely human representations of symbolic relationships which can never be verified.

As a philosophy, postmodernism is a cheat. For example, ask the postmodern if the law of gravity actually exist? Since reality is subjectively constructed postmoderns can never be certain. But they don't jump off tall buildings, just in case.

And don't bother debunking Modernism. I already have. Your continued posts against certainty and, most recently, out of no where, on Christianity demonstrate that postmodernism is a reactionary philosophy. It knows what everything is not, but doesn't know what anything is.

A very interesting subject. "Postmodernism," the philosophy, is not easy to understand esp. with so many cumbersome quotes and definitions on the web often jammed full of long mysterious words like epistomolgy, ontology, etc. The clearest expression of it's main ideas I've yet found is in the following quotation from a PBS glossary.


Postmodernism: ‘A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.’ -http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/postm-body.html

Sounds reasonable, e.g. in religion we know that abstract principles are worthless without experience- everyone's experience is different.

Calling my statement gobbledygook is not a rationale. Its subjective. You simply are demonstrating my point.



Didn't say it was impossible to evaluate outcomes. Now you're making stuff up.



If I have to explain that to you, then there is no point dialoging.



That's your problem. Life is complex.

The reason the Christian world is divided on the concept or topic of truth is because they all build on the same book and the book is half the truth. God said to build on him. God also said that man can only live by every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Not every word that Rome says proceeded from the mouth of God. Men who bind their understanding to the book are bound to the teachings of Rome when they have access to a much greater teacher that was promised. Yet men are raised to beliee the book is their shepard. This is a sad world.

If you interested in seeing just a peice of the end to the Christian confusion. Carefully review the information at this link. If you stop short of page 35 you will be missing out on an amaing ancient testimony that illustrates the current state of mankinds salvation. The witness presented is verified ancient by more than one source.

I hope this information blesses you greatly. You will need PDF viewer to see the information.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf

Since, according to you, everything is subjective, then so is what you said--which reduces everything to nonsense, no matter how many abstract nouns and verbs are attached to it.

This statement condemns itself.

Thanks for posting this. This is a good summary.

Wrote it in 98. I've dumbed down a lot since then :).


g

Simple and clear is good - it's what I'm hoping to attain but falling short of most days.

Postmodernism is *not* the same thing as absolute relativism.

More after the meeting I have to run to.

I included Skinner for his selectionist contributions, notwithstanding Chomsky's critiques. The indomitable Dewey stands without reservation.


meaningful meetings,

g

So, very briefly: there's a distinction that makes little difference practically but quite a bit philosophically.

One pole says there is no such thing as a universal, objective reality external to our perception of it - all that exists is subjective constructions of reality

The other says that a universal, objective reality does exist, but that we do not have direct access to it - our understanding is always filtered by our perceptions and assumptions

The second view is consistent with a postmodern perspective that is suspicious of universal 'grand narratives' that claim to fully explain reality, but also consistent with a universal reality (including God) actually existing. Such a perspective is simply modest about the extent to which it is possible for us to access the Real from our limited view.

Modernism is much more confident that direct access to reality is possible, and therefore that it's possible to make testable statements about reality that are universally true.

Feeling comfortable with your explanation....

Bravus, i very much like this synopsis. Modernism also allows for the unexplainable...does it not? Demand that even the unknowable have empirical reductionist creed is arrogance...
fascinating that the "love as the elemental particle" in God's Kingdom is met by the "antinomian offense" by those who cling to a finite and reducible "doctrinal legalism"... seems to me even the greater arrogance, assuming that man can know God with equivalence. Absolutism must refute challenge with its diametric opposition...relativism. It dare not entertain any other possibility, or it would require questioning its base tenets (which the very nature of absolutism precludes). This inevitable polarization results in the struggle for supremacy clouding the real truths.

I know it all, and let me tell you...
vs
i know nothing, let me ask...

Bravus, I like your analysis muchly :)

But I wonder - where does Jesus fit in, philosophically?
Probably few people will want to believe that his understanding was 'filtered' by his perceptions and assumptions.

It seems (to me) from the stories of his life that he had just two 'values' : love and intimacy with God; love and intimacy with humankind. He seems to had not much respect for the conventional morals of the day being a 'winebibber' and 'glutton' and not minding at all having his feet washed in perfume and caressed by a prostitute who dried them with her hair. Not two figs for the opinion of the moral majority - rather he valued the heart of that lady. Maybe we can call him 'postmodern' because he chose his own values, rather than accepting the values of the religious fundamentalists. I think it was his personal 'experience' that lead him to embrace those values. They formed the core of his experience. Values of the heart. They superceded all else. -dAb

Some good thoughts there dAb ...

To all:

Just to put my $0.02 in on this conversation; I tend to believe that we cannot completely know objective reality in a corporate milleu, because objective reality is diverse among individuals. However, we can know certain objective realities on an individual basis, and by faith.

I know that this argument does not fit into any particular philosophical construct. It is simply my belief.

Love, intimacy with God....is synonymous with love for (ALL) others...AS YOURSELF.
In the relational template given us
...love ME <GOD>
and THEM <any other, stranger/neighbor/brother/vagrant etc>
AS YOURSELF....<oops, gotta love self too? how?>

Thats ALL of Jesus ministry in toto;
single creed, only doctrine, always teaching....
"how to love (ALL)"

...oh how we veer when we make it anything else...

Right on! HeartSeeker!

How? Not with the ego, I believe; but find the christ within and feel the love for you that is always there; and identify as yourSELF not the ego but relalize that you are one with the christ within. That is the real you. As Paul said we have the mind of Christ. Being one with Him we also have his heart. You are not your ego; thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc.

The modern mind is into the institutionalized church. The post-modern mind is into the spiritual church. The modern mind wants to sit in church and be entertained. The post-modern mind wants to participate, and be involved. I think JESUS was a post-modern, and I think HE wants us to be that way too.

The definition...the meaning of "loving yourself"...is obviously the pivotal crux.
Although the language of the heart is expressed in "emotion", tis true that "feelings"
have naught to do with "love" either. Ego is a construct, an imposter; the true self is not EGO
the true definition of Love? I will die on a Roman tree to show my love, even if you kill me.
AND I WILL LOVE YOU NO LESS!

One cannot say "they love God" whom they can neither touch, see, or directly serve...
until they love themselves. Nor can we love any other until then.
And the real irony? If you love one even a bit less....(judge not? God is no respecter...)
if you truly have even a mite of bitterness, hatred, unforgiveness...
towards anyone, or group...or God...
then you cannot "love with all your being".
You can love God no more than the one you love the least.
Whatsoever ye did to these, the least of them...you did to ME>...

and HE says....I love YOU, even as I Love my Son JESUS.
wow....

I have found the moment we begin to rate our "love" then ego is manifesting. I have found that we can trust in the process of letting go without judging the quality of our love. For me, this type of thinking becomes a Red Herring.

Ego is based on fear and any type of thinking that promotes comparison as a means of determining value will produce fear.

The 'love' i'm thinking of is not prouduced by the ego, nor needfully directed toward it. This frees the person from the impossible obligation and guilt-produced feeling that they must conjure-up this love themselves. We can take no credit for it. We just find it within. It is always there.
'Letting go' may be synonomous. As Jung wrote: the "Christ within" is a symbol of the Self and the Self is the source of that love, which also directs its care/love toward the Christ within others.

It takes a whole heap of anxiety off the mind, looking at it this way.

Did I put that clearly?

dab

You done that real good,






g

My point exactly.



This is a subtle point, but I think it demonstrates the subtle ways in which our language betrays our connection with ego based conditioning. I agree that we find it within because that is what I experience.

The rub is, at least for me, when I bring in the language of "taking credit" or even "not taking credit" there is a shift of my attention away from simply finding it within.

"I will die on a Roman tree to show my love, even if you kill me.
AND I WILL LOVE YOU NO LESS!"

Now I know you didn't write this, but I don't find this concept all that helpful because it reduces love to a rather dramatic manipulation. If love exists simply because its already there, this seems to be somewhat of a distraction designed to compare us with God. Does god operate on ego in that he needs to continually remind us that we are inferior lovers?

I see no use in setting up a scale of love and comparing ourselves with it.

I find it far more useful to be who I am. Trying to be like some arbitrary standard of "God" or even comparing ourselves to some impossible standard sets up all kinds of mental gymnastics that tend to teach us to lie to ourselves.

What I focus on is what feels true and, at least to me, any kind of judgment tends to hide that from me.

Honest response. The outward manifestation is not profession....but rather an evidence based on behavior and attitude that allows the freedom love itself grants (yet desires reciprocity, without fear, guilt, accolades...)

...physical parable supersedes lexical misinterpretations. Note the teachings center around STORY (central plot, moral, meta-message paramount-IE LEFT BRAIN: NOT the formulaic, definitive logical, analytic RIGHT BRAIN stuff we sometimes spout)
Consider for how many generations the pentateuch was only oral tradition, and not written in ANY language...them consider its re-translations through the ensuing millenia, culture, and language. No question God's truth is NOT dependent on purely any single lexical definition or version.

The lexical betrayal is far beyond mere ego-understanding. Wonder what that universal, pre-babel "tongue" was!!!!




Scale implied (not by writer); either we express the inward-written LAW (ie LOVE)
...or not.
Attestation absent corroborative behavior not sufficient. (ego confounds here)
Willingness to love another who chooses to reject that, even kill you....
incontrovertible evidence of perfect expression of that inward-writ law.


Yes, work of the heart, NOT head, or hand. Hand does, head knows. HEART MERELY IS.
If my heart accepts its identity as a love-hungry orphan who has been adopted by the author of love....
i will live far differently than the orphan who does not accept his inheritance.

I know there are (quite) a few unaddressed points here; these discussions are so stilted when expressed 2 dimensionally via few words, oft misunderstood/misused. Methinks that in the ideal we would "get" each other far more effectively. nonetheless, love these forums...

But do we ALLOW the greater question (can i question myself that I don't know everything?)
and entertain the reality i CANNOT....and (rightly, i suppose) question myself FIRST.
John the baptists words ring loud; are YOU the one...OR DO I SEEK ANOTHER?

He KNEW the stories from Elizabeth and Mary;
he KNEW the prophecies about the 2 births.
He KNEW the manifestation of the Spirit, descending as a dove...
He KNEW that 99% of the "religious re-interpreters" rejected jesus summarily....
and while questioning JESUS, also questioned HIMSELF....

do we seek another....

a true post-modern, yet a wild man of the desert....
a learned man, who questioned self...
beyond all that.... a man who loved truth....to death itself.

Thanks g for letting me know 'cause i don't alway write lucidly.

dab

Taking credit is something the ego likes to do. I used the word 'credit' mainly because if we can not take credit then we also cannot be under an obligation or constrait. It would be better if I had left out the word 'credit' and just said we have no ability or obligation to construct that love. Ego just can't do it. Ego cannot rule the heart.

"Does God operate on ego in that he needs to continually remind us that we are inferior lovers?"

I have come to think that "God" is not accessible to the ego - and he does not operate there. He works from far deeper within us. So there is no need to set up a scale of love to compare with our own love. It it 'egotistical' to do so. Trying to be like God is also egotistical. I believe with you that it better to focus on what seems true - the only other alternative is to be insincere - hypocritical.

I find it useful for me to disassociate myself from the ego; to find my Self within. The true Self is a gift from God - and one with him.

Just be yourSelf! :)

dab

That IS a nice way to put it. That concept rings true to me.



This is a nice complementary concept to the one before.

I understand the nature of story and myth. What doesn't make sense to me is the need to retain these particular stories as special. It also doesn't make sense that if there was a god who felt these particular stories were important that they were not retained in a much better condition. The problem with most of them is somebody has to be wrong. In my experience these types of tales create very immature individuals.



As soon as we appeal to evidence we have entered the realm of the ego and the left brain. As soon as we engage law as an expression of love, we have reduced love.



I can see how this might have a certain romantic appeal to places in our life where we might feel alone. And it is an expression of how we might be abandoning ourselves based on a lie we have been told our whole life or more likely it is not a lie, but simply a stage of development.



This, at least to me, ignores the mythical nature of all of these characters and takes characters who were archetypes adapted from pagan gods and made real people to sustain the Jewish idea of monotheism. From what I have studied this recreation of religious ideas was the norm and history shows us an evolutionary progression rather than a revelationary one.

cardw, did you make this up or get it from somewhere?
"I will die on a Roman tree to show my love, even if you kill me.
AND I WILL LOVE YOU NO LESS!"
Almost sounds like something that Jesus prayed to his Father. Personally I don't think that Jesus would have said it that way.

pk

It's something that heartseeker wrote.

Oh I didn't catch that, I guess I'll look it up and ask him, unless he read's the post and answers it. But thanks.

pk

The following quote stated by Einstein to Picasso from a Steve Martin play makes a difference humorously.

John 15:13 comes to mind...inverse in Job 13:15.
The theme that Jesus prayed for forgiveness for His enemies
(which we all were till accepting the inheritance)
loved even those very ones who reviled and nailed Him...
("i had a hammer, too")


Its from an early sermonette i wrote some years ago....
paraphrased, abridged, personal experiential reading of all 66.

No, it indicates that Christian claims of certainty are unlikely. I didn't say that there was nothing to it. And I never said that law and science were unanimous. I have said OVER and OVER that they are UNCERTAIN.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

You are the one who needs things to be certain, but you have no proof that Christianity is certain.



I didn't say this either. The only way you seem to be able to defend Christianity is with slander and exaggeration. That is dishonest.

Motives are not an indicator of truth. People can have the best intentions, but often the fool creates more harm than the tyrant. Suicide bombers give their lives for what they believe in but we don't call them right simply because they are willing to give their lives.



Again, I didn't say this. And it really doesn't matter.

If Christians believe in illusions, it doesn't matter if there are thousands of groups who believe in illusions. Christians still believe in illusions.

Smoke and mirrors is all you have.

Hi folks,

Since I'm a new poster here (hi Pete!) I'm not going to engage with the discussion of the definitions of postmodernism or how it articulates with Adventism or whether Jesus was a postmodern

I would rather posit that Jesus was definitely an iconoclast and in being so, clearly a very likable person by most postmoderns. If being a destroyer of tradition or classically defined as a breaker of images, then Jesus symbolically peeled away the veneer of all the authoritative narratives that existed in his culture because He wasthe living narrative.

But most importantly as a resident of the "Big Apple" I'm surrounded by postmoderns and after much consideration, I think the best and easiest way to interact with them is through health reform. I realize that E.G. White emphasized its importance quite a bit, but it seems we only give it lip service now.

What do most people want which is also very hard to purchase? Good health This consuming desire transcends the validity of the seminal narrative. It even transcends the accuracy of prophecy.It's too bad that many of us and especially our leaders don't look the part.

Imagine this scenario: someone walks into your church and sees a church full of healthy, vibrant, very fit people. Don't you think they'll be thinking to themselves: "Gee, I'd like to look like that!" You have now fully engaged their attention. Health reform has opened the door.

Postmoderns can't quibble with that. You are healthy or you're not.

Alex

A good post Mr. Belisle. :)

pk

Good Post Alex.

Personally ... I prefer churches that have people with healthy hearts. I think that is the most important body part.