I don't care what anyone believes and I don't think anyone should care what I believe. So I don't tell anyone what I believe and I don't listen when other people tell me their beliefs.
So you're totally lacking in passion and close-minded? Really? That's your defense? Honestly, I don't think it's possible to be consistent with this approach. At least there's no issue of you convincing me otherwise, right? Anyway, you can't stop anyone from caring when they think what you're doing (or not doing) is moral or immoral. Friggin' deal.
...Would it kill you to just say "I don't want to be proselytized?" Some time? Maybe?
Q. What is meant by the Messiah?
A. The Messiah is one sent by God to free us from the power of sin, so that with the help of God we may live in harmony with God, within ourselves, with our neighbors, and with all creation.
Q. What is the significance of Jesus' resurrection?
A. By his resurrection, Jesus overcame death and opened for us the way of eternal life.
Q. What did the Messiah promise in the New Covenant?
A. Christ promised to bring us into the kingdom of God and give life in all its fullness.
Q. What do we mean by everlasting life?
A. By everlasting life, we mean a new existence, in which we are united with all the people of God, in the joy of fully knowing and loving God and each other.
[...]
Then there's the more faith based view of the savior. The idea that we are not only created in the image of god, but that god was re-created in the image of us has a strong resonance with me. That dying, returning to life, and ascending into heaven the human nature was freed from death and brought up into heaven. I have a kind of compatibleist view on this. I take it as a metaphor, but I'm also open to the possibility of the literal truth of it.
Which is it? A metaphor or the literal truth? Even if you say it's a metaphor, you aren't stating the more exacting truth as you see it. Please elaborate.
You're also going to have to clarify what you mean by God "re-creating Himself." That sounds like contradictory nonsense without scriptural basis.
As I said, I take it as a metaphor, but I'm open to the possibility that it's the literal truth. There is no knowing with something like this.
What do you mean by the more exacting truth as I see it? I'm happy to explain the way I see things, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.
These articles you cited seem to be pretty clear-cut to me, spiritually and linguistically speaking. If Jesus only metaphorically/spiritually rose from the dead, or only metaphorically spoke of bringing people the kingdom of God and everlasting life, then what higher spiritual truth are they referencing?
My apologies for the miscommunication. I am not an eloquent person, but I do make an effort to say what I mean. Sometimes I fail, and/or forget to be more careful with my use of words.
And by re-created I mean that there was a fundamental change to the nature of god if he completely shared the essence of humanity. That kind of stuff really isn't at the core of my religiosity however.
Hmm. Well, firstly, you either share something or you don't, but if you mean to say that Jesus was (and is) fully God and fully man, then I can understand why you'd say that. As for Jesus's birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension at some point marking change, then you probably mean it to be revelation, as it is all held to be prophecy which was fulfilled. So our view of God changed, but I'm not sure I can agree with you if you say
God fundamentally changed. This is skirting around the broader discussion of the actual Trinity, of course. If no Trinitarian doctrine is at the core of your religiosity, then you've got me scratching my head about what is.
If I seem like I'm skipping ahead or (God forbid) putting words in your mouth, then rest assure that that's not my intent. I'm just trying to further the discussion because I'm curious.
Edit: So I realized that maybe I'm being dense here. Are you guys trying to ask me in a roundabout way whether I think you're going to hell?
...I dunno'. Are they? Not like you're the One who ultimately decides, of course.
In Catholicism God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all separately definable, but nonetheless part of the same being. It's not really intended to make sense. That's part of the whole faith thing.
If I may offer a response (though I'm a non-denominational Protestant, not a Catholic), then consider this. When it comes to light, you have the light produced, the heat from it, and the source itself. All of those are connected, but are each a part that can be differentiated. Not that I think arguing exclusively via analogy holds up well, but that's a handy way to approach understanding the Trinity. It makes sense to me when I think about it, even if I don't
fully understand it. Answers very often lead to more questions and all that.
"It's faith, Hawkgirl. You're not supposed to understand it. You just have it." Hoo, boy. Aquaman would make a lousy apologist for Atlantic polytheism. Anyway, I'm a Christian because it's reasonable, and the other belief systems I've gone over and thought about don't convince me. So this view either states that people of faith don't need to think, or just ignores what ancient Jews and Christians thought "faith" was or is (roughly, loyalty based on prior experience). I can't say if something similar is your view, Bal, but such perspectives irk me.
