Truestory--
Just a quick comment, I hope. Well, okay. Nothing's "quick" with me.
* "Believe me, salvation has nothing to do with going to church at all. Salvation also has nothing to do with kissing anyone's butt. It is about living eternally in mutually loving relationships in the absence of evil."
Okay ... one of the issues the whole forum, much less you and I, or any specific topic, seems unable to agree upon is what is meant by certain things. For instance, I have, on a number of occasions, asserted that you, or other Christians, worship the name only. This assumption comes from the fact that certain perspectives only seem to work in regard to the perspective itself. "Absence of evil" happens to be one of those things.
There cannot be an absence of evil, except perhaps an absence of what we regard as evil. Even when the entirety of creation is in direct harmony with God, there must necessarily be some sense of evil left in the universe, else harmony has nothing to distinguish it from nothing. That's one of the problems with ideas like Satan, and such ... that if you spin the logical line of any claim regarding the devil to its best possible end, you fine that the "logic" evaporates fairly early in the process. If the idea only applies under narrow conditions, exactly as one has stated it, it cannot be true and correct throughout. "Gravity makes things fall" is a fair statement from our earthbound perspective; I might liken it to evil, in this sense. But gravity does not "make things fall". Gravity is an attractive force. Once upon a time, when scientists understood that the same force that makes rocks fall to the ground is the same thing that's binding the universe, they started looking for its bright center. Of course, advances in technology and even in mathematical theory have allowed us to say that there is no central point toward which gravity attracts the universe.
Whereas, to say that the devil is evil might be a fair statement from our mortal perspective, what does that speak of the rest of the universe? Is there a neutral force? Do we find the death of a child in an earthquake, flood, or other unfortunate disaster morally ambiguous? Do we see a neutrality? Do we see an evil? Good and evil must necessarily transcend the human condition; much of what we see as evil may, in the end, be good in God's eyes. After all, the plan is immutable, and the only outcome is preset. This creates a problem whereby all evil becomes good, as it is a process which leads us to the fruition of God's plan, but that borders also on various and sundry predestinies.
I would agree that salvation has nothing to do with going to church. But vagaries like those pertaining to the basic ground rules of salvation--good and evil--imply a number of things. As a sum total of other topic discussions we've had, would it be fair to say that nobody alive knows the Plan? Or do some know the intimate intricacies of God better than others? And then what does that imply about whether God saves all humanity or just the elect?
Do you see what I'm getting at? It's hard to say
what one invests their faith in. Sure, you might call it Jesus, and that person over there might call it Jesus, but you're looking at a green Honda, and he's looking at a blue Cadillac. You both believe in Jesus, sure, but that means the Caddy fans are going to hell, as such, even though they believe in Jesus.
And when we fix that paradox, a new one will most definitely pop up. I agree that it's largely the mystery of God, but there is an aspect of ass-kissing that goes with faith. We all learn it, perhaps because we are afraid to teach our children that some things are simply right. I mean, it does come down to that choice: If I jump you in a parking lot, you have a choice to let me have my way with you, or get killed. Hey, it's your choice. Or, at least, that's how the idea of salvation reads because the multitude of individual Christians all have their own interpretations, all of which are right, none of which agree, other than the fact that yes, Jesus does have four wheels and bucket seats. (Would Jesus have a vanity plate? "GODSKID"? "MACKDDY"? But, I digress
)
So back to not being able to agree on what things mean ... those are the issues that make it really tough for non-Christians to come to faith. Whereas the atheists, for mere example, might agree that 2+2=4, the apparent truth in Christianity is that as long as one believes in the number four, any mathematical formula should equal it.
You and I might be able to agree that certain representations of Christianity definitely are not Christian. Mostly, when I accuse you of using that out in an argument, I agree with you. But other people whose ideas are represented by different words don't get that grace. A society of free-willed individuals acting on consciences inspired by a common faith upon which none of the faithful can agree has proven itself quick to the draw, and preferring to ask questions not sooner, not later, but never. So, while you and I might agree that "God Hates Fags" is not necessarily "Christian", we must also admit that A) there is Biblical support that requires less interpretation than promises of Christ's return that God doesn't like homosexuality, and B) that it might not matter whether or not they consider their actions truly motivated by Christ. In the Bible, is there not a Christ for all seasons? I mean, if we don't like the idea of a spiteful, homophobic Jesus, can not the less educated hold the story of Jesus driving the sinful moneylenders from the temple? Say what we will about its actual meaning ... there's a bunch of anti-fag Christians out there spreading a Gospel of hate. Forgive the lowly pagans if they simply say, "It's more Christian nonsense," but when you get down to it, who's gonna win the tangible fight? Those with guns or those without? Those with destructive impulses, or those who would die for God?
The kingdom of God is well and fine, but absolutely nothing is definite about it. We know that certain people will have to answer to God about just what the hell they thought they were saying on His behalf ... but which people will that be?
And when you get down to it, it means you're playing a rough game with rigid rules. Nobody knows how big the field is, what the ball looks like, or how many minutes you get in the box when you break the rules. Hell, we don't know what the rules are. And, as regards kissing butt, it means the best thing we can do is pick the rosiest-smelling and just pucker up.
Ummm ... damn. I'm looking through this post and I'm left with two things to say. One, it's all there. Two ... well, it's all there but it's might take some sorting out. It all makes sense to me, but if you'll allow me a jab below the belt ... interpreting the vagaries seems to be your speciality.
Can I offer a clue? It all has to do with the idea that "absence of evil" was the perfect spin toward an abstract regard for ass-kissing. If that sentence makes sense, then I'm confident that the rest of this can be regarded as less than psychotic.
thanx,
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (
Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
