Blaming God

[JonMiller]

Here is a question. How would you define a world in which there is no greed and no crime? Does Christ have to come down through clouds for such a reality to be experienced?

We aren't heading there though. Why do you think that we will ever reach there?

And I know that I have read science fiction where there were worlds with no greed and no crime that I would still consider hellish.

JM

 

[sentipente]

We aren't heading there though. Why do you think that we will ever reach there?

I expected that response but was hoping you would not make it. Essentially, you believe that we will never achieve the better life we all speak of. Are you serious?

 

[JonMiller]

From what I can see of where we are from and where we are going, yeah. I don't see the world becoming like heaven baring some sort of singularity. Some people have hope in technology providing that singularity. Others have hope in God.

I don't see our current existence ever getting there. For every area we move forward in, in another area we move back.

JM

 

[sentipente]

The only hope for mankind lies in human scholarship. God gains nothing by prolonging circumstances He has the power to halt.

 

[JonMiller]

I consider the case of Sodom when I think of why the God singularity has not happened yet.

JM

 

[reddogs]

I noticed that at least one Trad is accusing God of keeping us waiting. He seems to believe that it is God's fault why the "Second Coming" has not occurred. His has so much confidence in his theological position that the possibility that his interpretation of the prophetic literature may be at fault.

I quess you've never done a rhetorical question in all your many posts senti.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

 

[Avonia]

You are better then this.

JM

Oh come on Jon! Your posted stated that you were not in favor of the interpretation because it did not fit "the evidence." To me, that seems like a worse cut than the Flat Earth cut I sent back. As if Senti, I, and others are ignorant of the evidence. You would have created more room for dialog if you would have said "my interpretation of the evidence."

 

[Mankin]

God has a specific time that He is going to come. If He is all knowing then He knows exactly the right time to come. Since He knows the future He does not have to make any delays.

 

[sentipente]

God has a specific time that He is going to come. If He is all knowing then He knows exactly the right time to come. Since He knows the future He does not have to make any delays.

Did He not know that when He told His disciples He would return before they all could die? (Don't repeat the face-saving spin).

 

[sentipente]

I consider the case of Sodom when I think of why the God singularity has not happened yet.

JM

Explain the relevance of Sodom.

 

[Avonia]

Actually it has just as much problems because "Christ Consciousness" has no real definition. Once someone defines the term it will have the same problems as the idea of a physical return of Christ. That is they will both only be based upon faith. Then the question will be upon what evidence do you believe in one or the other. Clearly those writing the New Testament expected a literal physical return as well as an indwelling before the return. So to assume the one and not the other seems even more problematic.

But does God have a definition? I am reminded of Jews omitting the "o" in God because the word falls short of the qualities of the thing it attempts to hold. But the word does seem useful in helping us get a little closer to the thing!

I'm not sure your suggestion that the Christ Consciousness or Christ Awareness is simply a matter of faith is well supported given that the expression is used not only in the esoteric sense, but in the exoteric sense. But that may be a larger conversation, and we may be closer on this than our tiny posts allow for.

I do agree that the term is difficult in the sense of something abstract holding a quality of consciousness. Not as easy as calling a nail a nail – for sure!

Whether or not there is an awareness (or indwelling as you said) AND a physical return, I'm optimistic if we take the opportunity to develop and demonstrate the indwelling to work for the betterment of the planet. It seems there's much to do on that front.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I noticed that at least one Trad is accusing God of keeping us waiting. He seems to believe that it is God's fault why the "Second Coming" has not occurred. His has so much confidence in his theological position that the possibility that his interpretation of the prophetic literature may be at fault.

It is also worse when some blame humans, or more specifically SDA's (think Herbert Douglas, Kevin Paulsen and other Last Generation (Perfection) Theology boys)

There are a growing number of people that speak of the second coming as the emergence of the Christ consciousness in the human race.

Some of them are called 19th century Classical Liberals like Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Rauschenbaum etc.. They found the idea of a physical coming (parousia) of Christ to be incomprehensible, so they reduced the message of Jesus into simple ethical statements and his coming into the idea of the progressive march of western civilization into utopia that was so popular with pre-WW1 figures like Hegel and Nieztsche.

Many of the existentianlists (eg. Bultmann) that came after WW1 (or had a change of heart) learnt the lesson that society was not improving, or just not in the way they thought. However, a literal parousia was still incomprehensible. So the parousia became an individual experience with many similarities to gnosticism. The parousia of Christ was simply the discovery of the "authentic self", not an even that happened in history, or that changed history. This is where you get the idea of realised eschatology. It was an event that was only realised in the individual.

In this context Christ consciousness merely refers to the teachings Christ presented being manifest throughout humanity.

Ahh, so we've chosen the Classical Liberal way. I suppose the nice "do good to others" teachings would be preferable, these would surely make a better society.

Does "Christ consciousness" invole Christ worship, or acknowledging Christ as Lord of this world? Or will people simply wake up one morning and say "I'm going to start acting like that Jesus guy", maybe because he himself reached the highest level of "god-consciousness" or he was just a swell guy? Or maybe people will just follow the teachings of Christ without realising it, it will be an unconscious Christ consciousness? Does it happen all at once, or just in various individuals?

And I insist that it is entirely in line with the evidence.

So, what evidence would one offer for this sort of ethical-realised version of the parousia? Sociological evidence? Psychological evidence? Biological evidence? (dare I say it) Biblical evidence?


Now, I'm no conservative apologist. I can clearly see the problems in the wooden literalist view of Christ as some proto-space traveler who lives "up there" in the clouds (in heaven) while we are "down here" on earth. This teaches us that we should stop reading the bible through the eyes of superstitious medieval beliefs.

But don't misunderstand me. I'm no liberal. And I don't mean liberal adventist, which only seems to mean disagreeing with Ellen White and the IJ and perhaps eating meat and singing contemporary music in church. I mean real-deal liberal - you know the sort of liberal that says, "God is not a Being who we have a relationship with, he's merely what gives meaning or ultimacy to human life, Christ was a human that achieved God-consciousness, nothing in the bible should be taken literally because it was never meant to be so forget virgin birth, physical resurection, physical return etc, and by the way you think those are actually Jesus' words in the Bible and how 'bout we read Gnostic texts with more interest and reverence than the closer eye witnesses" - I'm not that sort of liberal.

No, lets not read the Bible through the eyes of Dante. The idea of a two level (or even three level) universe is a popular lie that some people use to discredit the Bible. "How can you take serious something that says God is 'up there'?" No, instead we must realise that the first Christians were in a mailny Jewish context. These are people that believed the temple was the place where heaven and earth met and God's presence was actually in the Most Holy Place, usually when there was smoke or cloud. And by the way, when you realise that God was almost always placed in a cloud or smoke in the OT, you can understand the symbolism of "the Son of Man coming in clouds" (Mark 13:26).

A thoroughly deeper biblical view is that heaven is the place where God is. It is not earth where we live. But God is not separated from us by some great divide. No, God actually acts in relationship to us and the earth. Heaven and earth are a bit closer than simply "up there" and "down here". It is more like heaven is the "control room" for earth, not the "deist heaven" where God is so separated from earth that he has no involvement at all. The language of up and down, ascention and descention, is the language of exhaltation, of God being lifted up and of God's people being lifted up on high with him.

Perhaps, however, we read 1 Thess 4:16-17, "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord for ever."

New Testament scholar N. T. Wright has written in several places, like his book Jesus and the Victory of God, about the complex metaphores used here by Paul.

I quote from http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Farewell_Rapture.pdf

First, Paul echoes the story of Moses coming down the mountain with the Torah.
The trumpet sounds, a loud voice is heard, and after a long wait Moses comes to see
what's been going on in his absence.​

Second, he echoes Daniel 7, in which "the people of the saints of the Most High"
(that is, the "one like a son of man") are vindicated over their pagan enemy by being
raised up to sit with God in glory. This metaphor, applied to Jesus in the Gospels, is now
applied to Christians who are suffering persecution.​

Third, Paul conjures up images of an emperor visiting a colony or province. The
citizens go out to meet him in open country and then escort him into the city. Paul's
image of the people "meeting the Lord in the air" should be read with the assumption that
the people will immediately turn around and lead the Lord back to the newly remade​

world.

Just because the Bible uses metaphors that are complex and often misunderstood doesn't seem to me to be an excuse to retreat into a week "emergence of Christ consciousness." Is the great remaking of heaven and earth into the new Jerusalem, the judgement of the living and the dead, the vindication of Christ and the people of God in the face of all accussers and opressors to be simply reduced to the adoption of a set of neat ethical teachings that may make life a bit better for us in mortal, coruptable bodies on a mortal, coruptable earth?

I think that the idea of "the emergence of Christ-consciousness" is an excuse, just the same as blaming God for his delay or blaming our sin for his delay is an excuse. Its an excuse to blame a faulty interpretation of the Biblical pictures of heaven and earth, an excuse not to take seriously the promise that Christ will return to the world that he won and is Lord over, that there will be resurection and judgement (which leads to vintication).

 

[JonMiller]

Explain the relevance of Sodom.

A God singularity would be an end of choice, wouldn't it? And for Sodom, there was also an end of choice. How few people was God willing to wait on for Sodom?

I don't think that God is willing to end our choice. His desire is for all to be saved.

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I have to agree with Ben's last post. But I may not understand what is being meant by Christ Consciousness I am most familiar with the New Age version since they are really the ones that popularized the term. And it really just amounts to people realizing that they are themselves god. Once they realize this they move to some higher state of being. Which is interesting when you consider the Genesis story that really differentiates the human being from the god. Which is really important when you consider this was written after being slaves of a nation who happened to be run by a god in the form of a man. Which is an interesting contrast to the Christian God-man who was not forcing Himself on people but helping them.

 

[JonMiller]

Oh come on Jon! Your posted stated that you were not in favor of the interpretation because it did not fit "the evidence." To me, that seems like a worse cut than the Flat Earth cut I sent back. As if Senti, I, and others are ignorant of the evidence. You would have created more room for dialog if you would have said "my interpretation of the evidence."

By a reference to flat earth not making sense, you are calling for a certain clear cut level of evidence. Like scientific evidence.

This is lacking, obviously. Not only is this lacking, but there is clear evidence to the contrary (the world is not a better place then it was 60 years ago, and shows no evidence of getting better).

So yes, you should be better then making a comment comparing my argument to that of flat earthers arguing against science when not only does your position lack the authority of science, but also to a large portion of people (even a majority) the evidence is to the contrary.

Jon Miller

 

[Avonia]

By a reference to flat earth not making sense, you are calling for a certain clear cut level of evidence. Like scientific evidence.

This is lacking, obviously. Not only is this lacking, but there is clear evidence to the contrary (the world is not a better place then it was 60 years ago, and shows no evidence of getting better).

So yes, you should be better then making a comment comparing my argument to that of flat earthers arguing against science when not only does your position lack the authority of science, but also to a large portion of people (even a majority) the evidence is to the contrary.

Jon Miller

OK Jon. I have enjoyed talking to you - be well.

 

[Avonia]

But I may not understand what is being meant by Christ Consciousness

RC, of all the posts I've read since hanging out here, this one is among the most encouraging in terms of building a healthy community. You have essentially said that after having a short conversation about the Christ Consciousness your sense of it has not changed . . . much. But there may be more to learn.

God bless you 1,000 times over for being teachable. It's one of the reasons that your posts have great depth. I always get a sense of your life from reading your posts – I appreciate that.

The point is to learn from each other. Be curious about why people care so deeply the way they do. And never be quite the same for having had the conversation.

OK, I've drifted off topic for the sake of saying something I care deeply about – now drifting back!

 

[sentipente]

A God singularity would be an end of choice, wouldn't it?

Only in the sense that other species lack choice. Choice does not have to be self-destructive. A God singularity would not include self-destructive behavior.

 

[Sophia7]

RC, of all the posts I've read since hanging out here, this one is among the most encouraging in terms of building a healthy community. You have essentially said that after having a short conversation about the Christ Consciousness your sense of it has not changed . . . much. But there may be more to learn.

God bless you 1,000 times over for being teachable. It's one of the reasons that your posts have great depth. I always get a sense of your life from reading your posts – I appreciate that.

The point is to learn from each other. Be curious about why people care so deeply the way they do. And never be quite the same for having had the conversation.

OK, I've drifted off topic for the sake of saying something I care deeply about – now drifting back!

Yes, we can all learn from each other even if we end up still disagreeing.

 

[JonMiller]

Only in the sense that other species lack choice. Choice does not have to be self-destructive. A God singularity would not include self-destructive behavior.

I agree. My comparison to Sodom was not to it's destruction.

JM