- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,932
- 11,670
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Something like the Nicene Creed, but more COSMIC and Existential in scope: That "Jesusy."
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What does it mean to "add a whole lot of Jesus to it"?
On another note, can you break down for me what "Jesusy" means?
Thank you kindly.
Something like the Nicene Creed, but more COSMIC and Existential in scope: That "Jesusy."
Not following you.
Would be so kind as to elaborate on what that means exactly?
Thank you.
Sure, but I only allow three Socratic questions per interlocutor.
It's like this: Jesus is not only Lord and Savior of those persons on this planet who respond to Him, but He is also the Creator of our entire COSMOS, and in our existential outlook as we ponder the vast expanse beyond the reaches of our imagination, and as we contend with our living of life, however wracked with pain and doubt we may be, there is still meaning here that is provided by God in Christ through His Spirit.
Yes, I know. You're concerned that I may be a false teacher who is importing "foreign objects" into the sanctity of our common Christian Faith. Well, don't worry, I'm not doing that. But as Mayim mentions at the end of her video, as her content pertains to her point of view, I too have a more BioLogos approach to my Christian Faith. And that's my story--and I'm sticking to it.
Simply seeking more clarity in not only the title of your thread, but your posts. Thus the questions.
And as you stated in an earlier post about the purpose of this forum, that is the purpose of this forum. To seek clarity.
Thank you kindly.
Ok. That sounds fair. Now, care to watch the video and comment, Sister brinny?
I wish folks would watch before commenting. The comments should be about the content of the video and not opinions about the person making the video.Ok. That sounds fair. Now, care to watch the video and comment, Sister brinny?
Whoa, not the direction I'd have expected this thread to take.
But great video. A little bit too deistic for my tastes, but great points all the same. It's a pity she can't get any of this through to the creators of the Big Bang Theory, at least from what I've seen of the show. But I do not watch it regularly, so maybe it's gotten more even-handed with its take on religion.
I've known folks who've prayed for things even more more self-serving that that!...maybe she is just a little bit deistic, but hey, were you really think'n God was going to intervene and save that parking-space for you?
That almost sounds like the cue for another thread, but heck, why not here, so: Sounds interesting, what did they pray for........pray tell?I've known folks who've prayed for things even more more self-serving that that!
Way off topic for this thread!That almost sounds like the cue for another thread, but heck, why not here, so: Sounds interesting, what did they pray for........pray tell?
Way off topic for this thread!
I already helped almost derail it already. Just tryin' to get the focus back on the video!
...maybe she is just a little bit deistic, but hey, were you really think'n God was going to intervene and save that parking-space for you?
Yup. She was "deistic" enough for me. In fact, she sounded more deistic than Judaic, but I believe that may be the "scientist" side of her.Ok then. So, in the video, was Mayim "deistic" enough for you, George? Or did you sense that she was still hinting at something a bit more than just deism?
...from my more Christian view, I'd be ok with a more (~) panentheistic than pantheist conception. In fact, maybe I am a panentheist....of sorts.Oh, I don't mean that part. Specifically where she talks about God as somehow being the laws of the universe. It's a very immanent conception of God, with no reference to transcendence. I have seen deists talk like that before, though technically speaking it's probably pantheistic rather than deistic.
Yup. She was "deistic" enough for me. In fact, she sounded more deistic than Judaic, but I believe that may be the "scientist" side of her.
...from my more Christian view, I'd be ok with a more (~) panentheistic than pantheist conception. In fact, maybe I am a panentheist....of sorts.
She sounded something like an Existentialist to me. But, "a little here, a little there!"
Yup. She was "deistic" enough for me. In fact, she sounded more deistic than Judaic, but I believe that may be the "scientist" side of her.
Maybe....but many existentialists have a disdain for reason. I don't believe she is advocating that at all.She sounded something like an Existentialist to me. But, "a little here, a little there!"
Yeah, I'm a panentheist, so I'm cool with saying that God is in some sense the laws governing the universe. It just needs another step beyond, since those laws don't really explain themselves just because you identify them with God.
@GeorgeJ, what does deism mean to you? I can never figure out just what it means anymore when divorced from the 18th century context. Are we still at clockmaker God or has the concept of deism changed?
Really? I didn't really get that impression.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?