Johnny California
-
Posts
203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Johnny California
-
-
I don't know where this thread has gone over the past 8 pages, but Constantine is dropping fast in the US box office. For a movie that reportedly cost $90 million, $66 million is pretty bad.
Worldwide it's over $138 million. For comparison, Hellboy only made $99 million total (domestic and international) and cost $66 million (excluding marketing costs) and it's getting a sequel.
More depressing, Van Helsing made $300 million plus, cost $160 million, and God help us if there is a sequel.
-
The 'virtuous pagans' thing is taken care of in Catholic dogma these days by Jesus' Harrowing of Hell during his little-known tour of the nether regions during his 'corpse' period. I can't actually recall whether or not Dante was aware of this when he wrote the Comedy - he does, however, explicitly acknowledge the possibility of 'posthumous conversion', the most notable example being that of the Roman Emperor Trajan in Canto XX of 'Paradise' (the posthumous conversion of Trajan is a long-standing piece of dogma, being mentioned in the accounts of St. John Damascene and in Aquinas' Summa Theologica). Ultimately, though, Dante isn't a particularly reliable source of Catholic theology or dogma - there's at least a little bit of poetic license with regard to the intricacies of contemporaneous theories about the afterlife in all three sections of the Comedy.
So, Christ's descent to Hell, which is described in the Apocrypha, I believe, is officially accepted by the Catholic Church?
-
Azzarello and Bendis both have problems with pairing strong pay-offs with strong set-ups.
I enjoyed Azzarello/Corben's arc set in prison and I liked the less overt demonology of Az's run, but in general it doesn't deliver as well as the much more magickal Carey run. Carey seems to deliver the best mix of all versions.
-
There is a convention for diverse religious leaders from around the world. During the lunch buffet, a Catholic priest finds himself in line with a Rabbi. He looks at the Rabbi's plate and then a question struck him that he's always wanted to ask.
"Excuse me, Rabbi."
"Yes, Father?"
"I was just wondering if, in all your time in America, you've ever tasted pork?"
Of course, the Rabbi protested that he follows the Kosher laws quite strictly. The priest goes on-
"Yes, of course, but just between the two of us, haven't you ever just tasted pork?"
The Rabbi finally admitted that, accidentally, he'd one had a bit of ham.
"Tasted pretty good, didn't it?"
The Rabbi had to admit that it did taste quite good, but that wasn't the point of the Kosher laws and so on.
A little while later, after they finished their meal and were returning to the convention, the Rabbi caught up with the priest and asked:
"Father, tell me, as a man, sometime in your life you've must've had sex."
Of course, the priest protested his vow of celibacy, but the Rabbi continued.
"Of course, of course, but just between the two of us."
Finally, the priest admitted that as a young man prior to his vows, he'd had relations with the female of the species. The Rabbi responded-
"Better than pork, wasn't it?"
-
And a lot of the sympathetic magic felt right to me. The alcohol being "denied" to the priest, but actually drowning him. The insect in the box, disturbing the demon in the insects. ( while not mentioning that they had more than one CRAB wandering around. Crabs?. EH? )
I thought that scene sounded stupid in the script. But then I remembered it was LA and wondered if they were talking about a different kind of crab.
I've never seen a friggin' crab here that wasn't in a sushi bar. However, technically, crabs, lobsters and crustaceans in general are more closely relatedto bugs than to fish. So it makes sense. And if I saw a crab in the street I'd think "What the heck?"
-
Why would Satan turn against God?
Because it is a badly transcribed 4000 year old shepherd-fooling story.
Y'know, I often wonder if the entire Semetic line of religions began this way. The Garden of Eden story has such sitcom overtones. Imagine God played by Jackie Gleason.
"You ate what?!!"
"To the moon, Adam! To the moon!!"
-
However, the more interesting discussion was in determining the nature of evil in Christianity. Is Christianity more dualistic than monotheistic? I'd suggest that the primary belief expressed in books like the LEFT BEHIND series is a dualistic perspective like Zoroastrianism with a Spirit of Evil, Satan/Antichrist, consciously defying the will of a much more powerful Spirit of Good, God/Christ.
Fire and brimstone sermons and the dualistic approach for the "god fearing christians" seems another tool at propagating a religion. Its hard to analyze something objectivly when you assume the very nature of it is divine. What kind of room does that leave to criticaly examine of something if the very act of questioning it is a sin?
This is a very good point and it's also why the mystical branches of the religions maintain such secrecy since, to the general church, much of what they do could be called heretical (and lead to horrible death).
Also, by having a concept of an evil from which God can protect you or, more to the point, render null through resurrection, you are able to more strongly galvanize conversion. You give a face to their troubles and that face, Satan, is the enemy of God.
On this same point, it is important to realize that the dualism in the extremely fundamentalist church has also led to a doctrine that the born again cannot suffer in this world except through the will of God when the true promise of Christianity is that suffering is redeemed through the resurrection and promised immortality and eternity with God.
But if Satan is only doing God's will, why the battles in Revelations?This is what leads me to question the veracity of Revalations. It has some beautiful poetry but does not seem to jibe at all with the messages attributed to Christ. It seems a more political tract once again dealing with the Jewish (and also Christian at the time) question: If our God is the one true God and Lord over all then why would He not raise a finger to help His Chosen People against the Romans?
Nevertheless, even in Revelations, God seems to be the stage manager behind the scenes orchestrating the acts, entrances and exits of the demonic creatures including Satan. Also, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the author of revelations was using mystical code to metaphorically criticize Nero and Rome without commiting outright sedition.
-
Dualism, from a simple philosophical perspective, does not require a balance between opposing forces. In fact, I'd say that cooperative independent gods could still qualify as dualistic. Dualism essentially presents the idea that the interaction between two independent forces is the basis or foundation of all spiritual and material existence. As pointed out before, Zoroastrians believed the God of light (Ahura Mazda?) was destined to win and was therefore more powerful.
The primary Christian concept (though not found throughout the religion, of course) that sets Satan in opposition to God is dualistic in its essence. However, there have been Christian denominations who still see Satan as a servant of God's will, and I can't think of any truly theological perspectives that give Satan the consciousness of character you find in Milton's just awful poem Paradise Lost.
The primary problem is that most christians who I know who believe in the devil, tend to think of him as having free will and consciousness that would make him on par with humans. Considering the nature of a monotheistic God, this would seem to be an impossible interpretation.
But, of course, what we are seeing is a religion based on Judaic mythology that has been filtered through many other beliefs as it converted Gentiles.
In essence, I still believe that Christianity is monotheistic and proposes that Satan is subject to the will of God and that if evil occurs is it the will of God not the work of the devil. However, it is very difficult for people worshipping a loving God to accept that calamity is His work as well.
-
The primary reson I feel that later Christianity borrowed from other faiths as it emerged and separated from Judaism is that Christian conversion throughout the world has followed this path. Arguing that Mithras borrowed from Jesus is akin to arguing that Odin derived from the Viking interpretation of Father Christmas. Personally, I think Mani, more than Zaroaster, had more influence on the development of Christian philosophy.
However, the more interesting discussion was in determining the nature of evil in Christianity. Is Christianity more dualistic than monotheistic? I'd suggest that the primary belief expressed in books like the LEFT BEHIND series is a dualistic perspective like Zoroastrianism with a Spirit of Evil, Satan/Antichrist, consciously defying the will of a much more powerful Spirit of Good, God/Christ.
-
My major problem with modern Christianity derives from the Pauline Doctrine of Original Sin. Jesus in his own teachings was not as revolutionary in the sense of creating an entirely new doctrine as Christians like to suggest. His interpretations were squarely based upon Judaism as practiced, but his interpretation was extremely compelling and designed to attract Jews to return to a sort of loving righteousness between themeselves and God. Righteousness was what was being threatened under Roman rule.
Even the supposed "New" commandement, "Love one another" or "love thy neighbor as thyself" derives from the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:17-18-
17 " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD .
However, Paul's doctrine is much more radical and certainly does not derive from any direct teaching of Jesus in the New Testament or any doctrine present in Judaism to that time. In a sense, it is as radical to the Jews as Mormonism is to Christians.
More on Original Sin-
Here's an interesting point from the true ORTHODOX Christians:
Original Sin as understood by Orthodox ChristianityAugustine wrote in Latin in the fourth century, but his writings were not translated into Greek until the fourteenth century. Consequently, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity never held that guilt is inherited, and began repudiating this idea once they learned of it. They teach that we inherit a corrupted or damaged human nature in which the tendency to do bad is greater, but that each person is only guilty of their own sins. By participating in the life of the church, each person's human nature is healed and it becomes easier to do good; at the same time, the Christian becomes more acutely aware of his or her shortcomings. Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that Adam and Eve began to choose separation from God when they chose independence and took fruit for themselves, rather than allow God to continue to feed them and remain dependent on Him. The expulsion from the Garden was not a legal consequence, but to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and immortalizing their sin. As Christians partake of the Eucharist and eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, they return to dependence on God and experience a gradual healing of the relationship between God and humanity. The ultimate goal is theosis or divinization, an even closer union with God and closer likeness to God than existed in the Garden of Eden.
Very similar to the notion that we all are one with and should strive for a union with God.
-
As far as evil, would you not consider what God did to Job to be evil? God certainly seems to consider it as such since he makes it very clear that Job does not deserve any of these punishments.
Great question. I don't have a good answer, myself. I should like to point out, though, that I would consider Job a work of fiction designed to teach lessons and not a history. But it raises the interesting points you brought up - can God do evil? And gets back to the fundamental question of why there is evil. I would also like to note that Job was written with an Old Testament audience in mind and not a post-Jesus one, so there is a difference of understanding; Old Testament people were much more fatalistic in their thinking.
I should also like to point out that I'm prettty sure Paul didn't invent Original Sin (he didn't invent Genesis) and Job was not "without sin" since no one is without sin.
The "story" the Bible tells tracks the progression of God's understanding of Mankind and Man's understanding of God. It is not at all a moral tract about good and evil.Essentially, the Old Testament is filled with misunderstandings between God and his people.I appreciate your thoughts on this but I would be hesitant to read this as the correct or only interpretation. Likewise, statements such as "Even God seems mystified by these and by his own rage in some cases even though he could just rely on his omniscience" are also highly interpretive. In other words, I really don't see God as portrayed in the Bible this way
When you say "Job certainly doesn't need to be taught anything," are you sure that's true? Seems to me he learns a lot and the friends he dialogues with do, too. And doesn't that miss the point of the book - that men should be faithful to God even when they are beset with disaster? That the designs of God are beyond our knowing, so it's best to remain faithful and not question them. That is the lesson being taught in the book, further argument that it is a work of didactic fiction.
Can you expand this?
Essentially, I think the Gnostics abandoned the Old Testament God a bit too soon, but I also think they were in many ways more faithful than many adherent Christians.I'm not sure what you mean.
There is still plenty of mystery in the Bible though and often I think that the dogmatic interpretations are in themselves a sin, a hostility toward God, since declaring scripture as if its meaning is known or even singular excludes faith. After all, we are all likely wrong in some respect or another; the importance is to have faith that the pursuit of and openess to truth is worth far more than any single and usually temporary conclusion.I sort of agree with you here. Dogma can be a dangerous thing, it can be a very safe and powerful thing, too. But I can't agree that you should attach no meaning to scripture, at some point you have to dig in and take a stand. As I said earlier, it's pretty easy to do this since it is a consistent work, as is the conventional interpretation of it. Sure you might make a "temporary conclusion" about some minor points, but the main ones - faith in Christ - are not temporary, and with them centrally located, everything else falls into place. I meanm, sooner or later you have to make conclusions, why wouldn't you?
Do we discuss Buddhism next?
Paul invented the idea of Original Sin to justify Christ's sacrifice. The big question that tore at him was that if Christ was God then why would he allow such a horrible fate to befall him. The Jews had no such belief prior to Paul.
Here's an interesting essay on it:
Original Sin from the Jewish Perspective
And as far as God's Omniscience and behavior, throughout Genesis he has regrets which would hardly be within the capacity of an omniscient being who could see the future and he gets angry and breaks promises with his people when they do wrong only to regret that later.
It is important to note that, in a religion, these must all be seen as "true stories." Otherwise, it reduces God to the same status as a character in a fairy tale. Job is called "blameless" by God and, of all the people in the Book, Job is the last one who deserves God's punishment. This is made clear by God Himself when he threatens Job's neighbors for suggesting that some misdeed of Job's is to blame for God's wrath.
Even without the word evil, God commits injustice and brings calamity upon the undeserving. From a completely monotheistic point of view, all things, injustice as well as justice, destruction as well as creation, must proceed from a single source: God. As I said before, it becomes very hard to avoid a dualistic viewpoint, if you attempt to divorce any action or possibilty, such as evil, from God.
As far as conclusions drawn, it is rare that a person from an organized religion comes to conclusions that will divide him or her from the body of their Church. The one thing organized religion has in abundance are techniques to maintain singular interpretations of scripture. However, including Christ, the Christian religion has progressed and stayed alive by challenging dogma mroe than adhering to it. Sometimes, but not always, these challenges come about as the result of mystical experience, and it can be surprising how powerful these movements (Mormons, Quakers) are.
-
However, it is a "good" answer that seems to cover the bases, but its is based upon the presupposition that only Christ could experience divinity in human form. Just as with the problem of the use of the word "evil" in the bible, the answer revises the interpretation to avoid really questioning the implications. The line says, pretty clearly "you are gods." Throughout the bible Jesus calls men the children of God and says that he is the father of everyone. The answer in the link essentially claims that 'that's not what Jesus really meant.' It's an attempt to quell dissension and return to dogmatic and singular interpretation rather than explore the sheer complexity inherent to a living spiritual text.
What does "vericose" mean? What does "yellow" mean? Would you agree that these words have definitions? Would you agree that words sometimes have multiple meanings? That's where the context comes in; the explanation given is one that fits the context. In comics they would be called continuity problems, and conitnuity would have to be resolved. If Superman can move a planet in one issue but can't later, there is either a continuity problem or an explanation. I have given you the explanation, it's not an attempt to stifle anything, it's a careful reading of it. Don't believe me? Ask a Hebrew scholar what is meant in the Psalm Jesus quotes when it says "you are gods." Do you think the scholar will say, "Oh, essentially what the Psalmist meant is that we are all gods?" No. That would be insane, since the rest of the work says clearly there is ONE GOD and false gods, etc.
And that sounds like an argument a Pharisee would use to deny Christ's claim to be God. Essentially, this is what sounds irrational:
CHRIST: God and I are one.
JEWS: Justify that or we'll kill you.
CHRIST: The Bible says that we are all mighty men (or princes or magistrates).
That just doesn't make sense especially since Christ constantly stressed that all Jews are the children of God. It is important to note that Christ was preaching to Jews at the time and everything he said was set in that context. Conversion of Gentiles came long after he had gone.
Essentially, the problem is with the idea that Christianity is simply based upon scripture, when most of the acts in the scripture arise from mystical revelation.I question this. The Bible is comprised of many books of different types, some of which, yes, claim knowledge due to mystical revelation (prophecy). Others do not. Most do not. The Gospels, in particular, are not prophecies, poems or myths, they are first-person histories of what happened, and they were written down to set the record straight, particularly in the case of false documents. Likewise the bulk of the NT, which is correspondence. Most of the OT is mythology/history, history, wisdom literature, poetry and, yes, prophecy. So, respectfully, your assertion that "most of the acts in scripture arise from mystical revelation" is simply not true.
But most do arise from mystical revelation since the entire Bible is based upon the interaction between man and God. Paul's entire Christian life stems from one encounter with God. Israel stems from the mystical experience of Moses. And the apocalyptic myth with which most fundamentalist Christians are obsessed is entirely based upon the mystical experience of Revelation. The Gospels describe Jesus' mystical experience so even though the authors were not having a mystical experience they were certainly influenced by one.
The point: mystical experience is the heart of any living religion.
As far as scripture, considering the very UN-Christian methods used to silence heretics, I can't even take the New Testament, as it exists presently, as the final word of God because historically the dogma and doctrine and its singular interpretation arose from often heinous political acts such as burning the Cathars alive, just for one example.
From a neitral position, Joseph Smith (Mormonism) has as much authority as St. Paul since both based their teachings on divine revelation. Therefore, only personal progress and exploration of all avenues can reveal any useful truth whereas organized religious doctrine is at heart empty since it stresses belief and unquestioning loyalty over experience.
-
Anyone interested in Spellbuffinders then ?
Is it set in the regular Marvel Universe with Doc Strange style magic?
I'm really interested in findign out more about Regifters. Any news?
-
That would have been the best ending point.
Constantine seems too contrite at the end.
However, we could say that God is not all that omniscient in the Bible. He doesn't instantly know that Adam ate of the forbidden fruit nor does he know that Cain killed Abel until he asks him. Also, if he was completely omniscient then he wouldn't have had to make the wager with Satan over Job.
See, here's another twist on the end, God doesn't really want to send Constantine (or anyone) to Hell, but he doesn't want to break the rules of the wager with Satan, either. God knows that if Constantine performs the sacrifice, even if its part of a con, then he can use that to cancel Satan's claim on John's soul. Satan, who is definitely NOT omniscient in the script, wouldn't be any the wiser as to John's true intentions. So JC isn't really conning God (though he may think he is), God is just playing along to bust Satan's balls. God knows Satan will cure John before letting him go to heaven, so he's not really giving John anything but another chance to screw up.
-
I found Elaine Pagels BEYOND BELIEF quite interesting in the connection and divisions between the Jewish Christian sect and the Gentile Church. For example, baptism for early Christians used to represent the ceremonial washing of the Gentile as he became a Jew. I think Paul's importance was due to his work to make Christianity a gentile religion. it seemed to find more fertile ground there than with Jews at the time (and that's still true of course).
-
My problem is that I WISH Constantine had conned God, but I don't think that is the interpretation the filmmakers put on screen. It makes sense 'cause obviously God in the movie is not completely omniscient or at least doesn't seem to refer to his knowledge that often. The world of Constantine reminded me a lot of the "deadbeat God" world of the PROPHECY movies.
-
However, it is a "good" answer that seems to cover the bases, but its is based upon the presupposition that only Christ could experience divinity in human form. Just as with the problem of the use of the word "evil" in the bible, the answer revises the interpretation to avoid really questioning the implications. The line says, pretty clearly "you are gods." Throughout the bible Jesus calls men the children of God and says that he is the father of everyone. The answer in the link essentially claims that 'that's not what Jesus really meant.' It's an attempt to quell dissension and return to dogmatic and singular interpretation rather than explore the sheer complexity inherent to a living spiritual text.
Essentially, the problem is with the idea that Christianity is simply based upon scripture, when most of the acts in the scripture arise from mystical revelation. The spirit of any religion is in the people who practice it, not in written words, and the pioneers, the Prophets, Jesus, Mohammed, gain their knowledge from mystical experience, not from dogmatic adherence to the scripture.
-
I love Frankie, though I can't help wondering if it would have been better as a "proper" romantic comedy about a guy, a girl and her god without the demonic revenge plot.
I see your point. I felt the same about Whedon's BLOOD AND WATER series about vampires. If it had just been about "slacker" vampires without the "return of an ancient evil" plotline, I think it would have been more interesting.
I didn't mind the demon plotline, but it seemed to dampen some of the potential drama by turning Dean into a deceptive bastard. It weakened Frankie's choice since she wasn't really choosing between Jerivan or a realistic "love of her life."
Nevertheless, it still managed to be quite charming and endearing.
-
As far as evil, would you not consider what God did to Job to be evil? God certainly seems to consider it as such since he makes it very clear that Job does not deserve any of these punishments.
The point being that any act we can conceive, God can perform including betrayel and undeserved punishments. Also, Pauline doctrine that casts the Crucifiction and basically invents the concept of Original Sin also misses the deeper purpose behind the death and resurrection. The original sin is not a stain that must be washed in Christ's blood. That is a primarily symbolic concept that reaches toward deeper truths. Certainly, Job was without sin and the way Original Sin is interpreted is logically absurd. Should you go to jail if your father commits murder?
The "story" the Bible tells tracks the progression of God's understanding of Mankind and Man's understanding of God. It is not at all a moral tract about good and evil.
The Crucifiction served many religious, social and spiritual purposes and connects very closely with Job. Essentially, the Old Testament is filled with misunderstandings between God and his people. Even God seems mystified by these and by his own rage in some cases even though he could just rely on his omniscience. Why does God feel compelled to torment Job and justify himself to Satan? If he was all-knowing, he wouldn't have to. You could say that he is trying to teach men a lesson, but Job certainly doesn't need to be taught anything, and God's ending tirade seems directed at someone else, not Job who is certainly not a fit opponent to debate God.
In Jesus' time, the Jews' covenant with God is sorely tested. The Romans rule over them as did the Egyptians in Moses' time. Where is their God? What have they done to be so abandoned? Jesus' crucifiction and resurrection at the time, to the Jews who followed his sect, was much more than a personal promise of salvation but was a new justification for the covenant. Through the combination of God and man in Christ, God learned what it was to be utterly abandoned by God. In two Gospels, I believe, Christ says "My god, my god, why have you foresaken me?" In another, he says "It is finished" and in the other "I commend my soul into God's hands."
Also, Jesus asks forgiveness for those who torment him. This mirrors Job's prayer for his neighbors who spoke false things about God. I'll remind you that those false things essentially were that God does not let evil befall a man without reason or behave unjustly. God seemed to get pretty pissed when others presumed to speak about what God does and does not do. He told Job to pray for them or he'd smash 'em, and Job did so. Whether he did it because God told him to or if he wanted to, it doesn't say.
Primarily, the main difference is between "evil" and "sin". Evil is inflicting pain and destruction upon others. Sin is more directly hostility against God and it has plagued the "marriage" of man to God throughout the Bible. In Job, it seems to be the primary offence in God's mind when He asks "Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" So, from that point of view, sin was eleiminated when Christ died and was resurrected. When he asks "why have you foresaken me?" Christ is addressing the deepest "problem" in the covenant: why do even good and faithful children of God suffer?
I believe that the answer occurs somewhere between "Why have you foresaken me?" and "It is finished" (though these are in separate Gospels), and is confirmed in the resurrection. God, in a way, experienced the human point of view for the first time, but there is still a lot of work to do, doubt to put at rest, and suffering to go through before the culmination of the work. Essentially, I think the Gnostics abandoned the Old Testament God a bit too soon, but I also think they were in many ways more faithful than many adherent Christians.
There is still plenty of mystery in the Bible though and often I think that the dogmatic interpretations are in themselves a sin, a hostility toward God, since declaring scripture as if its meaning is known or even singular excludes faith. After all, we are all likely wrong in some respect or another; the importance is to have faith that the pursuit of and openess to truth is worth far more than any single and usually temporary conclusion. I think the calcification of interpretation has also led to the declining numbers of people attending church.
Of course, to a Buddhist mind this is all ridiculous as the progression of a person's spiritual life has nothing to do with any other being.
-
Yeah, I would infer that as well. I believe that Jesus may have been challenging the Jewish interpretation discounting the statement. The thrust of Jesus' teachings, as revealed in scripture, and the behavior of the early Christians suggest that Jesus was forging a path to divinity that he expected others to follow after him. I imagine he would be horrified that the modern church chose to worship him, personally, as God. It seems that he felt anyone following his path would attain the same relationship with the divine, and that is a mystical experience whereas following the letter of scripture seems to be the exact same thing Jesus criticized the Pharisees for.
-
Nicely done Charlie.
I would also like to point out that in John 10:34 "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, You are Gods." the word here for "gods" is elohim which in some cases is used as "magistrates", and as a superlative meaning "very great". The bulk of scripture would indicate that a literal translation of elohim as "gods" doesn't follow.
However, it doesn't make sense that Jesus would respond with that meaning in mind. When asked to justify how he and God are one, responding with "God says we are magistrates" does not justify his statement or even relate to it whereas saying that God said we are all gods does.
EDIT:As I see MagicJava has pointed out.
-
Actually, I'm using the Torah in English translation. I believe that the NIV may have been translated with the assumption that God cannot do evil.
Evil is relative, but Job certainly does not deserve the punishment and even God makes this clear, so the betrayel and torment of a faithful servant is certainly an evil act even in the eyes of God. The test was whether Job would remain faithful despite the evil done unto him by God. The implications of Job are very interesting. Does Job remain faithful out of simple fear or does he have faith that God, despite being capable of the greatest evil, is also worthy for His capacity of loving-kindness?
Mystical simply means the experience of or communion with the divine or divine spirits.
-
However, the mystical component of any religion is still a part of that religion. You can't discount it because it is not orthodox or dogmatic.
Yeah. Some would say it's actually closer to the divine than religion is, with religion simply being Man's imperfect expression of the mystic experience.
True Christianity is defined by the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. Anything that alters this or deviates from this is no longer "Christianity" even though it might call itself such.
I'll be away from the computer for a while so ta ta all. Benn very enjoyable converstaions today.
Well, there is justification for mysticism in the Gospels.
John 10:30, Jesus tells a group of Jews "I and my Father are one."
The Jews begin picking up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy unless he can justify claiming He is God.
Jesus justifies his claim by saying in John 10:34 "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, You are Gods.'".
This line refers to Psalm 82:6, where God tells mankind "I have said, You are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High."
So you can see where this can be interpreted as a grounds for Christian mysticism.
And, once again, that in itself implies that only Orthodox interpretations are worthwhile when Jesus, by challenging strict adherence to the letter of the law, made it quite clear that this is not the case.
Even the statement "True Christianity is defined by the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture" is not even backed up by the acts and teaching of Christ in those scriptures. Certainly, Christians were "true" Christians before the New Testament was assembled and codified and mystical experience is the source for much of the scripture itself.
From a protestant point of view, if you are willing to challenge the Catholic Church's interpretation then, from the Vatican's point of view, you are no longer a true christian. For me that means that, as an individual, you will always be a heretic to some religion or denomination, therefore only mystical revealed truth, gnosis, has any merit because it comes from faith, practice and the divine.
I think someone one said that the difference between a mystic and a simply religious person is that the mystic strives to see God BEFORE death.
-
However the old testament does make it clear that God can do evil.
In Job you have-
Cp 42, verse 11: Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house; and they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him; and each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.
And in Isaiah, He's pretty blunt about it -
45:7- I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these
And in Deuteronomy he's also very clear about the origin of evil-
Deuteronomy 30:15 - See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.
It is clear that divinity and holiness is beyond good and evil from the monotheistic point of view. God is depicted as being capable of any action including injustice as the Book of Job makes clear. From this point of view, saying that there is no evil in God may be true, BUT it seems that God certainly can do evil and bring evil so what's the difference? From that point of view you can say that there is no good in God, but that he may do good and bring good.
The point is that good and evil are based upon perspective. Holiness or divinity would simply be "good" from the point of view of God. It seems that God cannot or will not do evil to Himself (though the Passion and Crucifiction may be that in a Judeo-Christian sense) and therefore Absolute Good may be Holiness or what is good for God, but God is still capable of relative evil in the sense of breaking his word or behaving unjustly (as with Job and David). It appears that his son Satan is involved with these moments quite often, but Satan may simply be a projection of the divine rather than a separate or fallen angel.
From a truly monotheistic point of view, I think that you could look at existence as a courtship and marriage between God and Man. Christ was perhaps the first time God decided to see things from his spouse's point of view and "evil" is the expression of discord in the union.
gabrille
in Comics in other media
Posted
Actually, your placing your own assumption on the crucifiction. There is no reliable evidence to say how long it takes for a badly beaten man to die from crucifiction. If he had no strength at all in his upper torso, then suffocation could come about in just a few minutes. It all depends upon the condition of the person prior to crucifiction.
Also, I don't really see the difference between being killed by crucifiction or a spear, but the bible is pretty clear that the crucifiction did it, not the spear, which, even by historical accounts of the practice, was always used to determine that the person was dead; not to finish them off (the Romans had no interest in alleviating suffering).
Just saw JESUS DE MONTREAL this weekend, and it has a lot of interesting information about the life of Christ and the Crucifixion.