Re: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

From: <RFaussette@aol.com>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 12:09:27 EST

In a message dated 2/17/2006 8:53:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dopderbeck@gmail.com writes:
And lastly, I think I see exactly why my arguments along this score seem to
find such resistance here on the ASA list. Even if one were to prove that a
theological approach is logically flawed, one can still beleive it is true.

But Rich's statement about Jesus not necessarily being the actual Son of God
was rather strongly rebutted here, and Rich himself later said he doesn't
actually think along those lines, so I don't think your observation is correct.
Regardless, there's obviously a huge difference between harmonizing general and
special revelation on non-essential matters such as the means of creation and
rejecting for no apparent reason a basic and central doctrine such as the
divinity of Christ.
The Darwinian approach supports the theology, but there is so much I can't
cover in a few posts. Let me take a stab at it. In True Religion, Adam falls.
His fall is the development of self consciousness. Move to ontology/theology. In
ontology, your own awareness is the subject in a world of objects, You are in
your head/body. Everything else is out there. When you abandon the self, as
Jesus can do AT WILL:

 “This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to
take it up again. No one takes it from me but I lay it down on my own. I have
power to lay it down and power to take it up again. This command I have received
from my Father.”

When you abandon self consciousness, and annihilate the self, assuming the
pre-fall state of Adam, the subject is eliminated and the world of objects (God)
becomes your immediate focus. You can see that in genesis when you read it
from an evolutionary perspective. Lo and behold, when you read the Catholic
Church's definition of heaven, it is not a place in the clouds:

The Catholic Encyclopedia: “In heaven, however, no creature will stand
between God and the soul. He himself will be the immediate object of its vision.
Scripture and theology tell us that the blessed see God face to face.”

God becomes the immediate object when the creature (the self) is eliminated.
In True Religion I show that there is a biological/behavioral basis for this
view of heaven and it comes with a correct understanding of genesis. Because
there is a biological basis for the fall, it is the human condition and must be
truth for all humans and you find that the core of Buddhism in the east is not
alienation from the world, but the self sacrifice of Jesus Christ except that
the cultural/historical icon of the cross is missing and the implicaiton of
that is that Christinaity can subborn, not the beliefs of the buddhists, but
their myriad disciplines for abandoning the self. Subborn those disciplines and
stop your young from going east for their religion because all you give them
is a paradox they can't rationally penetrate. The buddhists also give their
adepts a paradox they can't penetrate, but they teach them how to get past it
with discipline which is what is necessary to write the law on your heart and
return to instinctive behavior. Everyhting falls together. Ontology, social
science, evolutionary science, spiritual disciplines, even the only true ecumenism
becomes apparent.

I don't base my belief in Jesus as the son of God by on my personal
apprehension of his divinity. It is beyond my rational apprehension. I see that what he
did/how he behaved represented divine/perfect human behavior and I rationally
submit to his vision. In my acceptance, I need not prove or disprove anything
or contemplate metaphysics. I only need to be like the sheep and follow him.
If that is the case and that is what Jesus expects of me, how do I do that? I
BEHAVE in the way scripture tells me to behave. The job then becomes, how is
scripture telling me to behave and why?

There is no difference between the psychology and anthropology and theology
of the bible since they are all based on the human condition!

I didn't make a statement that Jesus was not actually the son of God. I said
he was the Son of God because of the things he DID. The things he did suggest
he had abanonded himself completely to God. I cannot ever determine his true
substance and will not allow my life to be held captive to a paradox none of us
can penetrate. I will study the bible to learn why Jesus wanted me to have
this law written on my heart and why it was important enough to him to die with
it written on his heart.

The theological approach is not logically flawed. It conforms to reason as
far as we can apprehend it, then it demands we let go of reason and embrace
intuition, and write the law on our hearts.

"But Rich's statement about Jesus not necessarily being the actual Son of
God..."

I didn't say that. I hypothetically presented the conundrum we are in, trying
to rationally apprehend scripture, when reason does not apply and only faith
applies.

rich faussette
Received on Sat Feb 18 12:09:44 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 12:09:44 EST