Jesus Disappears

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

A God outside of time can move as swiftly or slowly within time, as he wills.

Or he can move "slowly" because he doesn't want any of his elect to perish (2Pet 3:8-10). And this was part of Peter's answer to the mockers of the Parousia (2Pet 3:3-7).

[thaskalos]

Or he can move "slowly" because he is not there at all. Let's not forget that this is a possibility too.

[46zilzal]

Just like Buddha, Lao Tze, Confucius and Mohammed a figure from history who had a devoted following

None of them are around

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Just like Buddha, Lao Tze, Confucius and Mohammed a figure from history who had a devoted following

None of them are around

Their effects are around, same as Epicurus, Nietzsche and Sartre. But for Christians, Christ is the First Cause of the others, the contingent individuals and events of history the secondary cause. For the Christian, truth is a Person, not a philosophy.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Just like Buddha, Lao Tze, Confucius and Mohammed a figure from history who had a devoted following

None of them are around[

Seriously. There are millions of us around in this country alone. You need to get out more often. Plus Christianity is growing leaps and bounds in third world countries.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Seriously. There are millions of us around in this country alone. You need to get out more often. Plus Christianity is growing leaps and bounds in third world countries.

Any idea why Christianity is losing customers in the first and second world countries?

[jimmyb]

Christianity has existed in the Philippines since 1521. 90 percent of the population are christian, yet they remain a third world country. Average wage is 6 dollars a day.


Yeah Jesus, way to reward their devotion.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by jimmyb

Christianity has existed in the Philippines since 1521. 90 percent of the population are christian, yet they remain a third world country. Average wage is 6 dollars a day.


Yeah Jesus, way to reward their devotion.

Jesus's "reward" comes after the believers die. That way the "customers" can't come back to the priests, looking for a refund.

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Jesus's "reward" comes after the believers die.

Ask and ye shall receive... a crucifix up ones ass, and bone dry.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Jesus's "reward" comes after the believers die. That way the "customers" can't come back to the priests, looking for a refund.

Not true! The heavenly rewards begin at the supernatural new birth in this life via the gift of the Holy Spirit within every believer.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Any idea why Christianity is losing customers in the first and second world countries?

Sure. The more wealthy nations tend to trust in their wealth than in the Creator. As Jesus essentially said, "One cannot serve money and God; for he will love one and hate the other".

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Their effects are around, same as Epicurus, Nietzsche and Sartre. But for Christians, Christ is the First Cause of the others, the contingent individuals and events of history the secondary cause. For the Christian, truth is a Person, not a philosophy.

Yes, but C. S. Lewis gives a good answer: “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered.”

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Yes, but C. S. Lewis gives a good answer: “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered.”

I used to have your optimism regarding dialogue and philosophy. Today the goal is to win, rather than understand better. Marx rather successfully said, in effect, "Philosophers want to understand the world. The goal is to change it". Socially, politically, and economically.

Ever since, Modernity has no need of the transcendent, busy with pursuing scientific and technological progress for utilitarian purposes, including man, while on the side pursuing the other revolution, the sexual.

Descartes, and especially Bacon got their wish of at least significantly controlling nature, by only considering the quantifiable. By the late 19th century, "scientism" was in full bloom. Qualitative experience was relocated to the subjective mind, and not actually a present property in nature.

Do you think the transgender movement, e.g., by psychologically and nominally creating their own "reality", has any concept that they are the fullest expression of Sartre's existentialism, versus the classical essentialism of Christianity, for one? It's just emotionalism , brought about exponentially in the last decade in large part by social media, as well as being anti-science. Ask Dawkins. How do you argue for essentialism, when science rejects it in order to justify "gradual" evolution? Last I looked, there are still zoologists classifying species.

It's my experience of the last few years that progressives do not want dialogue. They wish to steamroll opponents. I know we're supposed to be evangelistic, you and I in our particular faith tradtion, but I basically circle the wagons now except for my family and loved ones, perhaps friends who express interest in dialogue. And maybe here when the mood strikes between races, with no illusions about giving or receiving anything worthwhile.

I personally extend the mythopoetic narrative of the Tower of Babel to, not just language but subjective experience, even of God. The closer one is to union with God, per Theresa of Avila, et.al., the less one is able to express it to others. Carry on.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I used to have your optimism regarding dialogue and philosophy. Today the goal is to win, rather than understand better. Marx rather successfully said, in effect, "Philosophers want to understand the world. The goal is to change it". Socially, politically, and economically.

Ever since, Modernity has no need of the transcendent, busy with pursuing scientific and technological progress for utilitarian purposes, including man, while on the side pursuing the other revolution, the sexual.

Descartes, and especially Bacon got their wish of at least significantly controlling nature, by only considering the quantifiable. By the late 19th century, "scientism" was in full bloom. Qualitative experience was relocated to the subjective mind, and not actually a present property in nature.

Do you think the transgender movement, e.g., by psychologically and nominally creating their own "reality", has any concept that they are the fullest expression of Sartre's existentialism, versus the classical essentialism of Christianity, for one? It's just emotionalism , brought about exponentially in the last decade in large part by social media, as well as being anti-science. Ask Dawkins. How do you argue for essentialism, when science rejects it in order to justify "gradual" evolution? Last I looked, there are still zoologists classifying species.

It's my experience of the last few years that progressives do not want dialogue. They wish to steamroll opponents. I know we're supposed to be evangelistic, you and I in our particular faith tradtion, but I basically circle the wagons now except for my family and loved ones, perhaps friends who express interest in dialogue. And maybe here when the mood strikes between races, with no illusions about giving or receiving anything worthwhile.

I personally extend the mythopoetic narrative of the Tower of Babel to, not just language but subjective experience, even of God. The closer one is to union with God, per Theresa of Avila, et.al., the less one is able to express it to others. Carry on.

But was that Jesus' experience? Who was "closer...to union with God" than he? Yet, not only did sinners marvel at his teaching but he saved many, as well.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But was that Jesus' experience? Who was "closer...to union with God" than he? Yet, not only did sinners marvel at his teaching but he saved many, as well.

By virtue of his divine nature, Jesus' human nature had immediate knowledge of the Father in his glory- the "Beatific Vision" if I may. He did not need faith or hope, or his natural state joined to supernatural "participation in divine nature" (2 Pt 1:4) thru grace, like those hearers past, present or future on the journey.

I would submit that our union with God proceeds from knowledge of God
(and to your point, sharing that knowledge) to infused contemplation of God (Lk 5:16) with varying degrees between.