|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 23, 2012 18:43:06 GMT -5
The big question of chapter 1 seems to be ... which Jesus? Bell is asking us to question Jesus' agenda on earth, which will set the stage for the age to come. Y'all agree? So..what do you think of this quote? "Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either. So when we hear that a certain person has 'rejected Christ,' we should first ask, 'Which Christ?'" Though I have never framed it as "which Jesus," I have basically felt the same in talking with atheists - and I was pretty close myself at one point - and I can't really blame them. As some have said too, Nietzsche's "death of God" talk was really a reaction to certain God. And I too can tell people that I do not believe in that God - omnipotent, removed, condemning to eternal torment . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 23, 2012 18:49:51 GMT -5
What I love is the questions. Interestingly, I have found that the questions I ask are more fundamental to the quality of my life than any answers. If my epitaph read “A lover of questions”, I would be satisfied. Two of my favorite quotes: "An unanswered question is a fine traveling companion. It sharpens your eye for the road." - Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D. "Be patient with all that is unresolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves. Do not seek for the answers that cannot be given, for you wouldn't be able to live them. And the point is to live everything, live the questions now, and perhaps without knowing it, you will live along someday into the answers." - Rainer Maria Rilke, poet I love the questions, too, Sharon! I think we are too focused on answers and solutions, while just "holding" the questions can open so much to us. |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 23, 2012 19:08:48 GMT -5
I found this quote in chapter 2, about the painting in his grandmother's house: "the fundamental story it tells about heaven--that it is somewhere else--is the story that many people know to be the Christian story." That definitely resonates with me. I have many conversations online about what it means to be a Christian, and a great number of people talk only about getting to heaven...some faraway place of their dreams. Bell's view of heaven is very "earthy" (yeah, ok, I like that word!) recognizing that Jesus wasn't talking about someplace far away with his vision of a "kingdom of God" but of God reigning right here on earth. About "life in the age to come," he says "if this sounds like heaven on earth, that's because it is. Literally." How many agree? I do, DD! Though I believe in a god of transformations, I believe this is something for here and now, and societal, though it begins with individuals. But this removes it from just the "salvation of individual 'souls.'" I love the way the entire picture and set of relationships are transformed in the way Bell talks about the prodigal son and his father and brother. The idea of "unfairness" arrested my attention, as I have been wondering about modern ideas of rights, justice, etc. I mean, they have their place for now anyway, but it seems to me that when trying to work out "fairness" between people, we are neglecting the primary relationship, with God. I love the Eden story in this context - "you will be like God." This grasping for place brought shame and hiding, blaming . . . it really destroyed all relationships, and I have been thinking for some time now that really, humanity will never be able to straighten things out through judicial means. Though Jesus spoke to oppression and injustice, I don't see him as attempting to "sort things out." He said to the man who wanted him to speak to a brother about their inheritance "Who made me a ruler and judge over you." Then he told that man to be careful of covetousness. It is seeming to me that Jesus pointed people to their relationship with god. I am not saying he just lightly passed things over or excused them - these were serious matters, but Jesus addressed the issue from a different perspective, basically "redefining the questions." As Bell tells of the prodigal son, there was really no haggling over who should have received what. Both simpy needed to listen to the father's story and receive his love. I know this may sound like the common story in churches - "God loves you" - but it is usually spoken only in reference to an individualistic salvation, with no regard to societal transformation. I think there is something for us to work on here, no matter where we stand on social/political issues. It is easy for any of us to think that "those guys over there on the other side of the political spectrum need to listen to this," but it is for all of us. We all have points - with a lot of truth in them - where we feel like we've gotten a raw deal, or where we feel we have a right to something or another, but is there something here we can learn from this reconfiguring of the relationships? |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 25, 2012 18:53:50 GMT -5
Though Jesus spoke to oppression and injustice, I don't see him as attempting to "sort things out." He said to the man who wanted him to speak to a brother about their inheritance "Who made me a ruler and judge over you." Then he told that man to be careful of covetousness. It is seeming to me that Jesus pointed people to their relationship with god. I am not saying he just lightly passed things over or excused them - these were serious matters, but Jesus addressed the issue from a different perspective, basically "redefining the questions." I think this is well put, Alan, and I'm in agreement. Of course, my favorite Gospel is John, the one that is "notably deficient in moral teaching" (can't remember who said that), where Jesus says he's not going to judge people--they are already judged--and where his entire concept of sin seems to be lack of belief. And John's "belief" is of the active sort--meaning, it is a sin not to recognize Jesus as Messiah and lift yourself above condemning others to actively participate in love. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 25, 2012 18:58:14 GMT -5
Question: Is Bell one of those heathen pantheists? Or some kind of bleeding-heart liberal? What did you think of this quote ... I highlighted it in yellow:
Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name "Jesus" that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation--grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness--the last thing they are incline to name it is "Jesus."
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 25, 2012 19:39:09 GMT -5
Question: Is Bell one of those heathen pantheists? Or some kind of bleeding-heart liberal? What did you think of this quote ... I highlighted it in yellow: Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name "Jesus" that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation--grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness--the last thing they are incline to name it is "Jesus."Good questions, which I've been sorting through for myself . . . First, I don't believe pantheist fits, which I believe is defined as seeing God only in "creation." Panentheist would fit better, in which God is seen in creation, but also as an "other," to whom we can relate, outside of creation. Neither would I apply "liberal," which I see as tending to a relativistic, "it's all cool," outlook, whereas Bell does speak of a god with a story, an invitation, a promise . . . |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 30, 2012 14:58:07 GMT -5
Hey I'm eager to hear some other thoughts on this book! Have I said too much already?
I decided this morning to skim through the book and look at some of my highlights, only to be reminded that I made a point of not highlighting, as there were so many points made that resonated for me, and I didn't want to end up with everything highlighted.
But . . . I finally did make a highlight, and then a few more, with the first being on page 35: "To name is to order, to participate, to partner with God in taking the world somewhere." This may seem a rather tangential topic, but maybe it could lead to some interesting discussions, which have more bearing on the "heaven and hell" focus of the book than we may initially think.
We talked a lot about naming - mapping - our world when I was in both Ethnic Studies and Pacific Islands Studies, and I can think of numerous "renamings" here in Hawai'i and the Pacific, which can be considered "politically correct," but they are important to someone because they "map" the world according to a specific way of seeing it, often overwriting (or erasing) older namings/mappings.
Example? "The mainland." North America is commonly referred to as "the continent" now, as "main" implies a focus that some people did not feel when this name was initially applied, long before definite political ties between the U.S. and Hawai'i. Or how about Diamond Head/Leahi? Or Big Island/Hawai'i? Or Easter Island, Ascension Island, Christmas Island . . . ? These can be hot topics, politically bandied about, because both "sides" have definite interests in retaining certain namings.
Okay - this isn't a discussion of Hawai'i and the Pacific, but I am wondering if anyone cares to talk about this in relation to the story, and humanity's place within creation - given the right/responsibility to "name the world." To me, this has a definite bearing on how we view God, humanity, creation, Jesus, the Christ, Jesus' work, God's work, trinitarian thought . . . and I suppose the list could go on and on. How did Hebrew thought and story-telling name these ideas? How did Greek thought later influence them? How do these different "namings" influence our understandings and our usages today?
Anyone interested?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Nov 3, 2012 19:36:44 GMT -5
Started the book a while back and just now getting back into it.
What I find interesting about Bible commentary and discussion is the continual revision of interpretation of what a word might mean.
Bell for example writes on page 91 on of 'aion of kalazo', previously translated as ' eternal punishment', now interpreted as 'in the far distance' among other renderings.
So the goal posts are moved periodically on what is meant by what was originally written.
Is there a version of the Bible that, in the eyes of leading scholarship correctly or most correctly interprets the original tongues?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Nov 3, 2012 22:30:58 GMT -5
Rob, much of the complexity is not in translating the words, it's in interpreting the meaning of first-century idioms. These writers weren't writing to us ... they were writing to people of like beliefs, culture, etc.
Just as an example, when Jesus spoke of Gehenna, what did his audience think of the place? As a burning garbage dump it's meaningless, so what did the metaphor mean to people who live there and see and smell it every day? This is a huge question among scholars, and the answer has a huge impact on theology ... and Bible interpretations are not immune to theological pandering.
|
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 14, 2012 20:54:07 GMT -5
Started the book a while back and just now getting back into it. What I find interesting about Bible commentary and discussion is the continual revision of interpretation of what a word might mean. Bell for example writes on page 91 on of 'aion of kalazo', previously translated as ' eternal punishment', now interpreted as 'in the far distance' among other renderings. So the goal posts are moved periodically on what is meant by what was originally written. Is there a version of the Bible that, in the eyes of leading scholarship correctly or most correctly interprets the original tongues? What I think happens it that meanings move in our minds over time. The mathematical concept of "eternity" has become much sharper in the last few centuries. So when Bell and other interpreters indicate that these words were understood more generally as aeons or "a very long time", that makes sense to me. The other issue is where the focus lies. When Jesus states that we need to care for the needy or be thrown into everlasting torment, is this really part of an exposition on the after-life, or is Jesus just using a strong metaphor to emphasize how important it is to help others. I do believe that too much theology has been based on a systematic analysis and piecing together of bits of verses. I think that if you just read Scripture to get an overall sense of what is being said, you wind up in a different place. For example, I have grown skeptical of explanations of the after-life, or the last days, that are too exact and particular. I don't think anyone really knows exactly, and besides, it's not that important. The idea that the "here and now" is important really resonates with me. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 14, 2012 21:10:53 GMT -5
I found this quote in chapter 2, about the painting in his grandmother's house: "the fundamental story it tells about heaven--that it is somewhere else--is the story that many people know to be the Christian story." That definitely resonates with me. I have many conversations online about what it means to be a Christian, and a great number of people talk only about getting to heaven...some faraway place of their dreams. Bell's view of heaven is very "earthy" (yeah, ok, I like that word!) recognizing that Jesus wasn't talking about someplace far away with his vision of a "kingdom of God" but of God reigning right here on earth. About "life in the age to come," he says "if this sounds like heaven on earth, that's because it is. Literally." How many agree? I do, DD! Though I believe in a god of transformations, I believe this is something for here and now, and societal, though it begins with individuals. But this removes it from just the "salvation of individual 'souls.'" I love the way the entire picture and set of relationships are transformed in the way Bell talks about the prodigal son and his father and brother. The idea of "unfairness" arrested my attention, as I have been wondering about modern ideas of rights, justice, etc. I mean, they have their place for now anyway, but it seems to me that when trying to work out "fairness" between people, we are neglecting the primary relationship, with God. I love the Eden story in this context - "you will be like God." This grasping for place brought shame and hiding, blaming . . . it really destroyed all relationships, and I have been thinking for some time now that really, humanity will never be able to straighten things out through judicial means. Though Jesus spoke to oppression and injustice, I don't see him as attempting to "sort things out." He said to the man who wanted him to speak to a brother about their inheritance "Who made me a ruler and judge over you." Then he told that man to be careful of covetousness. It is seeming to me that Jesus pointed people to their relationship with god. I am not saying he just lightly passed things over or excused them - these were serious matters, but Jesus addressed the issue from a different perspective, basically "redefining the questions." As Bell tells of the prodigal son, there was really no haggling over who should have received what. Both simpy needed to listen to the father's story and receive his love. I know this may sound like the common story in churches - "God loves you" - but it is usually spoken only in reference to an individualistic salvation, with no regard to societal transformation. I think there is something for us to work on here, no matter where we stand on social/political issues. It is easy for any of us to think that "those guys over there on the other side of the political spectrum need to listen to this," but it is for all of us. We all have points - with a lot of truth in them - where we feel like we've gotten a raw deal, or where we feel we have a right to something or another, but is there something here we can learn from this reconfiguring of the relationships? I had to read this a couple of times to get where you were going with this. It's a really good point, if I understood you correctly. In spite of being advised or admonished to "search ourselves", religion often does the opposite, doesn't it? Everything will be taken care of, in the future, in the after-life, leave it in God's hands, and so on. Often we don't have the motivation or will to make something right today. We're busy building walls when we should be breaking them down. |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Nov 15, 2012 12:18:18 GMT -5
I had to read this a couple of times to get where you were going with this. It's a really good point, if I understood you correctly. In spite of being advised or admonished to "search ourselves", religion often does the opposite, doesn't it? Everything will be taken care of, in the future, in the after-life, leave it in God's hands, and so on. Often we don't have the motivation or will to make something right today. We're busy building walls when we should be breaking them down. Yes, what! I think this is an integral part of the heaven/hell talk, which allows persons to reserve a very "absolute" judgment for "later," while ignoring the concrete, vital relationships God is so concerned about right here and now. In "searching ourselves," I also believe it is vital, as in the "story of the prodigal son" (Is it really a story about the father?), to receive the father's word, rather than getting caught up in the variations of either self-righteousness or self-abasement. This may be considered "obvious enough," but I do not see the father's word as contained in formulaic sayings - "If you believe . . . , and accept . . ." - but they must be received individually and daily, in each new circumstance. But it is always gospel - glad tidings. We may easily "subscribe" to this kind of talk, yet we all spend so much time wanting things to be "set right" first, rather than simply accepting and extending that very personal, relationship-transforming word. |
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 15, 2012 12:38:48 GMT -5
I'm in a position right now that the "here and now" matters less than having my understanding settled about the "hereafter". Here's the situation and maybe you can help me determine if I'm correct or if there is another way of looking at it.
My professing mother is in her very "last days"....very weak and unable to care for herself at all. She has never been able to settle in her mind that she's been "good enough" to "make it". (Unfortunately, she does not want me (and others) to know she is at this place, so I am not with her.) However, if (and when) I am able to be with her, I would like to be able to comfort her about "the other side" so she has no fear of it. I can comfort her, reminding her of the GIFT of salvation, and show her again in scripture where it tells her that she can be assured of that salvation (which is the here and now). .......hmmm....is this my answer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Nov 15, 2012 12:52:55 GMT -5
I'm in a position right now that the "here and now" matters less than having my understanding settled about the "hereafter". Here's the situation and maybe you can help me determine if I'm correct or if there is another way of looking at it. My professing mother is in her very "last days"....very weak and unable to care for herself at all. She has never been able to settle in her mind that she's been "good enough" to "make it". (Unfortunately, she does not want me (and others) to know she is at this place, so I am not with her.) However, if (and when) I am able to be with her, I would like to be able to comfort her about "the other side" so she has no fear of it. I can comfort her, reminding her of the GIFT of salvation, and show her again in scripture where it tells her that she can be assured of that salvation (which is the here and now). .......hmmm....is this my answer? I can see where you're coming from, Edy, but in my mind it still relates to the "here and now" - and I think your final sentence does answer that! Though I don't refute ideas of an "afterlife" or resurrection, Jesus really spent no time in describing it for us. If our life has been transformed - to whatever degree - we'll "be" that later too. Of course, none of us are helped very easily over hurdles in our thinking, and it is of course not easy to see someone we love still harboring oppressive fears . . . but then, who can say they are entirely free of them? |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 25, 2013 19:24:43 GMT -5
I'm in a position right now that the "here and now" matters less than having my understanding settled about the "hereafter". Here's the situation and maybe you can help me determine if I'm correct or if there is another way of looking at it. My professing mother is in her very "last days"....very weak and unable to care for herself at all. She has never been able to settle in her mind that she's been "good enough" to "make it". (Unfortunately, she does not want me (and others) to know she is at this place, so I am not with her.) However, if (and when) I am able to be with her, I would like to be able to comfort her about "the other side" so she has no fear of it. I can comfort her, reminding her of the GIFT of salvation, and show her again in scripture where it tells her that she can be assured of that salvation (which is the here and now). .......hmmm....is this my answer? The Jews made some attempt to measure sin and the death-dealing consequences associated with it. Jesus told us about the eternal life that exists in spite of sin. Tell your mom if she hasn't passed that as death doesn't exist, neither is there cause to her pride. |
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Jun 25, 2013 20:32:47 GMT -5
I'm in a position right now that the "here and now" matters less than having my understanding settled about the "hereafter". Here's the situation and maybe you can help me determine if I'm correct or if there is another way of looking at it. My professing mother is in her very "last days"....very weak and unable to care for herself at all. She has never been able to settle in her mind that she's been "good enough" to "make it". (Unfortunately, she does not want me (and others) to know she is at this place, so I am not with her.) However, if (and when) I am able to be with her, I would like to be able to comfort her about "the other side" so she has no fear of it. I can comfort her, reminding her of the GIFT of salvation, and show her again in scripture where it tells her that she can be assured of that salvation (which is the here and now). .......hmmm....is this my answer? The Jews made some attempt to measure sin and the death-dealing consequences associated with it. Jesus told us about the eternal life that exists in spite of sin. Tell your mom if she hasn't passed that as death doesn't exist, neither is there cause to her pride. Lee, my mother passed in early February. Your thought here is a good one! Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 25, 2013 21:49:55 GMT -5
Syl, sorry to hear that. My condolences to you and your family. Losing a mom is tough. I still think about picking up the phone and calling mine, then remembering, I can't. Hugs
|
|
