Posted on 05/08/2003 9:44:29 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
I hope you didn't take anything I said as criticism. That certainly wasn't my intention. Hugs!!!
Please do not be concerned; I never take offense at labels. They interest me only because they facilitate understanding, so if anyone believes a particular label fits me I'm always curious about it!
Very true.
Yes it would, r9etb. For the fact is Judas was doing the will of God just as Jesus was. Of course, Judas' choice was apparently an easier one to make, from the human standpoint. Still, he wound up "hanging on a tree" -- just as Jesus did. There is a deeply mysterious complementarity at work here.
Presumably, as a suicide, Judas died unto death, whereas Jesus died unto Life. God does not judge as we do: Does God save Judas -- because he was a instrument of the divine Will?
Thank you so much for writing, r9etb.
Peace and love, Alamo-Girl; and a ton of hugs.
Yeah, all of those questions were tumbling through my head.
In a lot of ways it's appropriate to make the following comparisons:
1. Jesus = Moses
2. Judas = Pharaoh
Another question -- suppose Judas had not killed himself. Would Jesus have forgiven him post-resurrection? Would we be justified in comparing Judas and Paul as exemplars of how we choose?
The examples of Judas, Pharaoh, and Paul (among others) suggest that "will" is not everything -- when necessary, God can and does intervene. But then, the fact that God makes Himself known to us, and also answers our prayers is proof enough that there's more to the equation than simply free will.
Quite a bit and enough for fear and trembling.
At reply #169 there is something very interesting that William Terrell says: a direction toward a direction
Our words are meaningful because as a labels they have the potency of revealing a direction toward a direction. But they cannot be merely labels of ourselves, because language is not merely ourselves.
[A-G, what's in a "label," anyway???] …
cornelis: Quite a bit and enough for fear and trembling… Our words are meaningful because as a labels they have the potency of revealing a direction toward a direction.
Well WT, lodging one's cynicism in things political is the perfect place to lodge it these days. Which historically speaking can be considered "the normal state." (Though generally speaking I confess I don't have a problem with the federal executive at this time.)
All things are "new" to children because they don't have a raft of ways to make their experience "old." That is, by filtering experience through the lens of preconstituted notions that have been "framed up" in the past, and which (especially these days) have been time-tested for political expediency.
That is: from the standpoint of practical politics, the goal is to strengthen the power of more or less self-selected individuals/bodies who somehow feel they have "a mission from (some kind of) god" to rule the rest of us. Children could never conceive of such a notion, the way they engage the world. At the level of typical child perception, the world looks pretty darned "democratic" (emphasize the small-D here. Kids haven't learned how to "classify" yet).
Which seems to be the main point of contemporary "education" -- to remedy the native intelligence and intuition of children, such that they will support "politically (usually called socially) useful" things -- politically useful being understood as whatever strengthens and maintains the status quo; i.e., incumbancy in office.
That is arguably the entire point of "modern" (post-modern and post-post-modern) education: to sort out and classify experience according to the categories of politically useful expediency. What does not serve that purpose is increasingly designated "asocial or antisocial behavior" to be stamped out -- to the greater good of the greatest number of what amounts to a totally abstract humanity.
There's no "flesh and blood" here, let alone any free play for human aspiration or even human dignity. It's just a "numbers game," refereed and umpired according to the preferences/needs of a self-appointed elect, "expert, higher intelligences" who seem to think they are fit to rule the rest of us, and have the power of political coercion to back up their collective usurpation of the dignity of the rest of us. Their goal seems to be self-gratification and/or some other sort of personal gain in the usual case.
And there's no way to stop this run-away train, absent the imposition of moral categories -- the existence of which the enterprising (and usually persuasive) politician denies in the first place. That's the last thing this class of humanity would ever allow to be taught in the public schools.
No wonder you hate this phenomenon, WT. Surely I do.
Thank you so much, WT, for indulging me this evening, in a long-overdue spate of polemics. :^) Thanks for letting me rant. I needed that.
p.s.: It seems to me, WT, that the great antidote to cynicism and depression is to just get out there, into the world of nature, and LOOK. Look as if you're just a kid, seeing it all for the first time -- no preconceived notions whatever. Look and listen to the birds -- how I love the local cardinals and red-wing black birds, not to mention the great raptors, hawks and eagles and owls. Catch the spirit of the breezes bending the trees to their "will," fluttering leaves silver-side out. Listen expectantly to the bull frogs thrumming like banjoes in the pond. Et cetera.
Just LOOK and listen, and take it all in, feel it. God's created nature speaks of His Glory, and renews our spirit. By comparison, these soi-dissant geniuses who claim to rule us look pretty darned puny, ineffectual, and (finally) insignificant, indeed.
In Romans 5 and 6, Paul goes through a similar analysis with regard to the law:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? – Romans 6:1-2
Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. – II Ths 2:3-4
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. – Revelation 17:8
One of the words used to describe God at creation is Ayn Sof which roughly translated from Hebrew means infinite and nothing. The scientific term for this state at the beginning, is singularity - in which there are no physical laws, no space, no time, no particles, no geometry, no energy, nothing ? and yet everything. It has a parallel in math as well, the number zero ? nothing can be divided by it, anything multiplied by it is it, it is in between all positive and negative numbers. Infinite and not at the same time.
A-G, this term, Ayn Sof, it's from the Kabbalah, right? Or does this term describe God somewhere in the inspired scriptures?
These attributes would have no meaning in any language unless they were set in contrast to what they are not. (How would you know if you are happy if you have never been sad?) Thus, I pondered that He would create good and evil, love and hate, et al so that a language could be formed, the Word.
Quite evident that Adam and Eve were warned not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But did they know when God was visiting them compared to when He wasn't? When He was, do you suppose they drew perceptions of God's presence vs. when He was not so present? And why did God warn them not to eat of this fruit? And from the rest of the Scriptures, do you believe God was deeply saddened, when they did, or that He had the feelings that one has when he sees his plan coming together?
One of the ideas of the Jewish Kabbalah that rings true to my spirit is that the Scriptures are another name for God, i.e. it reveals who He is. So I see all of creation ? spiritual and material ? and the Word as God revealing Himself.
Do you believe there is a difference between messenger and message? Where the messenger is the message and the author too (in Christ) is this unique in nature, or is it of the same nature of any other message of the Author?
Enter Satan, beautiful and thinking being as he is, decided he ought to exalted. He became ?aware? of his beauty and self and thus was at odds with God?s will for him. Likewise, Adam and Eve became ?aware? of themselves and sought to be more by gaining the knowledge of good and evil. And likewise, they were at odds with God?s will for them.
Do you think that the angels were aware of themselves before Lucifer hit the skids? Do you think that Adam and Eve were aware of themselves, before they were tempted? Think of God looking away, then looking squarely into their eyes. Think of God speaking to others (in language) and then looking into their eyes and speaking to them.
If our purpose is sandwiched between God's purposes and His dominion (and His expressed purposes are for us to obey Him by taking dominion of the lower order in His name) is He trusting us for acting in ways that He prefers to enjoy by watching, rather than enacting our behavior Himself? (What did He tell Adam and Eve, before the fall about such things?)
There are times when we may be so engaged with God that we may act according to the movements of His very soul. Do you also suppose that the Father wants his sons to act by observing Him at work in our surroundings and taking on such jobs as His learned son apprentices? Do you suppose that the Bridegroom would want to have a bride that dresses herself in the way she may wisely perceive to be most beautiful for Him (since she has empathy with him) or does the groom dress the bride?
I think there is a special Hell for those who corrupt children. The NEA has a branch office there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.