HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS!

Stan Goodman wrote:

> The Christian notion of "sin" is a construct of European culture; it
has no
> parallel in Judaism.

I found this site echo some truth to me:
http://www.yhwh.com/Garden/garden0.htm

If God is love, and love is blind, does that mean Ray Charles is God?
(albeit in a Nietschean sense of the term)
--
Mike T
Spiffy sig currently under development.

Mike T. wrote:
> If God is love, and love is blind, does that mean Ray Charles is God?
> (albeit in a Nietschean sense of the term)

Funny, but no. Assuming you were somewhat serious:

God is love
love is blind
ray charles is blind.

If god is love and love is blind then god is blind.

That is all that can be said.


A implies B but B does not imply A. So being blind doesn't mean you are
God or love.

"Mike T." <root@127.0.0.1> writes:

> If God is love, and love is blind, does that mean Ray Charles is God?
> (albeit in a Nietschean sense of the term)
> --
> Mike T
> Spiffy sig currently under development.
>
>
I'm not sure. You are saying God is love, and that love is blind. I don't think
it is logically sound to say that blindness is love, and that love is God.
You know, invalid arguments because of converse error, etc. So, while Ray Charles
may have been blind, we cannot determine from that fact that he was also love or
God. Sorry.

Digi
--
<sel> need help: my first packet to my provider gets lost :-(
<netgod> sel: dont send the first one, start with #2
* netgod is kidding

I might as well weigh in on this one too.

> If God is love, and love is blind, does that mean Ray Charles is God?

No. God is love but that "love" is not the same "love" that is blind.
Better said is "infatuation is blind". True love is not blind. And even
more exact the infatuation itself is not blind, but blinds the bearer of it.
So we arrive at:

1. God is love.
2. The one who is infatuated is blind.

And then the ultimate conclusion (including the reasoning of other replies
to your faulty statement):

3. You are wrong.

Stan Goodman wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:10:43 UTC, Douglas O'Neal <oneal@dbi.udel.edu>
> opined:
>
>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>>google_groups_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The good news is that God came from Heaven to earth in the person of
>>>>Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago and died for our sins(misdeeds).
>>>
>>>
>>>That is but one interpretation of what Jesus was. Jesus never once
>>>claimed to be God in any Gospel I have read. In fact he called himself
>>>the son of man and often spoke of a father in the second person. I
>>>don't discount the possibility, but I don't believe scripture supports
>>>the single entity claim.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>You might try a little logical reasoning on Luke 6:21-24. First Jesus
>>asks the rhetorical question "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" and
>>the follows up with "the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins".
>>It is not an explicit "I am God" but that is the only logical
>>conclusion from these two statements.
>
>
> Logical reasoning is always a good approach. So is humility, so I have to
> ask pardon again for injecting myself into other people's theological
> discussion, given that I have no background in it. Anyway, I'll fall back on
> the logical reasoning approach.
>
> The Christian notion of "sin" is a construct of European culture; it has no
> parallel in Judaism. The Hebrew word customarily translated as "sin" means
> "a miss" (not hitting the target); "misses" in one's behavior toward another
> person (for which a different word is used) can be forgiven ONLY by that
> person, you can't ask forgiveness from God for what you have done to another
> person, any more than another person, no matter who he is, can forgive a
> "miss" in regard to God's precepts. But God forgives in response to
> _sincere_ repentance That, presumably, was the concept to which Jesus was
> exposed. Parenthetically, this idea leaves no room at all for "original sin"
> or anything like it.

Given that the Gospels were written well before there was a "European"
culture, I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The Greek idea of
sin was an offense against the gods, but since the Greek gods were
essentially glorified humans and were quite falliable, sin is arbitrary
and punishment even more arbitrary. Rome's culture in the first century
A.D. was still essentially Greek in thought.

>
> I look at the quotation from Luke above, and what I see is that "sin" is
> being used in two senses, perhaps because the passage was written by a
> Greek, not a Jew (there are worse bloopers in the Gospels that are obviously
> traceable to such a reason). Please try to read it in the light of the
> explanation I have tried to give; please also uncapitalize "Son of Man", for
> the reason I gave in my earlier intrusion into this thread -- it just means
> "a person". What will come out, in plain modern English, is: "Nobody but God
> can forgive sins (meaning #1: misbehavior with respect to God's precepts,
> for example immoral behavior). But people have the power to forgive sins
> (meaning #2: offenses against themselves)".

In the culture of the time it was commonly believed that physical
ailments were punishment from God, cf. John 9:1-3. Jesus disagree with
this assessment at least in specific cases but this was the culture in
which he worked. In the Luke 6 passage, Jesus healed a physical ailment
in order to show that He has the power to forgive sins. A parallel
example is given in Matthew 9:5-7. What offense had these people given
Jesus that these were personal sins and not sins against God? I do not
see how it can be justified that the second use of the word sin in the
Luke 6:21-24 passge refers to sins against other men.

The term "the son of man" is used in several different ways throughout
the old and new testiments. Just like "lord" can be used to refer to
a human ruler and to God and the capitalization may change with use, so
"Son of Man" may also change with use. Please capitalize "Son of Man"
when it refers to the deity and I'll uncapitalize it when it refers to
the prophets in Daniel and Ezekiel.

>
>
>>Second, you might consider the reaction of the authorities of the time.
>>In John 9:57-59, Jesus said that he existed before Abraham and used the
>>"I AM" name of God in his statement. The Jews understood what he was
>>saying in that they immediately tried to stone him, presumably for
>>blasphemy.
>
>
> I am not able to comment on this sort of thing, but I think it's best to
> remember that the gospels were not written in real time, but at least
> decades later, if not more, and were likely to accumulate some docoration
> with the passage of time. Also that, under a cruel Roman occupation
> (administered by a governor of such brutality that he was fired for it by
> the home office), it was impolitic to attribute stoning or execution to the
> Roman Army, and convenient to find another "them" to blame. (Pace Mel
> Gibson.)

You mean that I've been misreading the crufixion story all this time,
that Pilate wasn't a Roman governor, and those weren't Roman soldiers
at Golgotha or at the tomb of Simon! It doesn't look like the Gospel
writers pulled any punches in attributing the crufixion to the Romans
so why would they do so on earlier stoning attempts on Jesus?

Doug

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:57:53 UTC, Douglas O'Neal <oneal@dbi.udel.edu>
opined:
> Stan Goodman wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:10:43 UTC, Douglas O'Neal <oneal@dbi.udel.edu>
> > opined:
> >
> >>Noah Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >>>google_groups_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The good news is that God came from Heaven to earth in the person of
> >>>>Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago and died for our sins(misdeeds).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That is but one interpretation of what Jesus was. Jesus never once
> >>>claimed to be God in any Gospel I have read. In fact he called himself
> >>>the son of man and often spoke of a father in the second person. I
> >>>don't discount the possibility, but I don't believe scripture supports
> >>>the single entity claim.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>You might try a little logical reasoning on Luke 6:21-24. First Jesus
> >>asks the rhetorical question "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" and
> >>the follows up with "the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins".
> >>It is not an explicit "I am God" but that is the only logical
> >>conclusion from these two statements.
> >
> >
> > Logical reasoning is always a good approach. So is humility, so I have to
> > ask pardon again for injecting myself into other people's theological
> > discussion, given that I have no background in it. Anyway, I'll fall back on
> > the logical reasoning approach.
> >
> > The Christian notion of "sin" is a construct of European culture; it has no
> > parallel in Judaism. The Hebrew word customarily translated as "sin" means
> > "a miss" (not hitting the target); "misses" in one's behavior toward another
> > person (for which a different word is used) can be forgiven ONLY by that
> > person, you can't ask forgiveness from God for what you have done to another
> > person, any more than another person, no matter who he is, can forgive a
> > "miss" in regard to God's precepts. But God forgives in response to
> > _sincere_ repentance That, presumably, was the concept to which Jesus was
> > exposed. Parenthetically, this idea leaves no room at all for "original sin"
> > or anything like it.
>
> Given that the Gospels were written well before there was a "European"
> culture, I'm not sure what you are referring to here. The Greek idea of
> sin was an offense against the gods, but since the Greek gods were
> essentially glorified humans and were quite falliable, sin is arbitrary
> and punishment even more arbitrary. Rome's culture in the first century
> A.D. was still essentially Greek in thought.

Greeks and Romans were and remain, to the best of my knowledge, Europeans. I
don't know why you think otherwise. Graeco-Roman culture was a European
culture.

> > I look at the quotation from Luke above, and what I see is that "sin" is
> > being used in two senses, perhaps because the passage was written by a
> > Greek, not a Jew (there are worse bloopers in the Gospels that are obviously
> > traceable to such a reason). Please try to read it in the light of the
> > explanation I have tried to give; please also uncapitalize "Son of Man", for
> > the reason I gave in my earlier intrusion into this thread -- it just means
> > "a person". What will come out, in plain modern English, is: "Nobody but God
> > can forgive sins (meaning #1: misbehavior with respect to God's precepts,
> > for example immoral behavior). But people have the power to forgive sins
> > (meaning #2: offenses against themselves)".
>
> In the culture of the time it was commonly believed that physical
> ailments were punishment from God, cf. John 9:1-3. Jesus disagree with
> this assessment at least in specific cases but this was the culture in
> which he worked. In the Luke 6 passage, Jesus healed a physical ailment
> in order to show that He has the power to forgive sins. A parallel
> example is given in Matthew 9:5-7. What offense had these people given
> Jesus that these were personal sins and not sins against God? I do not
> see how it can be justified that the second use of the word sin in the
> Luke 6:21-24 passge refers to sins against other men.
>
> The term "the son of man" is used in several different ways throughout
> the old and new testiments. Just like "lord" can be used to refer to
> a human ruler and to God and the capitalization may change with use, so
> "Son of Man" may also change with use. Please capitalize "Son of Man"
> when it refers to the deity and I'll uncapitalize it when it refers to
> the prophets in Daniel and Ezekiel.
>
In Hebrew, and even in Aramaic, "son of man" has only one idiomatic meaning.
Trying to graft a divine meaning onto it is grotesque. I tried to explain
this as best I could. If I failed, I failed. Semitic languages, by the way,
do not have capital letters. You can't argue that capitalization of a Hebrew
term changes its meaning.

You are also missing the crucial point that all these people to whom you
refer with Roman numerals after their names were Jews, and thought in ways
dictated by the Hebrew and Aramaic languages they spoke, just as you are
imprisoned by English language and whatever closely related European
languages you have learned.

> >>Second, you might consider the reaction of the authorities of the time.
> >>In John 9:57-59, Jesus said that he existed before Abraham and used the
> >>"I AM" name of God in his statement. The Jews understood what he was
> >>saying in that they immediately tried to stone him, presumably for
> >>blasphemy.
> >
> >
> > I am not able to comment on this sort of thing, but I think it's best to
> > remember that the gospels were not written in real time, but at least
> > decades later, if not more, and were likely to accumulate some docoration
> > with the passage of time. Also that, under a cruel Roman occupation
> > (administered by a governor of such brutality that he was fired for it by
> > the home office), it was impolitic to attribute stoning or execution to the
> > Roman Army, and convenient to find another "them" to blame. (Pace Mel
> > Gibson.)
>
> You mean that I've been misreading the crufixion story all this time,
> that Pilate wasn't a Roman governor, and those weren't Roman soldiers
> at Golgotha or at the tomb of Simon! It doesn't look like the Gospel
> writers pulled any punches in attributing the crufixion to the Romans
> so why would they do so on earlier stoning attempts on Jesus?

I have no clue how you derived your final paragraph from mine just above it.

It is my understanding that the story is that the governor was unwilling to
crucify, and that he allowed it only because of the public outcry. In other
words, "the Jews did it" (not for the last time). In other words, Roman
hands did it, but not on their own volition. This is not "pulling punches"?

You have, by the way, also missed another point: I have and had no intention
of entering a theological discussion. I said that (clearly, I thought) in
both my previous messages. And I most certainly didn't intend to missionize
anyone to my way of thinking; that would be repulsive to me, as would any
effort by another to missionize me -- Jews do not do that, on principle. It
implies knowing the mind of God, which is the ultimate arrogance, and it is
insulting. This is why I cannot fathom what goes through the mind of someone
who posts missionary messages on Linux newsgroups (or anywhere else, for
that matter).

What I did want to do was illustrate that mistranslation and
misunderstanding of the original text has led to distortion. The translator
is indeed a traitor, as the Latin proverb has it. There are many gross
misrenderings in the available translations; nothing else, in fact, could be
expected given the historical context. Again, I apologized twice for
intruding, because I simply don't know enough about Christian theology to
argue intelligently or meaningfully. I also said that, when a chronical is
written down only decades or more after the events, it's hard to pin down
the historicity of the precise words that were uttered in a given sentence
at a given time.

I am (no pun intended) puzzled about how one "uses the 'I am'
name of God" in a way such as to indicate divinity. "I am", in Hebrew, is a
single declined word; there is no such thing as an "I am name" of anything
or anyone, or any possible way to indicate divinity by saying "I am", or
even "I am that I am", which is a simple sentence as true of you and me as
of the Creator of the universe. If someone tells you otherwise, he is
putting you on. The plain meaning of this sentence spoken to Moses is "don't
waste your time pondering the ineffable, I am what I am". Even Popeye, in
the animated films of my youth, said in English the precise equivalent of
the sentence that seems so loaded to you. What we are seeing is another
perfect example of misunderstanding of the text.

That reminds me of another similar example; I have heard it only spoken, so
I can't cite a reference, but I'm sure you don't need one. The writer is
describing the activities of "the Jews" in the Pesach season, i.e. in the
Spring, and he has them saying to each other "Hosanna in the highest".
Please go to anyone with any knowledge of Hebrew and ask him what that
sentence means. "Hosanna", to begin with, appears to be a rendering of two
words, "Hoshia' na", literally "Please save". This phrase is indeed used in
the Sukkot (Tabernacles) festival, which occurs in the autumn. Nobody says
it in the Spring. This is relative trivia, but it illustrates that the
writer had no knowledge of what he was writing about; is it possible for him
to write a reliable account? And if he knows nothing about what was
happening, is it likely that he was present? Or that, hearing about the use
of a term (e.g. "I am") in a language he doesn't understand, about a
religion of which he is ignorant, can he explain what was said, and why, if
at all, it was offensive -- if it was?
--
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel

All those who believe that the best physicians in France, given two weeks,
can't diagnose what ails a patient - please stand up.

/dev/null wrote:
> I might as well weigh in on this one too.
>
>
>>If God is love, and love is blind, does that mean Ray Charles is God?
>
>
> No. God is love but that "love" is not the same "love" that is blind.
> Better said is "infatuation is blind". True love is not blind. And even
> more exact the infatuation itself is not blind, but blinds the bearer of it.

I don't think the saying, "Love is blind," means what you think it means.

Love is blind because it doesn't care what you look like. Infatuation
cares what you look like...

So I think it applies because, at least I really hope, God doesn't care
what you look like.

You could also say love is blind because it turns a blind eye to your
mistakes. That would be sort of the unconditional love...

So anyway, there is a different way to look at it.