AssemblyBoard

Tom M. recently  opined that Dostoyevsky's return to a religious world-view was just "common sense", cause _there can't be laws without a lawgiver.

I have thought in recent days a lot about this re mark, cause it goes to the question of where our "moral sense" comes from, if not from some Creator.
And if I don't have a good answer, I gotta rethink a lot of my inital assumptions/

And the best I can come up with is an analogy to the well-known and well-documeted "dance of the honeybee". For those of you not familiar with thos remarkable biological fact, a honeybee who has returned from finding a new source of honey-making clover (or whatever) will do a dance on the side of the hive to let the rest of the hive know how to get to the clover.

I see Christ returning from the desert (where the devil laid the three temptations on him) in exactly this way - all he was trying to do was let the rest of the hive know where they could find the clover.

And if this analogy reverberates with anyone out there, I would ask them whether:

a) they think the dance of the honeybee implies a Creator;

b) if not, why they think the dance of ChristJesus does.

I am not asking this question to offend nor to instigate; further, for anyone willing to think seriously about this question, an appropriate context for the question is provided by a wonderful short poem by the San Franscisco "beat" poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti. I forget the name of the poem, but it's stand out line was:

"Christ was crucified on the Cadillac tree."

(This poem is also relevant to summer007's last post to the "Grace vs
Works thread.)

Best regards to all
Dave

How can anyone be willing to think about this question--in a Ferlinghetti context no less--seriously?

Seriously.

Jem -

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  

I posted the same question to a secular opinion board at which there is very small and very beleaguered group of traditional Christians.  One of them responded to the question as shown below (beneath the asterisks), so there are some people who consider the question serious enough to answer.  I am not saying this in any sarcastic or unfriendly way, just as a response to your question.

Best regards
Dave

***************************************************************

>>I have thought in recent days a lot about this rremark, cause it goes to the question of where our "moral sense" comes from, if not from some Creator.<<

I say it is written in the hearts of men by the Creator. It is part of who we are.

Romans 2:14-15
"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them"

>>…anyone out there, I would ask them…why they think the dance of Christ Jesus implies a creator?<<

I think the 40 days and the temptation is not thee moment of Christ giving us the keys to the kingdom. It is one of many. Nor do I see it profoundly implying a creator to the doubter. Elsewhere, Jesus addresses their unbelief.

John 10:37-38
"If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Jesus performed signs and wonders, primarily because he knew that most people would not put faith in his words alone. Which is why I object to those who say our faith is a blind faith, merely built upon words. No, the signs and wonders of Jesus validate His Words, as do the signs and wonders of his select faithful that came after him.


Also: I see nothing unique about the honeybee dance (although quite interesting) because almost all animals instinctively act not on their own behalf but on behalf of the good of others. (thanks to the Creator, again.)

**************************************************************

David----

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God. ALL THINGS were made by him, and without him was not ANYTHING made that was made"(John 1:1-3).

There is a HUGE difference between the bee dance, and the ONE who created it. Jesus wasn't doing "a dance" to show where the clover is---because HE IS the clover. An interesting study is to see just how perfectly bees construct their honeycombs. It is mathematic perfection and shows the distinct mark of a Creator. many things in nature prove to us there is a God beyond a shadow of a doubt.

--Joe

Joe -

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Like Tom's original point re "laws and the lawgiver", it gives me something to think about.

Assuming you're right, for the sake of discussion, I would ask you the following question: when did He realize He was the honey ?  If He was born with this knowledge, why the need for the desert sojourn and the 3 temptations?
I have always assumed that it was in the desert that he realized who he was.

Again, no sacrilege intended - really wanna know.

Anyway, thanks again for not dismissing the question.
Dave

David---

I am no theologian, but I will explain as I understand it. Adam and Eve fell due to temptation by the devil. Jesus(God made flesh) came to the earth as both God and man---a bridge between God and man--being both Divine and human. He came to live a perfect life, and then offer himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

It was necessary he be tempted as a human being by the devil, just as Adam was tempted. Adam was tempted though in a lush garden of paradise---Jesus was tempted in a desert after not eating for 40 days.
The devil tempted him physically, emotionally and spiritually, with the strongest temptations he could muster--failed, and then departed. The Bible says that Jesus was tempted with everything that we all are, yet he never sinned.

Jesus did not come to some "realization" by being in the desert. He was in the desert because it was necessary to fulfil his roll as the "Son of man". Just as it was necesarry he be baptized(though not a sinner), and finally crucified(though not a criminal in any way). When Jesus was 12 years old, it says in Luke, Mary looked for her son and found him in the Temple. Jesus said to her "Know ye not I must be about my Father's business?"  Jesus knew when he was 12 years old who he was, and what he needed to do.

Any "theologians" out there can jump in---but that's how I understand it David. i appreciate all of your questions and comments.

take care, Joe

Joe S -

You write:

"
When Jesus was 12 years old, it says in Luke, Mary looked for her son and found him in the Temple. Jesus said to her "Know ye not I must be about my Father's business?"  Jesus knew when he was 12 years old who he was, and what he needed to do.
"

Great scripture-spot! (seriously!)

But assuming you are intepreting the passage correctly, He knew that His Father would tempt Him and that He would successfully resist?  Or just that His Father would tempt him?

Again, am confused, am not quibbling.  
I don't understand.

Best
Dave

Dave,  I think you know most of the answers to the questions you are posing. They are all very insidious, seductive and enticing. While your waiting to entrapp each and every answer, as no-one is going to give you the answer your seeking. Each one goes to the edge with your questions, but no-one has yet fallen off so to speak...What is it your looking for? Or are you just having fun? Playing the Devils advocate? Summer.

Dave,

I have very little time so this will be very brief.

The "argument from design" has been around for a long time.  19th Century skeptics like David Hume thought they had dismissed it by their arguments.  (which they did not actually succeed in doing, but that is another discussion.)

Anyway, discoveries about the ever increasing and mind boggling amount of finely designed characteristics of both the micro and macro universes have brought the argument from design back, big time.  Books and professional journals in astronomy and cosmology carry articles by well known scientists about the "Anthropic Principle" and what to do with it.    

The Anthropic Principle is the name these folks have given to the fact that the universe seems to be designed for human life.  I am not just talking about Christians here.  Atheists are talking about it too...and trying to find a way around it as usual.

In the micro universe the amount of design is mind boggling as well.  Increasing technological sophistication  has revealed levels of complexity that Darwin never dreamed of.

I know a Christian with a PhD. in Biology who began searching for God when he was a Darwinist.  As a graduate student he was researching cell structure in micro-organisms and began to realize..."these things didn't come into existence by accident."

His search led him to Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ.

So, yes, the bee's dance implies a creator.

Thomas Maddux

summer007 -

You write:

"
Dave,  I think you know most of the answers to the questions you are posing. They are all very insidious, seductive and enticing. While your waiting to entrapp each and every answer, as no-one is going to give you the answer your seeking. Each one goes to the edge with your questions, but no-one has yet fallen off so to speak...What is it your looking for? Or are you just having fun? Playing the Devils advocate? Summer.
"

Please see my post to the Matthew 25:40 thread; I believe it will answer these questions you have just asked.

Best regards and in hope of continued exchanges
David

Dave,  What is facinating to me is because you have such a Brilliant mind some of the simple things slip past you. And some of your thought processes are incomprehensible to me, but they are intrieging nonetheless. So I marvel at your un-belief, not in an insulting way. I think your somewhat sincere. Salvation is a free gift, if you want it take it, but you seem to frustrate the Grace of God, but then again "not all men have Faith". I recieved Christ at about 3 years old...it made perfect sence to me then, as it does now. I dont understand it all, and thats where Faith has to step in for me. I know you'd probibly prefer responces from great minds like Stephen F and Tom M, etc. But I'm just trying to understand...Summer.

Dave---

Again, I'm no theologian. The dual nature of Christ in many ways is a mystery. He was very God of God, and yet very man of man. As very God of God he knew at 12 years old exactly what would pass. But as very man of man these things were "unfolding" to him as he grew.

It is hard to fully understand---it is a concept such as the Trinity, which is very difficult for a finite mind to grasp--or the fact that God has always been, is and will always be. Our finite minds want a beginning and an ending and ask such astounding questions ;D as "Who created God?" because we refuse to believe there are things we simply cannot grasp or understand.

I simply believe what the Bible tells me about Jesus and understand that he is the very Word of God in human flesh. That he came to the earth for one purpose: to die for the sins of mankind, and to overcome the works of the devil--to lead all "captives" to liberty. The motivation for this was his great love for us. No logic can explain a love like that--no thesis, or scientific study will suffice. Only the simple fatih of a child-like heart can grasp it. That's why Paul said "The preaching of the cross is foolishness to them who perish"---it is a message accepted by faith alone.

--Joe

Dave,  Not that you asked, but I'll give you an idea as to how I logically came to belief at such a young age. In order for me to comprehend I had a vivid picture of the universe, the starry sky at night, and Jesus in the middle with out-stretched arms to me, at any minute the earth would explode, in that case, I could see no one could save me but the Lord. For you, if you knew the earth would explode in 5 to 10 minutes would you fall into the arms of the Lord, or could you find another way of Salvation? Would Paul's epistles still be tripping you up? Please remember this was my thought at 3-4 years old after going over psalm 23, and psalm 100 with my Dad who was a sunday school teacher, I was quizzed after each sunday school class on the way home, so I knew I had to pay attention and know my answers. I usually wanted to go horsebackriding, and my Dad would say can't you give God one hour for all his blessings to you, to thank him. (Guilt) I remember the felt boards and the war stories, wondering why they were doing that, why I had to know this. But I felt I loved the Lord....Just thought I'd give you some back-ground...Summer.

summer007 -

nope, you're wrong; SF and TM may know more formal theology than you, but the question of how a person acquires an internalized relationship with ChristJesus is a "heart" question as well as a "head" question; some might say it is only a "heart" question.

Also, you realize I hope, that just as it would be very difficult for you to morph from believer to non-believer because you internalized ChristJesus at 3, it is equally difficult for me to morph from non-believer to believer because my Dad taught me to rely on one's own mind and one's own mind alone in matters of judgment.  (of course, he assumed that he was prepping my mind appropriately by his own example of how to lead an upright life without benefit of belief.)

Best regards
Dave

Joe S -

You may be aware that there are many Roman Catholics who long for the days of Masses in Latin rather than English, etc. (I believe Mel Gibson and his father are among these.)

Their reasoning is simply that they loved NOT understanding the Latin, cause they loved the MYSTERY it added to their religious experience.

I mean no offense, but I CANNOT believe that ChristJesus intended for so-called "theologians" from 50AD to 2000AD to put "mysteries" such as the Trinity and the duality of His nature between Him and all of the "us" over the past 1950
years.

So I gotta try and understand as best as I can WITHOUT ever saying, "OK, here's something I'll accept even though I can't continuously and permanently grasp it."

I wish you good fortune in your spiritual journey, and I hope this feeling is reciprocated.

Best regards
Dave

David----

I wish you all of the best too. But it isn't theologians that have put "mysteries" in between God and us for
1950 years.  There are simply some things that God has chosen NOT to explain or reveal to us. The Bible clearly teaches there is a Trinity, but God never explains in detail exactly what the Trinity is, or how it appears---we simply know that God is in three persons.

All I am saying is that there are some things that defy scientific explanation and are in the realm of faith alone. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen"(Heb. 11:1). I do not wish for some mysterious Mass in Latin. I am simply stating that some things are known minutely---God has shown us only a glimpse---the rest must be taken by faith. Because they are ETERNAL things and we are FINITE beings. When we begin to think we can understand everything, and things infinite and eternal, with our puny minds, then we begin to do what J. Vernon McGee used to say the Atheist is really doing---he is saying to God on his throne "Move over a little bit God, there's two of us now" ;D.

--Joe

Dave,

Good point about the head/heart question.

(different point) And summer does have a 'heart' for the Lord.

The rest of your response ties in to something you mentioned re. works.  You said, 'many posters to the AB view any "Works" doctrine as suspect, because abuse of this doctrine was rampant in the sect to which many posters once belonged.'  I will discuss the "works" doctrine on the other thread, but the point about considering it suspect I will discuss here.

You are correct that our experiences/background influences how we "feel" about certain doctrines.  Possibly that is the "issue" you are having with accepting ChristJesus as your Lord and Saviour.  Your Dad gave you some good advice, but you are now limiting yourself from accepting truth because of that advice.

I suggest that you try the "heart" route now that you have done some investigation.  Have you ever actually asked God something like, "God, if there is a God, show me if these things are true."?  Read one of the gospels(John) too after you have prayed to God.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Dave,  Fair enough on the difficulty of morphing (unless of course your a power-ranger) I know my indoctrination at an early age is somewhat of an advantage, depending on how you look at it. The contraints of Christianity could be disputed. I once dated an atheist (brings up the un-equally yoked issue) He'd say my faith was good if it made me feel better, that was it. To him nothing was out there..........I could'nt believe he really did'nt believe. I know that sounds naive, but it was facinating to me. I was in a cold phase of faith at the time and it really brought me closer to God making me realize I did believe, maybe not perfectly, but nonetheless I believed. I just needed to forgive myself God had already forgiven me. This in light of my divorce and lack of trust in God at the time. I knew I was'nt on fire for God, so I thought cold was better, more honest, then lukewarm making God sick. So I see your point that your questions may generate answers to others while you may never be able to believe yourself. Lest anyone of us think we could lead you to saving knowledge of Christ. I hope this makes some sence to you....Summer....p.s. I get the feeling I'm in over my head with you.  p.s.s why do you type ChristJesus with no space? what does that mean???

Dave,

The purpose of the temptation in the wilderness is that Christ is the second Adam.  Adam was tempted, disobeyed, and fell.

Jesus was tempted, obeyed God and triumphed.  He fulfilled all righteousness.  At the end he could pray, "I have brought you glory on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do."  (John 17:4)

As the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he had to be a perfect sacrifice.  Sinless and pure.

Thomas Maddux

Tom -

Thanks for the interpretation; is is internally self-consistent and I appreciate it for that reason.  Seriously.

The problem for the non-believer (in the traditional sense) is that it is a long long long leap from:

 "I have brought you glory on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do."  (John 17:4)
"
to:

"
Jesus was tempted, obeyed God and triumphed.  He fulfilled all righteousness.  
As the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he had to be a perfect sacrifice.  Sinless and pure.
"

The "work" He was given to do could simply have been to awaken a new level of moral sensibility in people - the hypothetical imperative in Kant's terms.  One can believe literally in His Crucifixion and Resurrection and even His status as the
Son of God without necessarily believing in the "sacrifice" idea - which is really
a very old, very primitive, and VERY ignorant idea from the Judaeo- part  of the Judaeo-Christian heritage.  In fact, one  of the main reasons I rejected Judaism as a religious possibility very early in my life is that I couldn't understand how one could take seriously the theology of a people who thought there was a real BEHAVIORAL difference in idol-worship (praying to statues) and pouring blood over stones to honor their own Deity (of course I know there was a CONCEPTUAL difference between idol-worship and monotheism.)

But oddly, even though I think the whole "sacrifice" basis of Christianity is an unfortunate inheritance from its ancestor religion. I believe that the temptations in the desert ARE nonetheless the central fact of Christ's own private human experience on earth. WE as humans crucified him, not to fulfill some plan, but because WE as humans betrayed and denied him.  But He, Whomever He was or wasn't, underwent the temptations on His own.  WE had nothing to do with that.
 
Best regards
Dave

Dave,

what you refer to as my "interpretation" is what has been believed by Christians for 2000 years.  It is without question what was believed by the New Testament writers.

One example of this is found in I Corinthians 15:3-5.  

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,  and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."

Biblical scholars say that Paul, (writing in 56AD), is quoting a liturgical saying that dates to within 5 years of the crucifixion!  In other words, it dates from around 38AD.

Notice that it says "Christ died for our sins" and then points out that this was "according to the scriptures".

This is in accord with Isiah 53:1-12 where the suffering servant is described.  He "was pierced for our transgressions, and he was crushed for our iniquities" (V5)  The "punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (V6).  "The Lord  has laid on him the iniquity of us all". (V7).   "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days." (V10).

So, the idea of an atonement through sacrifice is a "cover to cover" idea in the Bible.  To try to reduce Jesus of Nazareth, who was the Christ, to a mere moral example is to gut the Scriptures of their central theme.

It is, quite frankly, to create an  imaginary ChristJesus that is very different from the one revealed in the New Testament.  If you wish to relate to reality through an imaginary being, no one can stop you.

But what will release you from the guilt of your sins?  (Please don't tell me you've never sinned.)

A ChristJesus who's entire life and ministry was merely for the purpose of telling people, "be nice to each other" can't do that.

Thomas Maddux

Dave, Is there a reason why you write ChristJesus like that ? just curious...You may have over looked the question in my last post ...Thanks Summer.

summer007 -

Sorry - I forgot to reply.

It's my way of always remembering that Christ is not like a last name, but
a title:

Richard, the King
King Richard or KingRichard

Jesus, the Christ
Christ Jesus or ChristJesus

Sorry if it bothers/bothered you - I didn't mean anything more than to emphasize
what the Christ in Jesus Christ actually is/means.

Best
Dave

summer 007 -

Should have added that Christ= The Anointed, but I figured everyone at the AB
already knew this.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:   \Christ\, n. [L. Christus, Gr. ?, fr. ? anointed, fr.
chri`ein to anoint. See {Chrism}.]
The Anointed; an appellation given to Jesus, the Savior. It
is synonymous with the Hebrew {Messiah}.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this defintion, the Greek verb "chri-ein" is given in its infinitive form,
like French "parl-er" = "to speak".

Dave