From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: was Jesus man or God?
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:48:57 GMT
	<1992Oct13.042917.3382@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <Bw2xIr.CD5@inews.Intel.COM> 
	<Bw4zBy.KIA@inews.Intel.COM>
Organization: it's a mind game and you gotta deal with that

Ben Stuart writes via email:
I think I mailed my response to you instead of posting the followup.
If this is the case you have my permission to post it in the groups of
your choosing.  Sorry for the lapse in my mind.
Since I agreed to continue this on the board, I'll try to address the
questions raised by pharvey.

Ben Stuart wrote:
>pharvey wrote:
>>Ben Stuart responded via email:
>>>(posted with permission here on t.r.m and a.a)
>>>If you care I will offer my understanding on the matter.  Of course you
>>>realize this opinion does not apply to all Christians, only myself.
>>>My upbringing taught the separation of man into the four common components
>>>of body, mind, soul, and spirit.  Jesus was given the body, mind, and soul
>>>of a man, but since he was God incarnate, he had the spirit of God.
>>                                ^^^^^^^^^
>>What about a personification of God? Meaning God takes on human form, body
>>mind and soul? And what does this say of us? Are we not the same or do we
>>not share the same potential?
>The potential, as I see it, lies in the fact that we have the ability to
>accept a spiritual relationship with God (to me that is the same as a
>relationship with Jesus).  I feel that this relationship takes a lifetime
>to develop, and successfully ends with the eternal relationship continuing
>in an 'after-life' world (defined by most as the Christian 'Heaven').  BTW,
>for your information, my American Heritage Dictionary defines incarnate as
>personification.

The words are very close, that is I can't find a difference. But, this issue
of a God becoming personified or incarnate is a big one. I don't think you
will find many Judaists or Moslems who would find this notion agreeable. It
really depends on how you value humans, because in some way it is an insult
to say that a man can be God incarnate. That's a big step along the progression
of man taking over the reins, taking control of Earth, so to speak. And it
seems to me that once you believe that a man, Jesus, was God incarnate, then
what is to stop all humans from realizing human God-hood? Is virgin birth
required or was that just a metaphor? What really makes Jesus different from
you or I? I think it's important to realize that this notion of a man being God
incarnate is a very pagan one, not very true to Judaism or Islam. In fact it is
quite likely that the concept comes from Persia or India where very similar 
thoughts existed. This pagan connection is not necessarily bad though.

>My interpretation of the bible speaks of spiritual and physical death.

Sure, and our everyday experience seems to verify this as fact. Clearly humans
die to the physical self and this is required so that new life can be made
from the stuff of death. And while there may be some who claim to know all
their past lives, most of us have little if any memory of any past spirits
of those who have physically died, thus indications are that the bulk of the
spirit dies also. And this also is required in order for new life to exist,
surely we would be haunted and unable to function as new life if we carried
the spirits of past humans. Death must be understood as a required aspect of
life, life without death is dead. The only constant is change. This is big
stuff though, most people don't want to think about it or reason it through.
Given that the physical and spiritual bodies must die, what is left?

>Sin is manifested by the spiritual death between God and man.  Establishment
>of a personal spiritual relationship with God gives life back to the spirit
>(hence the 'born again' philosophy in accordance to a quote of Jesus in
>biblical text).  This 'death-to-self' and trust in God is the reunification.
>All humans must die the physical death, the 'death-to-self' in the spirit
>is a decision which is made by the individual.

I think that is Hinduism, more or less. Not that it can't be Christian. I
think most if not all of the world's religions actually join and become one
at some point, like Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy. So birth is
separation from the transcendent, individuation. Death is reunification and
the degree depends on the attitude or "faith" if you will of the person
dying. We come into this world kicking and screaming and we often leave the
same way.

>>>It all comes down to what
>>>the listener is looking for; God, super-human man, man, prophet, teacher,
>>>fool, con-man, hippie, etc., you can find (and "substantiate") whatever
>>>you want.
>>Not necessarily bad, often the sign of quality mythology.
>Or truth, depending how you define it (see below)  :-).

Yes, in a sense the goal of mythology is absolute truth, that which is
transcendent of word and transcendent of logic and ...

>Well, I've erred here.  I did not define my 'truth'.  Above I meant natural-
>istic 'truth'.  As in your example, there are some well defined scientific
>'truths' (being a chemical-environmental engineer, I've staked my career and
>my family's prosperity on this :-)  ).  But I do feel that God holds the
>'absolute truth', to many this is included in the definition of God.  This
>'absolute truth' cannot be experienced fully during our natural life.  Only
>when we cease to be naturally, and extend into the spiritual realm, will we
>(by we, I mean all of us, whether or not we established a relationship with
>God while in the natural life) know this (God's definition) of 'truth'.

Perhaps this 'absolute truth' is some kind of metaphor? Under my understanding
of Hinduism, this is the field of opposites, like day/night, good/bad,
life/death, man/woman, you/me, us/them, true/false, etc. But this is only
what we SEE. In the union of all these opposites is IT. The 'absolute truth'
is when this field colapses into the ONE, unity of what was once diversity.

>Many can know 'truth', but 'absolute truth' depends too much on the agree-
>ment between people who are made to be different.

That's it. That's the field of opposites. Unity -> Diversity -?> Unity
                                          death -> life      -?> death

>>Words are very tricky things. I understand your words but that doesn't mean
>>my understanding is the same as your intent. In the end, there are no good
>>guys and no bad guys, just you and me, and we just disagree.
>I wish more Christians would say that. 

I think there are a lot who would agree but unfortunately it is mostly the
radical TV-Christian-types that we hear the most from. I don't mean to judge
but it seems to me that there are a fair number of self-proclaimed Christians
who go around doing the work of the Christian Devil in the name of Jesus or
at least earn a fair living selling HATE to the unsuspecting.

>My bible tells me that most people
>I meet and talk to will not believe what I do.  I will still converse,
>exchange ideas, communicate my beliefs, and ALLOW OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.
>Some may reconsider what they believe because of what I say, far and away
>most will not.  To the Christians who are about to tell me my duty to
>evangelize, my life and actions speak loudly (as do yours) and has been
>noticed by too many to count.  What I tell them doesn't mean squat if they
>see differently, or if I don't give them respect for their beliefs.  Man
>can only offer information on who Jesus was, we can never 'save' anyone,
>only the personal relationship between one seeking Him and Himself.

Well said. Religion is meant to be an option, one choses the gods one wants
to live by. Religion was not meant to be FORCED onto people, it is a choice.
That's the whole point. Forced conversion is clearly not the way of light.
Examples speak much louder than words in the long run. Clearly this is what it
means to follow Jesus. Might does not make right, it is the meek that shall
inherit the Earth. As a Rastafarian would say, "Flash-it (lightning) gentle 
peoples!"