From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Jesus, God or Human?
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:14:21 GMT
	<1992Oct13.042917.3382@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <Bw2xIr.CD5@inews.Intel.COM>
Organization: Jah! Ras TafarI!

pharvey wrote:
>properties of particles and waves. So now the big question. Can the same be
>said of Jesus? Is Jesus neither man nor God, only Jesus, I am that I am?
>Again few Christians care to discuss these types of issues because they
>like the illusion that Christianity answers all the questions. In fact it
>presents many more than it answers, but your average Christian can't be
>bothered with that sort of truth. Of what value is the truth if you count
>on getting in on someone else's coat-tails? Lie and go to Heaven in Jesus
>name, what a concept. Does explain most of Christian history though. The
>strength of ignorance in the disguise of seeking the truth. Truth is not
>found when one relies on the strength of ignorance.

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?

>Obviously, possesion of this spirit had a profound effect on the way the
>rest of the man functioned.  His mind, body and soul was kept clean when
>approached with everyday temptations.  This finally lead to His death for
>the cleansing of sin in accordance and in fulfillment of old testament
>prophecy.

Meaning? Since sin is separation from God, individuation, separation from
the whole, as in you and I, then ... death is reunification? All humans must
die, the King must die? Why? Is life not alive without death?

>To describe Him as a man and as God is correct, depending on
>the situation at hand.  The analogy of particle/wave theory for light is
>appropriate also, if this is easier for the listener to comprehend.  It
>depends on how one sets the definitions, the spiritual level of the one
>to whom the topic is being discussed, and obviously the background of
>the individuals.  As I opened with, upbringing has a definite effect.  I
>would never see fit to 'correct' another's interpretation of who they
>think Jesus was, because what's comfortable for them is their decision.
>Most who believe in the bible would at least say that Jesus was 'super-
>human', i.e. human with superior qualities.

Christians, not Jews or Moslems, right? Judaism does not consider its 
scriptures to be incomplete or in need of a new convenant and Islam thinks
that Christianity went too far and lost the message of the Hebrew scriptures.

>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.

>"Truth" ?  Define it.  Like it or not, most truth is not absolute.

Quite true although there is no shortage of money to be gained selling the
absolute truth, even political parties can fall pray (prey). But, I think I
know of one absolute truth: The speed of light in a vacume is constant
regardless of frame of reference. I suppose this truth fails at some point
close to the Big Bang though. So, what is a religious person to do if there
is no absolute truth? Become an ATHEIST? Why go on? How does one chose one's
path if there is no absolute truth to lead the way? How does one know whether
to go right or left if one can never know which way is absolutely true? How
does one trod the valley between the two opposites if there is no absolute
truth to show the way? How can an authentic individual lead an authentic
life if there is no absolute truth to guide by example? What kind of God
would create humans and not create absolute truth? Of what use is free will
if we have no absolute truth to show us the way of free will? Of what use
is freedom if it does not include absolute truth?

>It again depends on how the definitions are tailored to fit an individuals
>situation.  I've been 'enlightened' by the discussions in alt.atheism,
>alt.satanism, talk.origns, and soc.religion.christian (?).  The way
>each individual has a way of changing the definitions ever so slightly
>to fit a little better with their preconceived ideas.

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.

>Example:  The satanist FAQ tells me that every satanist can define
>satanism as they see fit, usually having to do with self preservation
>of some sort.  This TO ME is humanism.  Satan-ism must have something
>to do with Satan.  Not true.  I was corrected.  But this doesn't allow
>me to discuss 'truth' with those who believe that way.

Most satanist are just anti-Christians or former Christians, perhaps abused
by a sect in name only, who now hate Christianity and thus cling to what
they see as non-Christian, the Christian Devil. I'm not a Christian and
have never been one, neither are my parents. I'm not a satanist, but I
think I understand some of "true satanism". The Christian Devil comes from
a misunderstanding of the Persian light/dark duality and the Greco/Roman
Lord of the Underworld. To me the solution lies in a Buddhist saying, all
things are buddha things. Or as Nietzsche said, don't cast out the devil in
you for fear of losing your best part.

>My definitions
>still work for me and their definitions will work for them.  There can
>be no absolute agreement here.  I may even use Webster and standard
>english grammar and semantics, but this doesn't change their definition.
>It is substantiated for them, by them, to fit their purpose - and that's
>fine - just realize that we've disagreed on what the 'truth' is.

Absolutely. Worlds above and worlds below, no one in the world like me. That
is what baby talk means, that is the sound of a last dying breath and the
sound of a rock ...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc