Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate

 That's putting all your faith in the name.? The word Yahweh is a human symbol
?for God, not God.? God is forever more than any human symbol.? God is God
unchanging now and forever, but how God is envisioned by humans will always
evolve and grow in ever greater appreciation of the transcendence of God.? How
Jesus described God in the New Testament is a world of difference from how
Yahweh was described in the Old Testament.? Jesus worshiped the Creator
not the symbol.

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: gmurphy@raex.com; mlucid@aol.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 2:41 am
Subject: Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate

What a pity. Jesus worshipped YAHWEH. Perhaps he wasn't the same species as
us

?

Michael

  
----- Original Message -----

  
From:
  mlucid@aol.com

  
To: gmurphy@raex.com

  
Cc: asa@calvin.edu

  
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:07
  AM

  
Subject: Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens -
  Surrending the debate

  
Yahweh?? Man, Yahweh ain't
  the God I have in my heart or my mind. I'm faith-bound
to the belief that
  I do not worship a vengeful God.?

You know, the Bible is, to me (among a
  billion other things) a story of the evolution
of? our ability to
  understand God.? Not the evolution of God, mind you, but our ability
  
to comprehend God.

Is the God of the old Testament the God of the
  New Testament?? Of course.? Are
the humans of the old Testament
  the humans of the New Testament??? No way.?

And Hindus
  and Wiccans?? I don't think that we are allowed to pass judgment on
  
Hindus and Wiccans with respect to idolatry.? That'll be done outside
  our ministrations.?
We should stick far more closely to passing
  judgment upon ourselves with respect
to what is and is not idolatry, even
  one to the other among us, in here, sure.

-Mike (Friend of
  ASA)

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy
  <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>; ASA
  <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 6:28 pm
Subject: Re: [asa]
  D'Souza vs. Hitchens - Surrending the debate

  
This is not the way scripture speaks.? The
  1st Commandment is not about some abstract "God" to whom people they can
  ascribe any characteristics & actions they please but about YHWH, the God
  of Israel.? This would be clearer if there were not the unfortunate
  practice of quoting it apart from introduction to the decalogue. "I am YHWH
  your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
  slavery; you shall have no other gods before me."? I.e., God is
  defined by what God does.? & in the NT this God isfurther identified
  as the One revealed in the cross & resurrection of Jesus.?
  

  
?

  
You seem to assume that "names" of God are more
  or less arbitrary labels which people give to the concept of God.? Many
  are but the Bible speaks of YHWH as God's own self-designation, as in Exodus
  3:13-15.? &?Matthew 28:19 in the same way can be regarded
  as?the self-designation as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit"?of the God
  revealed in Christ.

  
?

  
With all that I am not saying -

  
??? (a) that we have to address
  God always by?correct names, or

  
??? (b) that?knowledge of
  these names distinguishes good people from bad.? The fundamental sin that
  we are all guilty of to some extent is idolatry, violation of the 1st
  commandment - the point again that Paul is making in Romans 1.?
  Christians can have idolatrous Christian images?- e.g., the KKK's flaming
  cross.? But this does not make Hindus, Wiccans &c any less
  idolators.? It seems to me that OTOH you are?making the common
  mistake of using "idolatry" for only the crassest forms of that sin &
  defining the more serious away.??The serious ones are what
  God?spoke of to Ezekiel, "Son of man, these people have taken their idols
  into their hearts," & what Calvin meant when he said that the human
  imagination is a factory of idols.?

  
?

  
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

  
?

  
----- Original Message -----
  
From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>

  
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>

  
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:15
  PM

  
Subject: Re: [asa] D'Souza vs. Hitchens -
  Surrending the debate

> epistemologically
> Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>
  Precedence: bulk
>
> Well, there's no question that we will
  differ on this point. However, my
> sense is that the the reality of the
  divine creator is neither defined
> by a name nor by the particular
  model one might use for?
> conceptualization.
>
>
  With respect to name, Creator God is who he is. "God" is just our
>
  particular name for a supreme creative being who probably needs no
  name
> at all [the Bible seeming to commend existence, "I am", rather
  than?
> title].
> Nearly every human being recognizes the
  existence of such a supreme
> being who is responsible for creation, and
  responsible for their
> existence in specific. They have a variety of
  names for that being,
> understandably embodied in their own language.
  We call Him (Her, It)
> "God", but we use many other names as well
  (apparently numbering about
> 100 for the Abrahamic traditions, though
  mostly differing in language
> specifics). Many of these we share with
  Judaism, and we are not troubled
> by expressions like G-d or (the
  somewhat distorted) Jehovah, or probably
> even "hashem" if its use is
  understood.? However, we would lose some
> fellow travellers
  (though not all, particularly among missionaries!), if
> we were to use
  a name from another Abrahamic tradition like "Allah".
> And yet these
  are all conveniences of address for the same Abrahamic
> God. Noteably,
  the choice among them does not change the Creator in?
> any
  way.
>
> Though perhaps a little harder to accept at the outset,
  by extension it
> would seem that the name assigned to the divine one
  would have
> essentially nothing to do with who God is in reality, or
  with the
> legitimacy of the quest of the seeker who uses any
  particular
> (presumeably reverential) name. Our Scripture puts it this
  way, "...for
> he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that
  he is a rewarder
> of them that diligently seek him."? It does not
  say that we must come
> using the correct name.
>
> The
  model used for conceptualizing God is a somewhat different matter.
> We
  all have a variety of understandings (even among Christians who
> belong
  to one of some 30,000 identifiable denominations) about the exact
>
  nature and character of the transcendant being that is assigned our
  name
> "God". No two of these understandings are exactly alike in
  detail,
> sometimes differing in very significant detail. But if truth
  be told,
> even when we speak of "one God", we really don't know with
  certainty
> whether it/he/she is just a single entity, or whether this
  numbering
> thing even makes any sense with respect to the transcendant
  nature of?
> God.
>
> In most of our Christian
  traditions, we are taught to have a problem
> with people groups making
  painted or wood or clay or stone images of
> what they think God might
  look like. The images are idols and those who
> reverence them are
  idolaters. We in our traditions prefer to stay with
> mental models, not
  physical ones - but they are models nonetheless
> whether physical or
  mental. If they are the "other guy's" models, we are
> inclined to call
  them "idols". If they are ours, we call them "icons" or
> "art".
>
  
> But with perhaps rare exceptions, those objects of pigment or wood
  or
> clay or stone are not the deities themselves, but representations.
  So
> are our "icons" and "art".
>
> And that is true of our
  mental models as well. They too - even the best
> or most
  acceptable-to-us mental models - are essentially inferior
>
  representations, sharing extreme shortfall with respect to the reality
>
  of transcendent God (continuing to use our more familiar appellation).
>
  
> Most people groups throughout the world have in common an
  understanding
> that they specifically are a people that were created in
  special
> preferred relationship and favor with that supreme
  being.
> At least some people groups understand that that supreme being
  has also
> given them a special task in the world (usually in the nature
  of
> conquerer or ambassador).
> Most people groups have an
  understanding that they must do something(s)
> to stay in favor (avoid
  getting out of favor) with that supreme being.
>
> But at the end
  of the day, none of the specifics of these understandings
> have any
  effect whatsoever on who/what that supreme being is in reality,
> the
  one whom they seek.
>
> All of these people groups and
  individuals within them work the same
> essential spiritual problem,
  namely how to conceptualize, relate to and
> communicate with the
  transcendant being who is the Creator (to use
> another name as an
  example).
>
> I think we can reasonably presume that most are
  also sincere, whatever
> degree of devotion they might manifest. But
  there is nothing in the
> preceeding distillation of essentials that
  says they are seeking
> different supreme beings.
>
> What
  IS different (in some cases, clearly very different) is the human
> side
  of the equation, the name(s), nature, story and history,? holy
>
  writings, traditions, understanding of purpose, and practices.
>
  
> Since every conceptualization of God varies down to a
  specific
> individual, it is pretty clear that no human understanding of
  a
> transcendant being and his/her/its nature and intent can be complete
  or
> wholly accurate, even though those? purported 30,000
  identifiable
> Christian denominations (alone) are doing their best to
  do so.? But in a
> broader view, so are the rest of the folks. It
  seems to be our need for
> uniqueness (collective and individual ego, if
  you will) that underlies
> the dismissive characterizing of other
  religions as seeking (idolizing)
> something other than the true supreme
  being (God, in our language). But
> each of those other people groups is
  equally quick to affirm that their
> quest is for the "one true God",
  just as ours.
>
> A major difficulty in our time (and probably in
  all times) is - at the
> core - how people act in the context of their
  version of the quest (or
> an all too common perversion of it).
>
  But that STILL has nothing to do with the reality of the supreme being
>
  (God as we call "him"), or his position as the "one true God".
>
  
> The crux of the matter is that there is nothing that would? say
  that the
> prayers of anyone intending to reach the "one true God" are
  somehow
> deflected by what someone else might think or understand or
  say about
> them or their prayers. We understand that to be a "direct
  line". Again,
> from Hebrews: "...for he that cometh to God must believe
  that he is, and
> that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek
  him."? The name "God"
> in the passage is our name (and a
  translation at that), not in any
> measure the full reality, but
  intended to point to that divine reality.
>
> In this discussion,
  I had no intent at all to dismiss the specific
> tenets of Christianity.
  What I speak of is the universal yearning for
> understanding and
  relationship with the Creator. In that light, it seems
> to me
  unnecessarily dismissive and alienating to categorize those who
> seek
  the Creator with names and models different than ours as
>
  "idolaters".? The apostle Paul evidently understood that. Such
>
  dismissive characterization and labelling does nothing constructive to
>
  "...draw all men unto ... [Him]"
>
> P.S. In the extreme case of
  one who understands that the physical world
> is all there is, the label
  is atheist, not idolater.
>
> Or so it seemeth to me
>
  
> Blessings - JimA
>
>
>
>
> To
  unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
  "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

  Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 1 13:23:34 2007