The concept of the Divine Spark is based on the principle that we are all made out of the same substance as God, i.e. Spirit. If nothing existed outside of God before "Creation", then it follows that he must have constructed the Universe and all it contains out of "Him"self.

No--He could have created ex nihilo.

The term Elohim did not originate with the Hebrews, it has been found in pre-Hebraic Babylonian Shrines. And it's definition has been altered retroactively by some to buttress their own positions.

And remind me exactly what this proves. Just because the Babylonians and the Hebrews shared a word does not prove that its use in scripture indicates descent from earlier notions of God--the word is clearly being used in a different sense in Genesis (and is used in its pre-Hebrew sense in the Psalms).

As to One Holy Spirit, I think we may find some area of concordance, though not entirely, as I subscribe to Monist principles (One in Many, and Many in One) which I think the Unity you describe is referring to, but it's not Monotheistic (only One Divine Being separate from "Creation"). I have discussed with TBG before, the point that The Holy Trinity is necessarily a Monist concept, as it posits Three Divine Beings in One (Many in One=Monism).

The problem of the one and the many is solved by the trinity--I don't like the term monism to describe the trinity because it puts too much emphasis on the one and not enough on the many.

However, most Christians will never accept that and I am resigned to that. But that is the biggest source of contention between the three Abrahamic Religions.

Third biggest: first is the immanence of God. Second is the person of Jesus.

You mentioned Allah, Buddha, and Krishna, referring to them as different "Gods". That is incorrect. Muslims believe that Yahweh is the One God (Allah is the Arabic name or title), just as Jews and Christians do, they just don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

I would argue that Muslims and Jews aren't really worshipping Jahveh, but anyway . . .

Krishna, is in fact an Indian derivative of the term Christ (the Anointed One, or Saviour, Messiah etc.) and many Hindus and Hare Krishnas believe him to be one and the same as Jesus, who they see as an Avatar (in a Nutshell, an Aspect Incarnate) of the Supreme Deity.

Actually, what happened was that Hinduism was fighting for its life in India due to the rapid inroads made by Christian missionaries. What the Brahmins did to preserve their power was to designate Christians as a different caste, and to create a new theology that incorporated elements of Christianity into it. The result was that Christianity was relegated to a couple of minor ethnic groups on the Malabar Coast.

The history of Christianity in East Asia is fascinating.

Again, if Christianity is true, then all other religions are false. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnate and if He rose from the dead, then He is the only way to God--there's no way around it. You can fudge all you want, but eventually you have to consider the claim directly: is Jesus who He said He was, or was he a liar, or a lunatic, or did he just not exist? Based on the wealth of information in the Gospels (and the reaction of the crowds) I'd say that great teacher is out of the question. You don't pick up rocks to stone great moral teachers: you pick up rocks to stone blasphemers--and if Jesus was not God, then He was a blasphemer.

TBG

The concept of the Divine Spark is based on the principle that we are all made out of the same substance as God, i.e. Spirit. If nothing existed outside of God before "Creation", then it follows that he must have constructed the Universe and all it contains out of "Him"self.

No--He could have created ex nihilo.

Thanks, TBG! ex nihilo: something out of nothing, right?

And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.

By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. . . .For he spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast.

Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created, and thou renewest the face of the earth.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Actually, what happened was that Hinduism was fighting for its life in India due to the rapid inroads made by Christian missionaries. What the Brahmins did to preserve their power was to designate Christians as a different caste, and to create a new theology that incorporated elements of Christianity into it. The result was that Christianity was relegated to a couple of minor ethnic groups on the Malabar Coast.

Interesting! I always wondered, esp. after reading 19th-century mission history and Forster's A Passage to India.

Again, if Christianity is true, then all other religions are false. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnate and if He rose from the dead, then He is the only way to God--there's no way around it. You can fudge all you want, but eventually you have to consider the claim directly: is Jesus who He said He was, or was he a liar, or a lunatic, or did he just not exist? Based on the wealth of information in the Gospels (and the reaction of the crowds) I'd say that great teacher is out of the question. You don't pick up rocks to stone great moral teachers: you pick up rocks to stone blasphemers--and if Jesus was not God, then He was a blasphemer.

Good point, TBG! Well said! The charge against Jesus when He was crucified was blasphemy. The Jews told Pilate, "We have a law and by our law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God" [John 19]. When Pilate heard that, he tried to release Jesus! Of course, we know Jesus' claim wasn't blasphemy for He was and is the eternal Son of God.

FYI: in memory of the resurrection/resuscitation discussion, here's Greater Vision singing "My Name is Lazarus." And here's Joy Gardner singing "The Promise" about Jairus' daughter.

Hindus don't have a problem with someone claiming to be God because in Hinduism everyone claims to be God .

Ex Nihilo is an intriguing concept, that as far as I recall (and my memory could be faulty ) doesn't actually appear in the Bible (It's not even stated in Genesis1 or 2). But if you find a passage that explicitly states the concept of Ex Nihilo, I'll figure out a way to reinterpret it .

EDIT:
And by the way 220CT, none of the Bible passages you quote state God made something from nothing, and the quotes from Job clearly indicate the opposite, that God made Something from Something... His Spirit. Come to think of it, so do the Psalm quotes.
/EDIT

The use of the Babylonian term Elohim in Genesis suggests that the ancient Hebrews were transitioning from Polytheism to Monotheism. But my point was that the later definition attributed to Jesus' use of the term is retroactively applied and not necessarily true (though it is possible). In any case, it leaves his phrase wide open to interpretation.

The problem of the one and the many is solved by the trinity--I don't like the term monism to describe the trinity because it puts too much emphasis on the one and not enough on the many.

Actually Monism puts the emphasis on neither. And I am perfectly happy with Many in One myself. But Hey, you're the one claiming to be a "Monotheist" .

Third biggest: first is the immanence of God. Second is the person of Jesus.

The arguments over Jesus claiming to be God and the Son of God are the ones that get all the press, which is basically the same argument as the one about the Trinity . So I count that as One argument. Immanence gets less attention in any of the debates between Jews and Christians or Muslims and Christians.

And it's news to Jews and Muslims that they don't worship Yahweh . Especially Jews .

Again, if Christianity is true, then all other religions are false. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God incarnate and if He rose from the dead, then He is the only way to God--there's no way around it. You can fudge all you want, but eventually you have to consider the claim directly: is Jesus who He said He was, or was he a liar, or a lunatic, or did he just not exist? Based on the wealth of information in the Gospels (and the reaction of the crowds) I'd say that great teacher is out of the question. You don't pick up rocks to stone great moral teachers: you pick up rocks to stone blasphemers--and if Jesus was not God, then He was a blasphemer.

But this returns us to my original point, that it is all subject to interpretation. It is only Various Christian Denominations and/or Jews and Muslims that have to wrestle with these issues. I am not the one suggesting that Jesus might have been a liar or a blasphemer. Though it's probable that some Orthodox Jews and Muslims might see Him that way.

Peace and Long Life
Gandalf's Beard

The use of the Babylonian term Elohim in Genesis suggests that the ancient Hebrews were transitioning from Polytheism to Monotheism.

And just how does this fact contradict the Scriptures? I would say that the history of the nation of Israel bears witness to this.

Immanence gets less attention in any of the debates between Jews and Christians or Muslims and Christians.

And it's news to Jews and Muslims that they don't worship Yahweh . Especially Jews .

Judaism stopped worshipping Jahveh when they rejected Jesus. Muslims are just the biggest of the Christian heresies. The god of Islam is not the God of the Bible: Islam claims that God is impersonal and unknowable whereas the Scriptures teach that He is both personal and knowable. Therefore, we cannot be worshipping the same God.

But this returns us to my original point, that it is all subject to interpretation. It is only Various Christian Denominations and/or Jews and Muslims that have to wrestle with these issues. I am not the one suggesting that Jesus might have been a liar or a blasphemer. Though it's probable that some Orthodox Jews and Muslims might see Him that way.

But eventually you have to wrestle with it. Are you really going to put this off indefinitely? The authority of Jesus' whole message rests on His claim to be God--so great teacher is out Either Christ is God or He was a despicable man or He didn't exist. Eventually, you'll have to get off the fence and put your faith somewhere.

TBG

But is Jesus' claim to be God really any different from a Hindus, or a Gnostics claim to a "spark" of Divinity? It depends entirely on interpretation.

And at this point it's silly for me to respond to your other responses . We both know the answers already . But thank you so much for debating, it's just like old times .

Live long and Prosper
Gandalf's Beard

The god of Islam is not the God of the Bible: Islam claims that God is impersonal and unknowable whereas the Scriptures teach that He is both personal and knowable. Therefore, we cannot be worshipping the same God.

Indeed, the god of Islam is, from what I've read, a lunar-related deity of some kind. I am not expert on this, as I've said before, but I believe this may be a carryover from whatever dominant religion existed in the area before Islam hit the scene. It's purportedly an open secret in Islam that they're worshipping a moon deity (although much of the rest of us remain largely ignorant of this little factoid). This is one of the reasons you see the crescent moon motif on so many of the national flags of primarily Islamic countries, like Turkey. I've read this from at least two separate sources.

Still...they did invent the fez, and that is one cool piece of headgear....

Allah of the Quran is absolutely not a Lunar Deity . The Crescent Moon symbol was the symbol of the city of Istanbul, previously known as Constantinople, which was the Capital of the Ottoman Empire which ruled much of the Middle East for hundreds of years. This is where the (mistaken ) association comes from. And this is why the Crescent Moon remains on the flags of many Middle Eastern countries.

Allah is a contraction of the terms Al (The) and Ilah (God) and refers to the One True God. Arabic Christians and Jews use the name Allah to refer to God also. It is true that Allah was also used in pre-Islamic times to refer to a Meccan Supreme Deity who was the Godhead of a pagan pantheon (just as the pagan term Elohim was adopted by the ancient Hebrews), but in Islam Allah refers Only to the God of Abraham.

Live Long and Prosper
Gandalf's Beard

EDIT:
Just in case there is any doubt about this, here is a quote from the Quran:

(041:037)
Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve.

A statement from a Muslim scholar, Sheik Yusuf Estes:

The symbol of Islam is not the crescent moon and the star, but it was used by the last Islamic Dynasty, the Ottoman’s. The Ottoman Empire deemed it appropriate to use the star and crescent as their symbols, but not the symbols of Islam. I repeat, the star and the crescent moon are not a part of the religion of Islam. Because Islam is so strict on the concept of no other gods with Allah; and no images of any kind; it is a mistake to consider that Islam authorized the general use of such things. Additionally, Islam forbids the images (statues) of any kinds of humans, animals or any of Allah’s creations, so how about using a symbol for Islam?

Early Muslims didn't have any sign or authorship to represent themselves with. They used white or black flags when in battle. The crescent moon was introduced during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. There is no symbol for Islam, which is why on the Saudi Arabian flag there is no symbol, only "La Illaha Illa Allah" (There is no god but Allah) in Arabic. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, Othman I El-Gazi, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty. There is speculation that the five points on the star represent the five daily prayers, but this is pure conjecture. The five points were not standard on the Ottoman flags, and it is also not standard on flags used in the Muslim world today. The lunar deity thing is pretty much anti-Islamic propaganda. There's no need to further propagate it when valid criticisms of Islam exist.

Thanks for the confirmation Persy . It's good to put this "myth" to rest. Muslims, even more than Jews or Christians, are adamantly opposed to "idolatry" and the slightest hint of of Polytheism.

GB

But is Jesus' claim to be God really any different from a Hindus, or a Gnostics claim to a "spark" of Divinity? It depends entirely on interpretation.

Quite different: Jesus claimed to be Jahveh. That's a whole lot different. This isn't an issue of a divine spark or any of that nonsense--it's an issue of identity. What did Jesus' words mean in the Jewish context in which He said them? When He says, "Before Abraham was, I Am." His audience gets the point right away because they pick up rocks to stone Him.

And this is not an isolated incident.

On Islam, I have heard speculation tracing the worship of Allah back to Ba'al worship, but it's just speculation and therefore I don't give it too much credence.

TBG

Draugrin, I have my own issues with some of the smaller Gnostic sects who were indeed like a "secret club" and had there own version of Literalism and Absolutism.

Not to get involved in the debate here, but how is your statement above much different from a Christian discussing the heretical beliefs of other professing Christians? From what you said here, the "smaller Gnostic sects" are basically heretical in the context of the more mainstream doctrines of Gnosticism. You just don't use the word "heretical." But its meaning you are certainly appropriating.

And that's okay, of course. There has to be some way to distinguish between a belief system's mainstream and deviant routes. I just find it interesting that you argue so strongly against using the term "heresy," but you make use of its meaning without an apparent problem.

But if you find a passage that explicitly states the concept of Ex Nihilo, I'll figure out a way to reinterpret it .

This, I think, is the core of the problem. Even an "explicit" statement you will re-interpret if it doesn't align with your presuppositions and preconceived ideas. At that point it's not about truth anymore, is it?

I think your laughing smiley shows that you see the issue with this approach

TBG, I love your signature line from Chesterton!

Its not that I think certain sects (or denominations) of any religion are "heretical" WiseWoman, I just take issue with Literalism, and Absolutism. But I think people are perfectly entitled to a Literalist or Absolutist view of Reality if that is their choice, as long as they don't force others to believe their views and call everyone else "heretics" or "blasphemers" (cuz them's fightin' words *insert decrepit old Gold Miner with tattered hat icon here*).

And yes, the laughing icon represents my awareness of my pre-conceptions , which is all that is really required to factor them in to (or cancel them out of) any analysis. My approach has always been to analyze things from multiple angles for a better view . And I try not to take my own views so seriously that I miss the Reality of the situation. I don't intentionally try to force a square passage into a round hole, which is why I find myself occasionally agreeing with the good Doctor (and others) on some hermeneutic questions. But some passages are wide open to interpretation.

Peace and Long Life
Gandalf's Beard

Dr.Elwin Ransom wrote:
I haven't seen anyone question my points about protecting the Church from heresy does not automatically lead to bad behavior by Christians who carry that charge-making into the world.

Since my last question fell by the wayside I'll run with this one, which is a perennial topic over in the "church basement."

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

2 Corinthians 2:14-17

(14) Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. (15) For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. (16) To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? (17) For we are not, as so many,[a] peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

Not to put you on the spot, 220. You just had a great summary-quote, is all.

220 wrote:

God is responsible for what happens to the Word sown, not me.

There definitely is a problem with church "peddlers," as the verse says. We are called to be fools for Christ, not jerks* for Christ.

Left Behind character) phrased it as "The cross offends. If you are offended, that means that I am doing my job." That was enough for him; content was an afterthought. Thus it simply must be the hearer (thou vile sinner, thou), because the speaker assumes that he/she could never mess up enough to prevent an Insta-Conversion Experience.

*where "hasty" means, some believers pay lip service to Matthew 13. They want to sow, then reap on the spot. If they don't reap, it must be the fault of the Vile Sinner, Thou. Jesus told his disciples back in their beginning that they would reap where others had sown. They would go on to sow and others might reap after them. A common symptom of the Jerks for Jesus is the insistence upon sowing and reaping in one encounter, the instant decision. Thus aggravating a few Calvinists along with the free-willies: since when is it your decision, they would say. Some people are willing to believe in free-will when it means I-didn't-get-another-notch-on-my-Bible-belt-and-it's-your-fault.

I'm not sure I have an Insta-answer to this, but if we can't do a better job of spreading the Good News, it's not really a surprise that we haven't done a better job of addressing heresies either.

Its not that I think certain sects (or denominations) of any religion are "heretical" WiseWoman, I just take issue with Literalism, and Absolutism.

No, I don't think so. Let me quote your post in context (and use good hermeneutics ):

Draugrin, I have my own issues with some of the smaller Gnostic sects who were indeed like a "secret club" and had there own version of Literalism and Absolutism. But the largest sects (such as the Valentinians) were accepting of all who sought "Truth". They reveled in multiple interpretations of Scripture, and had a very metaphorical view of Scripture, and were very "democratic" (small d) and non-heirarchal. In other words, they were neither Elitist nor Exclusive.

In the first sentence you talk about the smaller Gnostic sects that held/hold beliefs you do not agree with. THEN, in the second sentence, you appeal to a mainstream among Gnostics, the "largest sects," as your authority (!). You even mention one of them by name, the Valentinians. You go on in your third sentence to explain the mainstream, orthodox (if I may use that word here), foundational beliefs of Gnosticism. It seems evident that you are contrasting these mainstream beliefs with the more deviant views of the smaller Gnostic sects of your first sentence (and therefore indicating that those smaller sects are "heretical").

How are my hermeutics? Am I interpreting this correctly?

If you look at the definitions of "heresy" provided by MM, you'll see that the word does not *have* to carry the let's-burn-you-at-the-stake connotations that you seem to view as central to the word's intrinsic meaning. Rather, it is, at its core, a word to use when differentiating between a belief system's mainstream and deviant variations.

I think it is permissible to call someone's beliefs heretical if they do not align with the accepted, mainstream orthodoxy of whatever belief system they profess to belong to.

Consider my rewrite of your paragraph above:

I have my own issues with some of the smaller Christian sects who are indeed like a "secret club" and have their own version of Christ's Humanity and Virgin Birth. But the largest sects (such as the Protestants) are accepting of those who subscribe to the Nicene Creed. They revel in correct interpretations of Scripture, and have a very literal view of Scripture, and are somewhat "democratic" (small d) and non-hierarchal, taking into account the Scriptural mandate for elder/pastor leadership and the Headship of Christ.

People who claim to profess Christianity, but who do not hold to Christianity's basic tenets, are heretical. As you say in your post above, people are perfectly entitled to believe what they like. But that doesn't mean what they like is orthodox and should be accepted as such. Call a spade a spade.

But I think people are perfectly entitled to a Literalist or Absolutist view of Reality if that is their choice, as long as they don't force others to believe their views and call everyone else "heretics" or "blasphemers"

I love this . What if it's my belief that I should force others to believe my views? Am I then, according to GB, not allowed to believe what I believe since I am failing to meet GB's condition? Am I not "perfectly entitled" to my beliefs if they contradict yours about the use of the words "heresy" and "blasphemy"?

We are not responsible for the religious persecutions carried out in centuries past. Heretics aren't burned at the stake in my church. I think we need to get away from the "oh NO, you can't say that WORD because it was at one time associated with terrible persecutions!"

The result of such a finicky approach is confusion. Orthodoxy is a defined and exclusive thing; it is this, and it is not that. Heresy is the "that," if you will. It can have negative or positive connotations depending on which side you're coming from. But putting a total embargo on the word seems silly to me, when its real use is to distinguish between mainstream doctrines and doctrines that deviate from the orthodox.

(*note: not actual term the church basement uses. Bad-word.)

I wonder why the Church Basement apparently reads a different Bible than I do. Because mine says that NO foul language/obscenity is to come out of our mouths (Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 5:4, etc.). It really makes me question the conclusions the Basement reaches, if they've determined it's okay to be profane.

Because they're not all Christians. It's an open forum.

TOM wrote in the old NarniaWeb forums:

NarniaWeb is like the church fellowship hall. It's where we celebrate, catch up, and eat.

There's another site I visit that is like the church basement. It's where the budget is wept over, where the homeless sleep, where the Friends of Bill W. meet. It's raw. In the fellowship hall the conversation stays suitable for our littlest posters, because little pitchers have big ears.

And yet I occasionally hear exchanges in the "basement" like "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian" / "I would that all men were as I, save only for these chains." Jerks for Jesus undermine all that, which doesn't exactly help those working on their tempers.