Comments on: God is a Dick - Part XXVIII: The Lion in the Lamb http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/ Helping Mankind Overcome Religion Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:26:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Social Scientist http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-4012 Social Scientist Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:38:09 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-4012 Valgirl0 says "didn’t Jesus state something like there are some of you standing here today who will not taste of death until you see my return in glory (not exact KJV quote)" Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (KJV) Seems straight forward doesn't? But it would be wrong to add a private interpretation to this the Bible interprets itself and isolated sentences were never meant to be plucked out of the context of the block of teaching they were a part of. Therefore you need to go a little further in Luke to complete the teaching of Jesus on 'the Kingdom of God' to understand what and where it was? In Luke 17:20 the pharisees asked Jesus a question about the kingdom of God and He answered this question in verse 21: "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the Kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shal they say, Lo here! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." The concept therefore is if you accept a King as your Lord and Ruler you are part of His Kingdom. In Jesus case he made it clear that tranferring from Satan as your king to Jesus as your King and becoming a part of the Kingdom of God did not involve 'observing' with your eyes a visibly different landscape from the Earth around you because the Bible says "The Earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein." (Psalm 24:1). Jesus made it clear that it was not and exact location so that someone could say "Here it is" because the word 'World' which is the Lord's pocession according to Psalm 24:1 includes the earth, the heavens and all that dwell therein. Therefore Christ's teaching here is that you are already in His territory but the Kingdom of God comes to you when the King (Jesus) rules as a King in your heart "The Kingdom of God is in you." People of these days understood that even if a citizen of an earthly kingdom ruled over by a human king left His kingdom territory they were still a member of that kingdom when they returned, in the case of Christ there is no limit to the territorial boundaries of His Kingdom of God only heart boundaries e.g. having Satan as a king. Therefore it is quite legitimate to say that when someone makes the switch from Satan as lord and king of their life and in their heart to Christ as King then the Kingdom of God has come to them and they are citizens of God's Kingdom and 'see the Kingdom of God' not with their natural eyes as in 'observing or it is here type beholding of it' but in their heart as they come into relationship with God the King and see with the eyes of their heart the Kingdom of God - where they are no longer blinded to it but see it for the first time - the penny has dropped for them.

Valgirl0 says “didn’t Jesus state something like there are some of you standing here today who will
not taste of death until you see my return in glory (not exact KJV quote)”

Luke 9:27 “But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” (KJV) Seems straight forward doesn’t? But it would be wrong to add a private interpretation to this the Bible interprets itself and isolated sentences were never meant to be plucked out of the context of the block of teaching they were a part of. Therefore you need to go a little further in Luke to complete the teaching of Jesus on ‘the Kingdom of God’ to understand what and where it was?

In Luke 17:20 the pharisees asked Jesus a question about the kingdom of God and He answered this question in verse 21:

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the Kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shal they say, Lo here! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

The concept therefore is if you accept a King as your Lord and Ruler you are part of His Kingdom. In Jesus case he made it clear that tranferring from Satan as your king to Jesus as your King and becoming a part of the Kingdom of God did not involve ‘observing’ with your eyes a visibly different landscape from the Earth around you because the Bible says “The Earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Psalm 24:1). Jesus made it clear that it was not and exact location so that someone could say “Here it is” because the word ‘World’ which is the Lord’s pocession according to Psalm 24:1 includes the earth, the heavens and all that dwell therein. Therefore Christ’s teaching here is that you are already in His territory but the Kingdom of God comes to you when the King (Jesus) rules as a King in your heart “The Kingdom of God is in you.” People of these days understood that even if a citizen of an earthly kingdom ruled over by a human king left His kingdom territory they were still a member of that kingdom when they returned, in the case of Christ there is no limit to the territorial boundaries of His Kingdom of God only heart boundaries e.g. having Satan as a king. Therefore it is quite legitimate to say that when someone makes the switch from Satan as lord and king of their life and in their heart to Christ as King then the Kingdom of God has come to them and they are citizens of God’s Kingdom and ’see the Kingdom of God’ not with their natural eyes as in ‘observing or it is here type beholding of it’ but in their heart as they come into relationship with God the King and see with the eyes of their heart the Kingdom of God - where they are no longer blinded to it but see it for the first time - the penny has dropped for them.

]]> By: Social Scientist http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-4008 Social Scientist Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:32:09 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-4008 Jahrta, Are you a scientist? Just asking because I saw your post slamming intelligent design.

Jahrta,
Are you a scientist? Just asking because I saw your post slamming intelligent design.

]]> By: Reluctant Atheist http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-3739 Reluctant Atheist Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:18:16 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-3739 valgirl0: <blockquote> Puts a whole new perspective on C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” choice regarding Jesus.</blockquote> I'd put another L word there: Lost. "“The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.” I'm of the theory that due to the proliferation of opium in the ME, it's a small wonder those folks were having 'visions'.

valgirl0:

Puts a whole new perspective on C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” choice regarding Jesus.

I’d put another L word there: Lost.
““The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.”
I’m of the theory that due to the proliferation of opium in the ME, it’s a small wonder those folks were having ‘visions’.

]]> By: valgirl0 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-3738 valgirl0 Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:34:34 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-3738 Puts a whole new perspective on C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" choice regarding Jesus. I would postulate Liar (or at least deluded) & Lunatic. After all, didn't Jesus state something like there are some of you standing here today who will not taste of death until you see my return in glory (not exact KJV quote) and other false prophecies regarding timing of his "return". As for lunatic....didn't Thomas Paine say something about the woeful lack of lunatic asylums in ancient Palestine and that fact explaining the state of modern day western religion?

Puts a whole new perspective on C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” choice regarding Jesus. I would postulate Liar (or at least deluded) & Lunatic. After all, didn’t Jesus state something like there are some of you standing here today who will not taste of death until you see my return in glory (not exact KJV quote) and other false prophecies regarding timing of his “return”. As for lunatic….didn’t Thomas Paine say something about the woeful lack of lunatic asylums in ancient Palestine and that fact explaining the state of modern day western religion?

]]> By: Reluctant Atheist http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-3728 Reluctant Atheist Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:33:40 +0000 http://evangelicalatheist.com/2006/01/14/god-is-a-dick-part-xxviii-the-lion-in-the-lamb/#comment-3728 Mainline Protestant: <blockquote> You’d do better to not project today’s culture context onto these ancient writings but try to understand the culture in which they were written.</blockquote> Why, thank you for your biting analysis. I flatter myself in thinking that I do no such thing, as 'project today's culture', as I am more the xenophile. I infer that you are accusing me of some form of moral relativism? While I'm nothing more than an amateur, I do take into account how ANOTHER culture thinks. I'm not that Eurocentric. Or Americo-centric (or whatever the term may be). You may want to get a refund on that armchair psychology degree: it was a waste of money. <blockquote> It was even considered kisher to write under someone else’s name: </blockquote> Psuedipigrapha is the phrase (Acts of Pilate springs to mind). Not a common phrase in OUR culture. Here it's called 'ghost-writing', if I'm not mistaken? I have read the bibble, the Gnostic Gospels (Nag Hammadi & Pagels' work), as my xenophilia extends to cultural diversity, past & present. Perhaps not as fluent as I AM or yourself, but I do have some grasp of allegory, nuances, etc. , thanks much.

Mainline Protestant:

You’d do better to not project today’s culture context onto these ancient writings but try to understand the culture in which they were written.

Why, thank you for your biting analysis.
I flatter myself in thinking that I do no such thing, as ‘project today’s culture’, as I am more the xenophile.
I infer that you are accusing me of some form of moral relativism?
While I’m nothing more than an amateur, I do take into account how ANOTHER culture thinks.
I’m not that Eurocentric. Or Americo-centric (or whatever the term may be).
You may want to get a refund on that armchair psychology degree: it was a waste of money.

It was even considered kisher to write under someone else’s name:

Psuedipigrapha is the phrase (Acts of Pilate springs to mind). Not a common phrase in OUR culture. Here it’s called ‘ghost-writing’, if I’m not mistaken?
I have read the bibble, the Gnostic Gospels (Nag Hammadi & Pagels’ work), as my xenophilia extends to cultural diversity, past & present.
Perhaps not as fluent as I AM or yourself, but I do have some grasp of allegory, nuances, etc. , thanks much.

]]>