I answered someone’s question earlier today about what constituted blasphemy with the usual definitions, and then went on to comment that sacredness was where your heart is with God, and blasphemy was where you could not sense God, yet addressed God anyway.
I believe that is true, but I also believe that God is very real, and so, there is a point at which, no matter what you believe, you may commit blasphemy by going against God. Now, the question then comes, what, truly, is “Going against God?” And that, indeed, is the question of our time, isn’t it?
We have reached, as a society, a crisis of faith so severe that either everything is all right, and we are just good folks having a fun party, or we have to decide what is right and what is not. Now, if you have read my last post, you already know where I stand. If it is of compassion, it is not far from the will of God, and if it is close to the will of God, you are doing all you can to obey the holy presence.
But, therein lies the rub, so to speak. What is of compassion? Can’t we just go about making sure everyone is fed and clothed, and housed, and all is pretty much all right? Well, actually, I do think that comes awfully close if it’s not on the mark. But, then, what do we do about the people that will not treat their “brothers” as equals in all things? I do believe that even if we all have all of our basic needs met that there will still be those who will be less than kind to their neighbor.
BUT, we have a long way to go before we get to the point where we can actually say to anyone, but you had all you needed, what went wrong? Now, the basis of my belief that we will still have problems is not the basic depravity of man. I am not a Calvinist. I actually believe that humans all have a bright side and a dark side. And that, whatever side you feed, that side will prosper.
But wait, that implies much more than just the meeting of basic needs to see that the “bright” side of each human wins out in the long run. If you follow that line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion, then there are many factors that can cause a human to rise or fall. What of the child who is given all of those basic needs, but is never allowed to feel wanted or needed or loved in any way? What about the child born without the ability to feel loved? In both instances, basic needs met or not, you are probably looking at the beginnings of a criminal lifetime.
So, there we are, back to compassion, aren’t we? But, what do we do with those children when they grow up into a life of crime? Do we electrocute them? After all, can we not look at their beginnings and see the signs that they would not prosper? And seeing those signs, could we not intervene on behalf of the child? Perhaps that would help for the child not allowed to feel love, but what of the child unable to feel love? What can Santa bring that child to “fix” things?
Or does Santa exist for that child in any way? If the child is unable to feel love, then the Calvinist will say that that child will perish and go to everlasting hell. But . . . . . . what if the Calvinist is wrong? What if there is no hell? What if there is only death and rebirth? What if the meaning of Y’shua’s words were misconstrued in the translation and he was speaking of coming back around in a new body and trying again? Ooops!
And by the way. who are we to presume that an all seeing, all knowing God, who knows that that child is unable to accept the gift, for that is what love is, a gift, will condemn the child outright?. No matter how it is presented, by the crucifixion of one man for all, or by the knowledge that a compassionate God has always forgiven, it is a gift. In your world, the child unable to accept love by virtue of a personality glitch must surely die, for that child cannot accept the love of the Christ. (Christ, a Greek word, not Hebrew. Christianity is, after all Hellenized Judaism)
You insist that it must be with the sacrifice of this man, this God man, who hung on the cross. This is possible. I have no difficulty with the idea that God would accept the sacrifice one made for all, I have difficulty in believing that God would disobey his own words to Moshe that he would never come in the form of a human. And there is another thing here. Hashem told his followers that he would never accept human sacrifice. So, OK, he went back on his word and did what he said he wouldn’t do. Um, God lied?
Maybe your God, but not my God, sorry, it’s not flying with me today. My God requires absolute painful truthfulness out of me, from the start of the day, to the finish. If I must obey a God that requires that kind of truth, I can, but not if He lies to the entire human race. So, it is quite OK for you, if you wish to believe that Y’shua was more God’s son than you are, just accept the fact that I think he was an enlightened human who knew God in a closer than usual fashion and leave it at that, please?
Oh, and by the way, when you can produce the Aramaic words of Y’shua where he actually said he was God’s only begotten, and I don’t have to buy that the original manuscripts were ditched in Constantinople because they proved he did not, yeah, then we’ll discuss the idea that he called himself God.
In the meantime, I happen to believe in the compassion of Hashem as an ongoing and all encompassing thing. I like the concept, it means God forgives. It also means I have to behave myself and not murder, cheat. lie or steal, or at least make the grand effort to live the life of one who does not do these things, knowing that forgiveness is there, but that I am expected to grow in Spirit and mature in a manner that says I do indeed believe in the Holy One, or the Holy Presence, if you prefer. Oh, and another thing or three, there are things one does for others if one truly believes in the compassion of Hashem.
Oh, and the child? I believe in reincarnation, obviously, so, perhaps, the glitch will no longer be there, and the child can accept the love of God, no matter what form you put it in.