Gyles:
LOLOL
I thought I'd throw "ineffable" in there for a bit of fun, and as a nice change from "divine", which I often use.
Darn: Gyles 24 - Ross 23
LOL
If someone was distorting what you had said and doing bad things yet insisting that Ross said it was okay to do them, you'd likely take action.
Actually I've been in exactly that position and done nothing about it, because regardless of what someone may say or write about me, my course of "actions" are what count. If folks really want to know what I said or did, without pre-judging me, then they'll hopefully ask me directly. If they don't, then they are hardly people I want to surround myself with. I certainly hope that on balance I've not been too dire a fellow.
Why did Paul say that he rejoiced however Christ was preached (Phil.1:18)?
It seems that your example of "willow bark" did have benefits, though the accompanying rituals proved irrelevant (a little bit like how I approach the concept of religion). Was that an intentional own-goal? Can I level the scores again?
Regarding "beliefs" usefulness, I can declare that (which I beleive) to be useful to me. Whether or not it is of use to another, is a different matter. Let the buyer beware.
Regarding the "image of God", isn't that what the Genesis story is supposed to be about? Man's fall from image-hood?
You and I are possibly as far away from being like "God" as it's possible to become - polar opposites. Or are we?
We look through a hazy mirror, so whilst I'd agree with the statement "as above, so below", we are dealing with shadows and reverses, IMHO.
Further, what represented "God" below, in the shadow of things? Was it not Christ?
If so, then I suspect he didn't do a bad job, all things accounted for.
Yup, but you're not god, you're Ross, and the second it looked like people were going to suffer you'd rethink your actions. Why is god different?
Because "God" may well be everywhere, experiencing it all, having laid out the entire scope of "time" within a single teardrop in eternity (poetic, huh? - I just felt inspired to think that one up ).
Regarding parenthood, btw, that's my nephew not my son. We never had any kids (thank gawd!!!)
On that point, though, doesn't that just re-emphasise the point I've made many times?
It's about a living relationship, not head-knowledge, not book learning, not logic, not "being good", not works, etc., etc., etc..
For a human example; why does a child believe their parent over their peers (even if their parent is actually wrong)? Is it not because of the qualitative nature of their relationship? Unfortunately, that often even extends to those children of abusive parents, however that tendancy is usually evident.
My point being that if we take the assumption (yes, assumption - I'm conceding some logic here) that "God" is omniscient then there must be some reason for why things happen, even if it eludes us as to what it is, and regardless of the consequences on our lives.
(btw, are you going by the FMZ definition of ineffable? )