.jpeg)
R.E. Slater - The unchanging God is always changing!
---
Tripp Fuller - Strangely, Christian "orthodoxy" followed a particular philosophy far more than the Bible's [collection of philosophies - re slater].
Orthodoxy believed what was really good was what a thing was in itself. That relation(ship)s were limitations on God. That a "proper" God had no relations.
But think [about it] for a moment what God could be before God had created anything when God was all alone by Godself.
- God could not love, for there was nothing to love.
- God could not know, for there was nothing to know.
- God could not cause anything, for there would be no effect.
- Indeed, it is hard to think of God existing at all.
[In contrast], the greater the cosmos which God influences, loves, and knows, the greater God is. It seems rather obvious that a Creator who does not create anything is not much of a Creator.
Moreover, sometimes people don't notice that if they attribute all power to God, they similarly deny any power to God [in other respects to His deity and ontologic Self-history - re slater].
---
R.E. Slater - My definition of Scripture is a collection of narratives imperfectly describing a loving God.
This living God-narrative has been with us through the centuries. It's latest rendition being expressed - as it has always been - through all of mankinds beliefs, religions, activities, deeds, structures, art, and such like.
Some are great. Some are not great. But like its Author, "Spiritos inspiration" was never left within a static, dead book (the bible) but through creation's living incarnational-narratives mimicking Jesus imperfectly, but perfectly, as producing a living, viral salvation.
The writers and commentators of God are God's people regardless of whether they are mentioned in the bible or reside apart from it's page.
As emissaries of God's love, or of Christ Jesus as the God who serves selflessly, sacrificially, in forgiveness, mercy and grace, this is my broadest definition of the "bible" written upon Creation's hearts of spirit-flesh.
The "written" bible is but a beginning and aspect of the Living God who walks amongst us through His Creation.
Below, Karl carries it more fully as inspirational expressions bedrocked in a relationship between Creator-"C"reation (I like to capitalize the creational "C" as it gives majesty to God's work, rather than detract from it, though it is us who do the subtraction).
---
Karl Streeter - What if we “see” scripture as a “living organism with history and potential? Could it be scripture’s authority lies on whether we engage her with a “I-Thou” relationship instead of a “I-It” relationship? Maybe the deification or demonization comes from the “I-It” relationship? No transformation or inspiration comes from a “I-It” relationship. The evolution of “love your neighbors” to “love your enemies” is the inspiration to move from a “I-It” relationship with others to a transformational relationship of “I-Thou”. Could it be that “you shall not make for yourself an idol” is a warning to engage all things as “living” and not reduce them to an “IT”? True transformation or becoming “anew”(“reborn”) comes from “changing our minds” (repent) from our relationship with reality as an “IT” rather to a relationship as “Thou”. As Process teaches us that we are all in relationship with all things, it is love/life/creativity/freedom which inspires us to encounter those relationship as “otherness” and not in “idolization”.
---
R.E. Slater - Another gem from Karl Streeter speaking to a relational theology pregnant in all its forms throughout our lives and earth's living creational history. His G-d is expressed in a dissatisfied form with the Christianized G-O-D.... and I don't blame him. Though my preference is to spell God as "God" due to my heritage, if I'm dissatisfied with it's expression of G-O-D I do it by stating my disaffection (as you've noticed).
---
Karl Streeter - Some say that the physical is the only reality that exists. If you cannot measure it, see it, touch it or even taste it, it does not exist. Then there are those who say the physical and the spiritual both exist, but the spiritual is the only thing that really matters. The physical is just a shell for the spiritual.
What if the spiritual can be described as love, creativity, freedom, responsibility, potential, and luring/calling and the physical can be described as the other. Then, Incarnation is the spiritual echoing the physical. G-d “spoke”, then there was creation or said differently, creation is the echo of G-d, love, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, creativity, freedom, etc. Incarnation is not about two realities coming together but a relationship of the “two”. The spiritual and physical are partners in all reality. The spiritual does not create the physical, they are in co-relationship with each other. If G-d is relationship and one cannot be in relationship with oneself, then there was not a time when one existed without the other. One might say that incarnation is the covenant of G-d and creation/other.
Are atonement and incarnation related? What if atonement is the mutual cooperation between G-d and "other" or incarnation? Could it be that Jesus’ faithfulness saves us by emulating the mutual cooperation between the spiritual and physical even unto death. Although death cannot “kill” the mutual cooperation of incarnation, it is because of the mutuality of the relationship incarnation re-lives continuously.
No comments:
Post a Comment