Today I think I'm going to post on my Blog. What if I started taking just everything that I think about, and start spouting it off in one place? Would I get followers? Who knows. But yesterday somebody asked me to write an article.
Now, this has little or nothing to do with relativity in the physics sense. But it has to do with relativity in the moral sense...
A moral absolute is something that is generally associated with a person, place, or thing. God represents moral perfection because he is God.
But there are two kinds of moral relativism. One form of moral relativism says "What's good for the goose may be bad for the farmer." This idea says that morals are "observer dependent." It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, for instance. It presents a win/lose view on ethics and behavior.
There may be something to that morally relativistic point-of-view. However, there is another idea of moral relativism where you have an ABSOLUTE DIRECTION towards goodness, but not necessarily an ABSOLUTE POSITION.
The problem with the concept of God as person, place, or thing, is that you can actually get to it. Stand on it. Say "Here it is, I found it. Defined it." Well, if you've found God and defined God, I think that maybe you've found something else and are calling it God.
At this point in society, certainly nobody has found moral perfection, and nobody can really claim to have legitimately described it. We are always discussing in politics the voting for "the lesser of two evils" and so we seem to generally accept the principle, at least, that you can move closer to, or away from some kind of "moral perfection."
So it does make sense, even if I cannot claim to have found or seen God, to draw out the clearest of distinctions as possible in the descriptions of God.
Having grown up in a Christian Culture, where small towns in rural Illinois are dotted with 1 church per 50 poeple in their populations, of course I tend towards the Bible for these descriptions.
I see in the Bible two places where there seem to be conflicting views of who God is. But very few Christian people seem to acknowledge that the Bible contains any discrepancies. And very few nonchristians seem to acknowledge the Bible at all.
So I am left alone, pointing to these things.
#1 The difference between Elihu's description of God, and Job's description of God.
#2 The difference between John-Gospel-Jesus description of God, and Matthew/Mark/Luke's description of God.
Elihu, Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe a God that I feel does honor to the creation of the universe, and the humble, but still amazing place we have within it.
John-Gospel-Jesus, and Job describe a God that is an all-powerful, petty self-absorbed asshole who condemns the beings he has made, unless they grovel for him.
Now, most Christians view the difference between these gods as being the "carrot" and the "stick". If you believe in God, you get the carrot. You will see the beauty of God and follow him out of love. If you reject the good God, then the petty-asshole God will beat you with a stick and force you to worship him anyway.
Well, anyway I happened to answer a question on Quora the other day regarding the "Spirit of Truth" in John's gospel. Here is may answer:
"I think that eventually John expects someone to read his text with a "Spirit of Truth".... To recognize that when you read John's gospel with that spirit it simply doesn't hold up to the other gospels. Here's some reasonable observations to make when reading John's Gospel, and comparing it to the others.
(1) In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when Jesus does a miracle it is done specifically for a person that needs the miracle, and there is no situational irony involved. But whenever Jesus does a miracle in John's gospel, it usually is not asked for, and/or there is some kind of situational irony.
(2) In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus gives guidelines for right action... How to behave with love. In John's gospel, the focus is "believing in the name of the only begotten son of God" and there is little, if any suggestion of how to behave. It says to "love one another" but then it says that the way to love one another is to wash your servants feet, even if they are complaining loudly for you to stop.
(3) Matthew, Mark, and Luke point out the importance of forgiveness--to the point of saying that you must forgive, or you will never be forgiven . John's gospel has no restriction on forgiving others, except John 8:1-11. While this passage may be the best modeling of forgiveness in the book, most scholars have agreed that this is not what John wrote... Some scribes decided to add it later.
(4) Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe Jesus' 40 days in the desert, being tempted by the Devil, with three temptations. (1) Turn rocks into bread (2) Throw yourself down (3) Shown all the world's Cities. In John chapter 2, Jesus (1) Turns water into wine, (2) Gets crucified and resurrected, (3) Sees into the hearts of all men. To me, the "Spirit of Truth" tells me that John wasn't just picking these anecdotes about Jesus life at random, but actually making an accusation... e.g. John was accusing Jesus of succumbing to all three temptations of the Devil, which Matthew, Mark, and Luke say he did NOT succumb to.
Now, I don't know what good it does to point this out... But I do regard this idea of "Spirit of Truth" to be an important one. Society has adopted a "Spirit of Tolerance" which is better than a "Spirit of Condemnation" by far. But a "Spirit of Tolerance" sometimes means you tolerate something without understanding it. And I think that's dangerous, because what you are tolerating might actually be misguided and dangerous.
If you have something dangerous, you should study it... When Moses made a bronze snake and held it up in the desert, he may not have understood the snake. But he exposed it, put it up on a stick where people could see it. And they came to look at it, and realize "This Is The Reason We're All Dying!"
(I refer here to John 3:14. Did Moses hold up the bronze snake in the desert as something to follow, or as something to avoid?)
They might not have known how to fix their problems right away, but people started avoiding the snake rather than walking into its jaws."
I then went on to find a more standard Christian Apologetic's answer.
Under his comment I found someone saying
KL: "So if I am a slave to sin, the better position is to have a permanent position in the sin family? Not a lot of sense being made here."
RP: "no, if you follow Jesus you no longer are...If they were to become his disciples , they would know the truth of their condition and the truth about Jesus, and Jesus would set them free and brought into the family of God. Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). Knowing the Truth/him will set one at liberty free from sin, free from condemnation, and free from the 2nd death (Romans 6:22; 8:1–2)."
KL: "He continues, “Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever” (verse 35). The people understood Jesus to mean that they were not members of God’s family, even with their biological relationship to Abraham (verse 37), because they were slaves to sin." Really? That's what people understood Jesus to mean? It doesn't follow at all, does it?"
RP: "Perfectly."
KL: "The first is about how you should strive not to be just a slave of the family, but a son. The next is about being a slave to sin. Put them together and you have a son of the sin family. There is some very sloppy thinking going on here if something different is meant."
RP: "your perception is sloppy...if you do not accept Christ that is what is being taught pretty much...you will be a son of one or the other..."At this point, there is a two-month break... From the 16th of August, to the 23rd of October.
I joined the conversation, having found Kevin's observations mirrored my own. I don't know yet whether RP actually has been back to Quora, reading this discussion... If I'm not mistaken, he has the option to delete comments from a thread under his own answer, but he hasn't invoked that option yet as of October 24.
JD: "I think that Kevin is reading the passage right. John's description does not have Jesus claiming to be a permanent member of the family of God.
John is not here, celebrating Jesus' wisdom. John is accusing Jesus of claiming to be the Son of Sin.
I think you've misread John's gospel, Robert, like so many other Christians, who are not able to read the text without spinning a strong "positive interpretation" on the words.
You are all too good of people to realize what it really says in John's gospel.
That's totally forgivable, in my opinion... When viewed in the context of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus actually does show the way, the truth, the light. (But "showing" and "being" are two different things.)It's just that when you take away the "goodness" of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and just read John's gospel on its own, it tells a very different story"
KL also replied to RP:KL: "A son of one or the other? Where does it say that? Sons and slaves are very different. You are not looking at what it says, just at what you want it to say."
But what does it say? John Chapter 8 contains the BEST passage in all of John's gospel--In John 8:1-11, the story of the woman who has sinned. And Jesus tells them "If any among you has never sinned, may he cast the first stone."
So understanding, and agreeing with that... Can I cast metaphysical stones at John? Well, I am not trying to kill him. Only come to an understanding of what he has done.
JD: In fairness, though... What can you see in John Chapter 8:12-59? There's really no clarity at all... Just a lot of accusation and taunting.
If John 8:12-59 is a description or modeling of good and righteous behavior, then we're all doomed anyway.
There is no faith. No trust. No forgiveness. Only accusations of lies and evil-identity.
But I started thinking about more of what it said in Chapter 8:12-59
Well, there are some patterns.... "If God were your father, you would love me."
Instead "Many who heard him believed in him"
And then it says "Because I tell the truth, you do not believe me."
What a logical statement is that? What truth could cause someone not to believe it?
IRONY. the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
John's gospel is infused with irony. Every verse is designed to convey multiple interpretations, and generally, there is no "good" interpretation. They're all ultimately bitter, lose-lose, or at best win-lose situations
If God is my father, will I love John-Gospel Jesus? I come back to that later. Do many who hear John-Gospel-Jesus "believe in him?" I'm not sure. Many who hear what Jesus says in the other texts do believe in Jesus... But is it John-Gospel-Jesus in whom they believe, or Synoptic-Gospel-Jesus in whom they believe?
But then within the statement "BECAUSE I tell the truth, YOU do not believe me." That's the legitimate, logical, gotcha statement. Because what truth is he saying that you don't believe? Precisely the thing that Kevin is pointing out. JohnGospelJesus is saying here "I am the Son of Sin." In some other passage, JohnGospelJesus says, "I and the Father are one." What am I pointing out? "Because I am telling the truth, you do not believe me."
See, this is the definition of Irony. Using words that convey the opposite meaning. When you say the truth, but because you say the truth, people understand you to mean the exact opposite. It's a deeply unusual usage of irony, where you take the character in your story and put peculiar words into his mouth, so that though the words he says are true between the author and the fictional character--they would not be true at all if Jesus actually said them.
KL: It's Good cop, bad cop. John scares you and Luke and Matthew give you hope...if you confess your sins.
JD: No. It's not about confession in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It's about acknowledgment.
You can't stop sinning if you never acknowledge the things you did caused pain.
What Matthew, Mark, and Luke REQUIRE is forgiveness. That is a much, much, harder task than confession.
But I think there's more to what Matthew, Mark, and Luke ask of us. All three refer to an "adulterous generation" which is a generation who is not committed, but instead, "seeks signs", for instance, that God is powerful, or that God loves us, or that Jesus is the savior.
Because we are not committed to God, we are flaky; shaking our fists at one another, never forgiving... We don't see a bigger picture. That the world around us is dying.
So perhaps we will see the sign of Jonah 4:6-10.
God provided a worm and a tree. But Jonah didn't do anything about the worm. He just let it stay there until the tree was dead. Should we hate the worm? The worm is God's creature.
No... The worm has a certain charm in its voracious appetites, and it should be cherished, like the little devil it is.
But we also shouldn't let it destroy the entire tree.
KL: Ok, the good cops want you to "acknowledge."
JD: Acknowledge to one-self. Acknowledge to God. Acknowledge in some helpful way. Do what you can to get your sins "forgiven". That means making amends, if you can. You have to pay back your debts when they are not forgiven. But for debts you cannot pay, the best you can do is ask for forgiveness.
KL: Ok
JD: If a good cop tells you how to behave, and gives you guidelines on how to have a good life, and is gentle in his ways.
And a bad cop tells you nothing of how to behave, but accuses you of being evil, and insists that he is God. (And ALSO claims to be the good cop) I suppose you could say "good cop/bad cop" But I don't see any problems with the good cop, just because a bad cop is there, too.
Seeing there is a good cop and a bad cop is an important distinction... This is not one entity, but two.
They work together, and their motives appear to be aligned... to stop crime. But the bad cop has already given up on the task, and just wants his wages. The good cop cares nothing about wages; just wants to do his job.
KL: Ok, so John is just corrupt cop?
Now, when I came to this question, I started to think about what John is. Depending on who you ask, John may have written John, 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelations. Or there might be three different authors for these books.
JD: I could speculate wildly on what John is... what motivated him, whether corruption, cynicism, or prophesy.
But all I can really see for sure is that the text of John's gospel is wildly different than the text of Matthew, Mark, or Luke.
For that, see my answer to the original Quora question.
KL: Are you the first to notice this?
JD: That I don't know. I do know that I've never had a rational discussion about it... Generally, I'm met with either "You need medication" or "Away from me Satan." or "Could you stop talking about religion. We're trying to have a polite conversation here."
But I don't have any references, except to the primary source--the Bible itself.
Just from what I read directly from the Bible, it looks to me like John's gospel is cynical, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke are about faith.
I can tell, by looking at the wikipedia article on Cynicism:
Cynicism (philosophy) that I'm not the first to suggest that Jesus was portrayed as a cynic. I just think that he was ONLY portrayed as a cynic in John's gospel.
You can see that others have noticed a difference between the synoptic gospels and John's gospel: What Are the Synoptic Gospels? But to my knowledge, most people who have studied these differences are only concerned with the "factuality" of the gospels... Not the "goodness" or "morality" or "guiding principles" behind the gospels.
KL: You should write an article about this. Interesting topic.
JD: The Synoptic Gospels
Claude Goldsmid Montefiore says here, "not one student in 1000 will look up J.J Griesbach's book"
Here's a quote... I'm not sure whether this comes in original English from Claude Goldsmid Montefiore, or if it comes Montefiore quoting J.J Griesbach in Latin.
"It will, therefore be noticed that of the four Gospels, this book only includes three. The fourth, the Gospel of John, is omitted. The reason is that whilst the first three Gospels treat their subject from this common point-of-view and arrangement. The fourth is different in both. It has a different conception of Jesus, and tells in many respects a different history.
The words which it puts into Jesus's mouth are peculiar and special. Moreover, this fourth Gospel is less historic than the first three. It gives an interpretation of the person, and work of Jesus rather than a record of his words and deeds. Notable, great, and important as this Gospel is, it can, and indeed must--be studied by itself, and not together or in conjuction with the first, the allied, three. Therefore it forms no part of the present more limited undertaking. For that undertaking, though limited, is yet sufficiently and more than sufficiently, arduous, intricate, and obscure."
I think that this text HINTS at what I'm saying. But perhaps the author here had too much to lose by saying what he really thinks. But it strongly suggests that the author feels that I do that John "puts words into Jesus's mouth", words, quite likely that Jesus never said. He also views the synoptic gospels as being "allied" which strongly implies that John's gospel is against them.
I would say that this is strong evidence that I am not "the first to notice this". But perhaps nobody has yet written a text to highlight the "peculiarness and specialness" of the words John puts into Jesus' mouth.
So, anyway, Kevin said I should "write an article" on this topic. Well, who would I submit such an article to? I can't expect to get paid for it... Not when I'm attacking the God of Job. No... But what I could do is kickstart my old blog from yesteryear.
I think he's the second person on Quora to say I should be collecting my work and publishing it in some way, form, or fashion. (The other was impressed by my description of a Supernova explosion.)
My problem is that everything I know is actually the intellectual property of someone else. Until they re-write the intellectual property laws, I cannot profit from anything I know, because I learned everything somewhere. The only thing I can profit from, legally is stuff that I entirely make up--fiction. The corporations own the truth.
But thankfully, they no longer own "Happy Birthday to You!"
Sounds like you know enough to start your own "one true church of the Bible." :)
What is your source for your comments about the Holy Spirit?