| Hmmm. Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that if Jesus *did*
see things 'pretty much as black and white', why was it that he used
parables, as often as he did in his teaching ministry?
Was he intentionally trying to be obscure at those times?
Was he trying perhaps to point humanity to deeper truths that mere words
could not/cannot convey?
Or did he use parables to honor and express his faith in each person's
capacity to find the truth they needed in his words...then and now?
Karen
|
| Re: .0 (Richard)
> I have serious doubts about the validity of this statement. What do
> others believe?
I also believe you have serious doubts about this statement. :-)
"Black and white" *can* mean that the truth is perceived clearly rather
than ambiguously. But I think most people view it more as, "the truth
is either this or that, but can't be both (or anything else in between)."
In relation to the Christ I would say that the first idea is applicable,
but not the second.
For example, the notion that upon death you either go to heaven or hell
(using the historically held notions of these two "places") represents a
misunderstanding of the truth. More and more people are moving away from
this point of view, and as a result many protestant churches have
softened their "hellfire and brimstone" approach.
I think that the black and white view (using the more common definition
above) by people today is the result of a strong need to clearly
distinguish "right" from "wrong," and a separativeness which has no
understanding of differences and says, "I am right, so anything else must
necessarily be wrong."
A black and white viewpoint to me indicates a dependance on the "word"
when the "spirit" isn't known or understood. This does not mean, from my
point of view, that people who see things as either black or white should
be judged harshly. I think it is a phase of human development like any
other. I also think that this way of viewing things is waning within
Christianity. There are many Christians and churchgoers who no longer
truly believe in the black and white view of things, but they continue to
tolerate it within the church. Eventually one of the two must give.
Either the people will distance themselves from the church (not
Christianity), or the church will break up some of the old forms which
have defined its behavior (with little change) over the centuries. If
the people continue to change and the churches continue to resist change,
the current trend away from the church will continue and will inevitably
lead to some crisis points within the church.
Jeff
|
| I'd have to say that Jesus sees things exactly as they are.
Then again...
Consider: "This Statement is True."
Is it a true or false statement? One logically valid way of determining this
it to assume that it is one or the other, and follow through the implications
that presents.
Let's assume it is true. It says that it is true, which agrees with our
assumption. No contradictions there, the statement is logically true.
Let's assume it is false. It says that it is true, but that is a false
statement, which agrees with our assumption. No contradiction there, the
statement is logically false.
Indeed truth is a fragile and mysterious concept.
In fact it is possible (as Kurt G�del rigorously proved in his famous
Incompleteness Theorem) that a statement may be true, yet unprovably so;
false, yet unprovably so; provably both true AND false; even indeterminately
true or false, and one can prove that the truth or falsehood can NOT be
proven.
The basic requirement for such seemingly bizzare properties of a seemingly
"black or white", yes or no, true or false entity such as truth is that it be
self-referential. G�del demonstrated that even simple Number Theory, using
positive integers, addition, subtraction and multiplication has the capability
of self-reference. His famous theorem was a mathematical construction that
represented the statement "this statement cannot be proven true". Prove it
true, and you've made it false. If you cannot prove it true, it obviously IS
true, yet unprovable.
Language, with its richness of concept and description abounds with
self-reference. "This sentense contains three errs." Therefore one may
expect that while some statements may be clearly true or false, (or at least
apparently so...) there are others in the indeterminate shadows.
Is the Bible self-referent? Is God? Is Jesus? (I think one of his best
responses around the self-referential dilemma was to ask "who do YOU say I
am?") If there is any self-referential statement in the Bible, there there
may well be truths that are un-knowable or un-provable. Does this weaken the
the authority of God and the Word? I don't think so. For me, it just adds to
the wonder, depth, and life of the Word.
Truth has fractal boundaries.
Peace,
Jim
|