Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Do you follow a different faith now that you're no longer Christian?


Deidre

Recommended Posts

I think where things go awry in these discussions is when someone has a preconceived view of a particular faith and brands everyone who remotely follows it, with the same label. I was never and still am not a "fundie" nor creationist nor does one need to take everything in the Bible literally. This is right for me but it might not be right for anyone else. I think that I had many misunderstandings about my faith and those have been cleared up. We shouldnt think that we can speak for all people because our experiences have been bad/good, etc. My Muslim friends got me to explore Islam a few years ago and it's not for me, but it is for them. Many people brand Islam with a broad brush based on the atrocities that ISIS is committing but that would be unfair. 

 

I dont really dwell on the afterlife aspect of faith in general. I didnt before I left faith or now. But I don't only see Jesus as part of a feel good faith as He spoke some harsh things at times but it's still up to an individual as to how they interpret the Bible etc. and the Bible is an outdated book, and really just a glimpse into where the teachings of Jesus came from. Faith should be a personal experience and IMO, God can't be contained or controlled by a book or religion. I don't consider myself religious as I don't attend church or belong anywhere. So, generalizations are meaningless to me because it doesn't breed understanding. Unless you just want an echo chamber where everyone agrees with each other, which to me is kind of dull.

 

Unless someone's faith tries to get into government or lawmaking or intrude into the public sphere, I'm a love and let live type. I'm totally against religion intertwining with government, but people assume that because I follow some teachings of Christianity that I somehow subscribe to what other Christians are doing, and I'm not. If anything, those Christians aren't following the Bible because it was clear on keeping religion and government matters, separate. Lol Anyway, what is most awesome about where I'm at with my faith is that I'm open to other beliefs without feeling afraid to explore or agree. Like with being open minded to some things in pantheism or Zen, etc. 

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and if we disagree at times, that's ok I think. As long as it's done with respect :)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Margee said:

 

 

You should order and read this book honey. I did. It was one of the books I read when I was questioning fundamentalism. Thousands of people are into this........

 

This is the story of a very popular fundamentalist preacher who lost everything because he decided to decipher the bible and jesus teachings differently than most christians.  He lost his whole congregation except a few and had to start all over. It's called, '' The Gospel of Inclusion: Reaching Beyond Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God and Self''

 

This is what my girlfriend is into. Keeps her very peaceful and she believes I'm saved! :D

(hug)

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Gospel-Inclusion-Reaching-Religious-Fundamentalism/dp/1416547932

I will order that book, it sounds intriguing! Lol :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Margee said:

 

 

You should order and read this book honey. I did. It was one of the books I read when I was questioning fundamentalism. Thousands of people are into this........

 

This is the story of a very popular fundamentalist preacher who lost everything because he decided to decipher the bible and jesus teachings differently than most christians.  He lost his whole congregation except a few and had to start all over. It's called, '' The Gospel of Inclusion: Reaching Beyond Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God and Self''

 

This is what my girlfriend is into. Keeps her very peaceful and she believes I'm saved! :D

(hug)

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Gospel-Inclusion-Reaching-Religious-Fundamentalism/dp/1416547932

I will order that book, it sounds intriguing! Lol :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I do agree with the above about liberal christian ideas being the lesser of two evils with respect to fundamentalism. 

 

But I'm not sure what you mean about feeling empty? Do you get an empty feeling from pantheist philosophy because of the afterlife views? 

 

Yes, Joshpantera I have an emptiness inside of me that I suspect will never go away. Losing the christian god for me was like a death. It's the same emptiness that I feel about all the loved ones whom I have lost. I actually think losing god for me was even worse because when I recognized that there probably wasn't an afterlife, I had to re-grieve all those who I thought I would see again after my own death. I also truly believed that I would some day meet the invisible jesus who was my 'love' for so many years and he would explain to me why I had to go through what I did on earth. Now I know that it was just all about life in general. Some good luck and some bad...

 

This will come across and probably make your head spin a bit.. but as much as I think 'we are all one' including the universe, we are really not all ''one''. There are too many beliefs systems out there and too much prejudice for us all to be 'one'. Too much greed. Too much fighting. Too many opinions. Too much self-centeredness.  And these things also makes me empty inside. That's why I have to do everything in my power to stay positive. If something today does not make me feel some kind of joy, I have to let it go because I need everything to be as positive as possible. Does that make sense?

 

And this is why I understand why most people have to hang on to 'something' to give them hope.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 hours ago, Deidre said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and if we disagree at times, that's ok I think. As long as it's done with respect :)

 

This line is worth 1000 up votes. Imagine a world in which everybody thought like this. That's the world we need to work towards. 

 

So for myself do I follow a different faith? No, I have no need to, I don't seem to have any particular spiritual needs. And I'm ok with that. Deidre has found her way back to Christianity after having an experience that is meaningful for her and she's ok with that. And we both understand and respect each others position even though we disagree on some points (God) and are perfectly ok with that too. :)

 

I think we may have had a meeting of the minds.

 

Like Margee, I too understand why people hold on to belief, or find new beliefs. It's part of being human.

 

I think we here may understand what someone like Richard Dawkins doesn't, and he doesn't understand simply because he has never been in our position. I think this understanding gives a richer view of the whole topic of faith.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
10 hours ago, Deidre said:

I think where things go awry in these discussions is when someone has a preconceived view of a particular faith and brands everyone who remotely follows it, with the same label. I was never and still am not a "fundie" nor creationist nor does one need to take everything in the Bible literally. This is right for me but it might not be right for anyone else. I think that I had many misunderstandings about my faith and those have been cleared up. We shouldnt think that we can speak for all people because our experiences have been bad/good, etc. My Muslim friends got me to explore Islam a few years ago and it's not for me, but it is for them. Many people brand Islam with a broad brush based on the atrocities that ISIS is committing but that would be unfair. 

 

I dont really dwell on the afterlife aspect of faith in general. I didnt before I left faith or now. But I don't only see Jesus as part of a feel good faith as He spoke some harsh things at times but it's still up to an individual as to how they interpret the Bible etc. and the Bible is an outdated book, and really just a glimpse into where the teachings of Jesus came from. Faith should be a personal experience and IMO, God can't be contained or controlled by a book or religion. I don't consider myself religious as I don't attend church or belong anywhere. So, generalizations are meaningless to me because it doesn't breed understanding. Unless you just want an echo chamber where everyone agrees with each other, which to me is kind of dull.

 

Unless someone's faith tries to get into government or lawmaking or intrude into the public sphere, I'm a love and let live type. I'm totally against religion intertwining with government, but people assume that because I follow some teachings of Christianity that I somehow subscribe to what other Christians are doing, and I'm not. If anything, those Christians aren't following the Bible because it was clear on keeping religion and government matters, separate. Lol Anyway, what is most awesome about where I'm at with my faith is that I'm open to other beliefs without feeling afraid to explore or agree. Like with being open minded to some things in pantheism or Zen, etc. 

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and if we disagree at times, that's ok I think. As long as it's done with respect :)

 

Thanks for clarifying. This is an interesting situation you have going on. I don't mean disrespect per the intellectual atheism thing, it's just an observation. You seem confused on different issues and that's really where the help part comes into play. You don't sound like you're a fan of the christian spiritual snobbish attitude. We can use pantheism to compare with christianity in terms of depth and scope from a spiritual perspective. In fact, technically there are panentheistic attitudes found within some christianity. But the fundies regard that as apostate, as you probably know. Most liberal christian ideas that mix and match new age or other cultures are regarded as heretical and apostate. So right up front you have that going for you. But regardless of what conservatives think or label, pantheism is quite superior to their own views in very specific ways. There's more reading along than are participating, so forgive me if I digress or over explain something. Our discussion may be beneficial to someone reading along.  

 

Let's look at the christian idea of god. An omni-present god is not omni-present unless it's everywhere and everything. The Nicean Creed declares that god is both immanent (here) and transcendent (out there). That makes sense in terms of being omnipresent, because that means present everywhere. But it's an awful thing to face for those trying to use christianity as a political means of social manipulation. You can not coerce and manipulate people when the said people have a firm understanding of what omnipresent, immanent and transcendent even means in the first place. So christianity diverts to something that claims to be omnipresent, but actually turns out to be something less than omnipresent. Because truly omnipresent undermines their political agendas. They want to maintain the idea of a bad guy to rally people against. 

 

So we find a situation where the simplest explanation is that christianity should be at least panentheistic (god is the universe and beyond) due to it's beliefs about god, but operates in a state of denial. They don't really believe that god is omnipresent, immanent and transcendent when it comes down to it. And it's because you loose the light battling darkness conflict as illusory and not real. They're torn between these beliefs in god which are panentheistic and the story line character of Jesus waging a war against the forces of darkness in a dualistic type of way. There must be an enemy, things must appear discrete and separated. How do you herd people around when the people have an authentic panentheistic mind set? God would have to be Jesus and the devil all at once. All of it would have to be god.

 

But instead the story of Jesus is a call for both love and hate, depending on the attitude of the people creating the story. In one instance he's the prince of peace, in another instance he's not here to bring peace on earth but the sword. One of the things that are not very literal about the bible, is Jesus. That's actually one of the most non-literal parts of christianity. Stripped down bare by academic theologians there's not much of anything left. And of what's left, there's those who even question that. It's a story, Jesus is a combination of different personality types, prophets and god-men of the pagan world and it comes out contradictory because it's a complete work of fiction set to an historical sounding setting. And it's childish to some other people in the world, from a deeper spiritual perspective. 

 

How is god omnipresent without being both sides of any conflict simultaneously? 

 

A deeper spiritual perspective advances beyond that type of contradiction. The gods are symbolic of states of consciousness. There's an unbroken unity of interconnection. That's omnipresent. That's immanent and transcendent. When you find division, you find a red flag from a deeper spiritual insight. Enlightenment comes from seeing through the divisions to the undivided. You have to look outside of christianity to achieve that. There's nothing in the way of undivided to be found there. It's a religion for dualistic thinkers which falls short when compared to the world spirituality spectrum. Bold claims of christian spiritual superiority, are and have always been a complete bluff. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
47 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

 

I think we here may understand what someone like Richard Dawkins doesn't, and he doesn't understand simply because he has never been in our position.

 

LF, I have a lawyer girlfriend who has never believed in god even as a child. She said as she sat in Sunday school as a little girl, she thought it was all made up. She just shrugs her shoulders when I tell her how hard it was to give up believing. She has never believed, therefore she doesn't have the burden to try and un-believe. She does not laugh at me at all and thinks it is just terrible how they brainwash children. She is a very high intellectual person and made all straight A's as a child and throughout her schooling right up until she became a lawyer. She told me in her own words, ''I just never fell for it''. To her, it was like Santa Claus....just a fantasy and she said she had no idea why she felt that way as a child? And I agree that Richard might have a hard time seeing what some people go through because I think he is probably the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
4 hours ago, Margee said:

 

LF, I have a lawyer girlfriend who has never believed in god even as a child. She said as she sat in Sunday school as a little girl, she thought it was all made up. She just shrugs her shoulders when I tell her how hard it was to give up believing. She has never believed, therefore she doesn't have the burden to try and un-believe. She does not laugh at me at all and thinks it is just terrible how they brainwash children. She is a very high intellectual person and made all straight A's as a child and throughout her schooling right up until she became a lawyer. She told me in her own words, ''I just never fell for it''. To her, it was like Santa Claus....just a fantasy and she said she had no idea why she felt that way as a child? And I agree that Richard might have a hard time seeing what some people go through because I think he is probably the same way.

 

That is a real interesting story. I've wondered about that very thing. Kids are smart these days. I wonder how many kids have never fell for it in the first place?

 

On the feeling empty thing, I've some how gotten by without that feeling. It was actually the reverse. I felt more empty with christianity and when I broadened my horizons thereafter I felt more full and complete. As for eternity, eternity is not a long time. It's not yet to come. Eternity is right now. That's something that Campbell helped me understand. And my favorite quote from Alan Watts comes from his Out of Mind series. He's going through a series of analogies and then cuts in with, "what you are, basically, deep deep down, far, far in - is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself..."

 

That's so true. And existence itself is beginning less, endless, omnipresent, transcendent and immanent. There's no fixed origin for existence. If we allow our minds to associate our existence with what it actually is deep down, namely the eternal expanse itself, we are that right now as we live and breathe. The eternal realm itself formed up into various men and women, children and animals, the elements, the earth itself and whole universe. Deep pantheist philosophy doesn't feel empty to me, it feels full, very full. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This line is worth 1000 up votes. Imagine a world in which everybody thought like this. That's the world we need to work towards. 

 

So for myself do I follow a different faith? No, I have no need to, I don't seem to have any particular spiritual needs. And I'm ok with that. Deidre has found her way back to Christianity after having an experience that is meaningful for her and she's ok with that. And we both understand and respect each others position even though we disagree on some points (God) and are perfectly ok with that too. :)

 

I think we may have had a meeting of the minds.

 

Like Margee, I too understand why people hold on to belief, or find new beliefs. It's part of being human.

 

I think we here may understand what someone like Richard Dawkins doesn't, and he doesn't understand simply because he has never been in our position. I think this understanding gives a richer view of the whole topic of faith.

I understand your thoughts to it. But, to me...I'm not holding onto a belief, it's holding onto me. That's what's changed. 

 

Richard Dawkins...lol the super atheist evangelist, if there is such a label. As an atheist, he didn't speak for me. That's the thing, people may label themselves this or that, but it might not represent how we view ourselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Thanks for clarifying. This is an interesting situation you have going on. I don't mean disrespect per the intellectual atheism thing, it's just an observation. You seem confused on different issues and that's really where the help part comes into play. You don't sound like you're a fan of the christian spiritual snobbish attitude. We can use pantheism to compare with christianity in terms of depth and scope from a spiritual perspective. In fact, technically there are panentheistic attitudes found within some christianity. But the fundies regard that as apostate, as you probably know. Most liberal christian ideas that mix and match new age or other cultures are regarded as heretical and apostate. So right up front you have that going for you. But regardless of what conservatives think or label, pantheism is quite superior to their own views in very specific ways. There's more reading along than are participating, so forgive me if I digress or over explain something. Our discussion may be beneficial to someone reading along.  

 

Let's look at the christian idea of god. An omni-present god is not omni-present unless it's everywhere and everything. The Nicean Creed declares that god is both immanent (here) and transcendent (out there). That makes sense in terms of being omnipresent, because that means present everywhere. But it's an awful thing to face for those trying to use christianity as a political means of social manipulation. You can not coerce and manipulate people when the said people have a firm understanding of what omnipresent, immanent and transcendent even means in the first place. So christianity diverts to something that claims to be omnipresent, but actually turns out to be something less than omnipresent. Because truly omnipresent undermines their political agendas. They want to maintain the idea of a bad guy to rally people against. 

 

So we find a situation where the simplest explanation is that christianity should be at least panentheistic (god is the universe and beyond) due to it's beliefs about god, but operates in a state of denial. They don't really believe that god is omnipresent, immanent and transcendent when it comes down to it. And it's because you loose the light battling darkness conflict as illusory and not real. They're torn between these beliefs in god which are panentheistic and the story line character of Jesus waging a war against the forces of darkness in a dualistic type of way. There must be an enemy, things must appear discrete and separated. How do you herd people around when the people have an authentic panentheistic mind set? God would have to be Jesus and the devil all at once. All of it would have to be god.

 

But instead the story of Jesus is a call for both love and hate, depending on the attitude of the people creating the story. In one instance he's the prince of peace, in another instance he's not here to bring peace on earth but the sword. One of the things that are not very literal about the bible, is Jesus. That's actually one of the most non-literal parts of christianity. Stripped down bare by academic theologians there's not much of anything left. And of what's left, there's those who even question that. It's a story, Jesus is a combination of different personality types, prophets and god-men of the pagan world and it comes out contradictory because it's a complete work of fiction set to an historical sounding setting. And it's childish to some other people in the world, from a deeper spiritual perspective. 

 

How is god omnipresent without being both sides of any conflict simultaneously? 

 

A deeper spiritual perspective advances beyond that type of contradiction. The gods are symbolic of states of consciousness. There's an unbroken unity of interconnection. That's omnipresent. That's immanent and transcendent. When you find division, you find a red flag from a deeper spiritual insight. Enlightenment comes from seeing through the divisions to the undivided. You have to look outside of christianity to achieve that. There's nothing in the way of undivided to be found there. It's a religion for dualistic thinkers which falls short when compared to the world spirituality spectrum. Bold claims of superiority, are and have always been a complete bluff. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I'm not a conservative, not a liberal, not a creationist, not a fundamentalist, yet I follow Jesus' teachings, and also glean positive points from a variety of other faiths, some stemming from eastern thought. The label next to my avatar wasn't put there by me, so when I see ''authentic Christian believer'' ...I'm not sure the label fits, because what does that mean? I'm a more moderate Christian.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me, it helps to get a sense of where people are coming from, here. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
14 minutes ago, Deidre said:

I understand your thoughts to it. But, to me...I'm not holding onto a belief, it's holding onto me. That's what's changed. 

 

I was thinking of my parents/family when I posted that. In your case you seem to understand the problems with a lot of the beliefs of Christians, but have come to a belief system that reconciles what you know with the God you believe in.

 

Regarding your reply to Josh, maybe you are a free thinking Christian? It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but might be possible. :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 minute ago, Deidre said:

 

Well, I'm not a conservative, not a liberal, not a creationist, not a fundamentalist, yet I follow Jesus' teachings, and also glean positive points from a variety of other faiths, some stemming from eastern thought. The label next to my avatar wasn't put there by me, so when I see ''authentic Christian believer'' ...I'm not sure the label fits, because what does that mean? I'm a more moderate Christian.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me, it helps to get a sense of where people are coming from, here. 

 

 

They just label all christians with it. You reconverted and got the label. 

 

This is more action than the spirituality section has seen in a long time. Apparently it's very dead compared to other forums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
10 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I was thinking of my parents/family when I posted that. In your case you seem to understand the problems with a lot of the beliefs of Christians, but have come to a belief system that reconciles what you know with the God you believe in.

 

Regarding your reply to Josh, maybe you are a free thinking Christian? It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but might be possible. :D

 

My friend Robert calls himself a christian atheist, so go figure. He doesn't want to just kick the christian label, even though he believes god is a metaphor and analogy for natural existence, the universe, etc. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I was thinking of my parents/family when I posted that. In your case you seem to understand the problems with a lot of the beliefs of Christians, but have come to a belief system that reconciles what you know with the God you believe in.

 

Regarding your reply to Josh, maybe you are a free thinking Christian? It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but might be possible. :D

LMAO!!! Maybe. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

My friend Robert calls himself a christian atheist, so go figure. He doesn't want to just kick the christian label, even though he believes god is a metaphor and analogy. 

LOL Hmmm....there has to be something more to it, for him to consider himself a ''Christian'' atheist. Ask him to join here and tell us. lol :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Quote

... yet I follow Jesus' teachings ...

Just to keep it real, people can and will only follow SOME of the teachings attributed to the Jesus character. It's called Cafeteria Christianity for good reason.

 

For example: https://godisimaginary.com/i19.htm

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, florduh said:

Just to keep it real, people can and will only follow SOME of the teachings attributed to the Jesus character. It's called Cafeteria Christianity for good reason.

 

For example: https://godisimaginary.com/i19.htm

 

 

Absolutely!

 

I follow Jesus' teachings too...

 

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" - Matthew 7:12

 

"Love your neighbor as yourself" - Mark 12:31

 

That doesn't make me a Christian though. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
19 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Let's look at the christian idea of god. An omni-present god is not omni-present unless it's everywhere and everything. The Nicean Creed declares that god is both immanent (here) and transcendent (out there). That makes sense in terms of being omnipresent, because that means present everywhere. But it's an awful thing to face for those trying to use christianity as a political means of social manipulation. You can not coerce and manipulate people when the said people have a firm understanding of what omnipresent, immanent and transcendent even means in the first place. So christianity diverts to something that claims to be omnipresent, but actually turns out to be something less than omnipresent. Because truly omnipresent undermines their political agendas. They want to maintain the idea of a bad guy to rally people against. 

 

So we find a situation where the simplest explanation is that christianity should be at least panentheistic (god is the universe and beyond) due to it's beliefs about god, but operates in a state of denial. They don't really believe that god is omnipresent, immanent and transcendent when it comes down to it. And it's because you loose the light battling darkness conflict as illusory and not real. They're torn between these beliefs in god which are panentheistic and the story line character of Jesus waging a war against the forces of darkness in a dualistic type of way. There must be an enemy, things must appear discrete and separated. How do you herd people around when the people have an authentic panentheistic mind set? God would have to be Jesus and the devil all at once. All of it would have to be god.

 

But instead the story of Jesus is a call for both love and hate, depending on the attitude of the people creating the story. In one instance he's the prince of peace, in another instance he's not here to bring peace on earth but the sword. One of the things that are not very literal about the bible, is Jesus. That's actually one of the most non-literal parts of christianity. Stripped down bare by academic theologians there's not much of anything left. And of what's left, there's those who even question that. It's a story, Jesus is a combination of different personality types, prophets and god-men of the pagan world and it comes out contradictory because it's a complete work of fiction set to an historical sounding setting. And it's childish to some other people in the world, from a deeper spiritual perspective. 

 

How is god omnipresent without being both sides of any conflict simultaneously? 

 

A deeper spiritual perspective advances beyond that type of contradiction. The gods are symbolic of states of consciousness. There's an unbroken unity of interconnection. That's omnipresent. That's immanent and transcendent. When you find division, you find a red flag from a deeper spiritual insight. Enlightenment comes from seeing through the divisions to the undivided. You have to look outside of christianity to achieve that. There's nothing in the way of undivided to be found there. It's a religion for dualistic thinkers which falls short when compared to the world spirituality spectrum. Bold claims of christian spiritual superiority, are and have always been a complete bluff. 

 

 

 

 

 

Josh, thanks for taking the time to describe some of the differences between Pantheism and Christianity, and why you believe Pantheism (a form of spiritual atheism) is superior.  I read it several times, but my ability to understand philosophical concepts is not nearly as good as I wish it were, so please excuse my dimness while I ask a few questions...

 

Are you saying that Christianity's claim of an omni-present God is in conflict with the existence of both good and evil (whether evil is represented by a godlike being - Satan - or simply the fact that bad shit happens in spite of God's Omni-presence)?  Or are am I missing the mark here? 

 

As a rather non-spiritual atheist (who was previously a rather non-spiritual Christian!), I have not felt anything missing in my life.  Christian spirituality strikes me as weak tea, yet I am beginning to think that you have latched onto something valuable and now I am intrigued.  I know you have spent years reading and thinking about these things, and that what you have gained cannot happen overnight, but for somebody interested in dipping his toes in the water of spiritual atheism, do you have any suggestions for books or other resources?  Maybe a Spiritual Atheism for Dummies...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
Quote

ThereAndBackAgain wrote: "That doesn't make me a Christian though." 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

But at the same time it makes most if not all christians, not actually christian. And I'm good with that. Christianity is deluded to that level, to where probably everyone who calls themselves christian is so far removed from what christianity must have been at the outset, that it's hardly even christian any more. Robert and I have both come up with reformation ideas for christianity. But that seems a loosing game. There's so much wrong with it that it's hard to reform unless you're intellectually dishonest at some point. For instance, just taking the sensible parts and dumping the insensible parts. That's intellectually dishonest. The Jefferson Bible is a nice try, but intellectually dishonest to the writings.

 

I have questions about what's next? The idea and need for christians to mix and match beliefs, take some but not all of Jesus' teachings, and pretty much cherry pick a palatable rendition of christianity seems too similar to what we know of christian origins out of judaism. The christians, as we've demonstrated several times in other forums, were cherry picking judaism with quote mines / midrash. And it became so out of tune with judaism that it eventually was recognized as it's own belief system, something new altogether. Is there any reason to think that that might not repeat itself again? The early christians didn't consider themselves not jewish. At least not according to the surviving stories. They thought they were reforming judaism in ways that it needed reform.

 

I'm playing seer, or mystic here and visualizing a future where people not very different from Deidre's example become an entirely new belief system beyond that of traditional christianity, even though based out of christianity from the outset. This would be different than the Mormons, SDA's and Jehovah's Witness because they aren't taking in eastern religion and world belief outside of christianity in the way that modern people right now are doing. That would be the difference. Not a new denomination, an entirely new religion. They'd be entirely different from christianity in terms of their relationship and views about our modern world of blooming atheism and freethought. They'd long to maintain friendships and acceptable status among non-believers instead of trying to buck and ridicule them. This is basically forming up all around us right now, if you pay close attention with the history of religious revolution and evolution in mind. I'm not trying to say that it will happen like it did 2000 years ago, but the ingredients are there for it do so. I bet that sounds scary to christians, anti-christ NWO kinda stuff. And that's likely how they would attack it.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

Josh, thanks for taking the time to describe some of the differences between Pantheism and Christianity, and why you believe Pantheism (a form of spiritual atheism) is superior.  I read it several times, but my ability to understand philosophical concepts is not nearly as good as I wish it were, so please excuse my dimness while I ask a few questions...

 

Are you saying that Christianity's claim of an omni-present God is in conflict with the existence of both good and evil (whether evil is represented by a godlike being - Satan - or simply the fact that bad shit happens in spite of God's Omni-presence)?  Or are am I missing the mark here? 

 

As a rather non-spiritual atheist (who was previously a rather non-spiritual Christian!), I have not felt anything missing in my life.  Christian spirituality strikes me as weak tea, yet I am beginning to think that you have latched onto something valuable and now I am intrigued.  I know you have spent years reading and thinking about these things, and that what you have gained cannot happen overnight, but for somebody interested in dipping his toes in the water of spiritual atheism, do you have any suggestions for books or other resources?  Maybe a Spiritual Atheism for Dummies...

 

 

On the first question, I've leave an informative video in addition to answering: 

 

 

In particular around 14:00 and forward he's touching on an important point. Originally it was god or at least the gods who brought or controlled both good and evil. And that makes sense with respect to omnipresence. You can literally see where this became uncomfortable for ancient peoples and they started trying to separate god from the totality. It's right there as an evolution of thought over time. So my point is that christianity all this time later, arose in an already state of conflict with an omnipresent god on one hand, and a crusade led by Jesus against perceived evil on the other.

 

What's really good and what's really evil when you have a god that's supposed to be everywhere (omni) present, both in the universe and beyond (immanent and transcendent)?

 

What is the meaning of Jesus' crusade against the forces of darkness if Jesus is the omnipresent god incarnate, which is also necessarily present in darkness as present everywhere? Omni consists of all the light and all the darkness, or it isn't something less than Omni. 

 

Here's a cross reference to an eastern religious experience that Joseph Campbell had while visiting India. How does eastern mysticism approach the same issue of an all pervading divinity? Campbell went around testing gurus with questions in order find some one he could have this deep principle mystical discussion with. He was eventually introduced to Sri Krishna Menon who had been a police officer but was also regarded as a great saint over there. This guy had experienced some shit in life as a police officer, but was a reagarded as a very spiritual minded man of Hindu beliefs. They sit down and Menon askes Campbell if he has a question. So Campbell hits him with this hard question about good and evil. Campbell says something to the effect of: 

 

'If as we know, all things are Brahman, are this divine and eternal energy, why then do we renounce vice? Why do we renounce vulgarity? Why is it that we do not see the divine light of the eternal shinning through even the most horrific, the most terrifying and the most dark? 

 

Menon replied, 'For you and me, that is where it is.' 

 

And so he passed Campbell's test and they went on to discuss things from an entirely enlightened perspective free and clear of dualistic thinking. And not everyone in India was that honest. He had to seek out some one with the where with all to even go there, even in India where this is a logical conclusion based on their mythology of the Brahman energy, which is omnipresent, immanent and transcendent. Even in India, there's what people believe and profess, and then there's what people are willing to stomach as far as taking these beliefs to their logical conclusion. This mystical discussion seems to suggest that both good and evil are only a dualistic (divided) perception of the non-dual (undivided) transcendent (great beyond). These philosophical terms are something that I'll toss around without hesitation. I'll use theistic language to hammer home the point I'm trying to make to theists.  

 

What it means is that everything stripped down bare amounts to eternal existence itself. If we imagine that everything that we see is in various rates of vibration, if we turned the vibration down it would all melt back into something of the primary substance of existence, what looks divided would melt down to undivided. And that's basically the eternal. That which necessarily has always been and will always be. Everything, bar none, arises from it and returns to it. This is very advanced spiritual thinking in comparison to christianity. 

 

Can you see how the christian version of omnipresence, immanent and transcendent looks so childish and immature in retrospect? So full of holes and contradiction.  

 

This is an example of how some one can become spiritually immune to christian proselytizing. This is in edition to being intellectually immune to christian proselytizing. Good verses evil, nonsense. It's all a matter of perspective. Hell fire or pearly gates in an afterlife? What does that even mean with respect to omnipresence? Does god punish and reward itself through this elaborate ruiz of hide and seek? What is the meaning of Revelation with respect to omnipresence for that matter? 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that completely following Jesus is hard, but it’s in the striving to want to be like Jesus, that makes one a Christian. It’s not works, by themselves…but faith and works. Oh gosh, this is reminding me of Sunday school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

John 14:12-14New International Version (NIV)

12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

 

So this part isn't true? Are you even trying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, florduh said:

John 14:12-14New International Version (NIV)

12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

 

So this part isn't true? Are you even trying?

I am trying, actually. Following Jesus doesn't mean someone will be sin free, or perfect. It means striving...

Wow, we all seem to interpret Scripture differently. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Quote

Wow, we all seem to interpret Scripture differently. lol

Therein lies the fatal flaw.

 

This begs the question, "What is the definition of a Christian?" Is it one who believes Jesus is the Son of God and born of a virgin? Is it someone who believes as true everything that Jesus purportedly said? Is it one who has given everything to the poor? Is "salvation" a requirement for one to aspire to the label? Is it one who regularly attends a Christian church? Is it one who takes Communion? Is it one who simply asserts the claim?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i guess I don't understand why if someone finds Christianity to be meaningless for him/her, why that same person assumes everyone should just take their opinions as facts and also find it meaningless?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.