Fundamentals

[Antlerman]

 

1) Do you think God would ever want you to suspend a talent given to you called reason? Would "he" give it to you and tell you not to use it, but to believe some one else's interpretation instead of thinking for yourself? If something is true, it can be tried and tested through analytical thinking, and what would be wrong with that? It could be that sometimes we have to revise our beliefs as a "truth", as we mature individually and as a society, don't you think? (I'm not necessarily saying the Bible is wrong, just maybe consider the way we interpret it may be wrong sometimes.)

I couldn't have said it any better. I'm going to be touching on this in my fuller response to Freeday later, but I wanted to say I like what you have to say.

 

Freeday, I will be responding to your main question to me earlier in another response later, but that one will take more time that I have right now. (If you think the previous ones were involved!! Kidding, I'll try to keep them shorter, but these are complex issues that do not have super-simple answers, like the McDonald's super value menu of the fundamentalists try to sell us as the answers for these questions. It's kind of laughable actually).

 

In the mean time, you really didn't answer Amanda's question above in your later response. I'd also like to hear how you feel rational thought needs to be denied in order to believe? I'd argue it doesn't.

 

BTW, your saying Christians are supposed to have "Blind Faith": I'm sure your Pastor would cringe to hear you say that. That is a very liberal way of looking at faith. Blind Faith is the deliberate suspension of rational thought in order to have an "upper story", NON-RATIONAL experience. Fundamentalism views Faith as being placed in credible evidence, they say things like "the Resurrection is the most well attested to historical fact in the world". Blind Faith says, "Despite knowing these things are not real events of history, I will believe in spite of that." Ask your Pastor how he feels about Kierkegaardian Existentialism? This is not the message of fundamentalist/literalist thought.

 

I'll get to my response to you as soon as I can.

[Antlerman]

Yes, and I think it is obvious when the National Motto became, "In God We Trust". What motive is there to that motto other than using God to serve the US? This was a political move to tell the world that God is on our side.

Yes, it was a political statement under Eisenhower done to deliberately contrast the U.S. against Communism, the "godless" state, using the name of God as a symbol of our righteousness as a country. In many regards today it seems to have now had the effect of setting itself up as a competition even to Christ in Christianity, as it makes Patriotism and Country on par with reverence to God in a new "Civil Religion".

 

The article I mentioned in my long post above about that Pastor here in the Twin Cities is a clear example of how many in the church equate their spirituality with the state. There's a guy where I work whose office if full of symbols of crosses along with lovingly placed photos of Ronald Regan. Edit: Add to this the overhead lights are off in his office, and he has glowing Christmas lights strung around the photos, creating this almost shrine-like feel to the whole place. It's really quite creepy

 

I'll mention something more about Civil Religion later in my response to freeday, when I can around to that much time.

[Amanda]

Yes, it was a political statement under Eisenhower done to deliberately contrast the U.S. against Communism, the "godless" state, using the name of God as a symbol of our righteousness as a country.

 

Don't you think just about every western society has done that... the government and the religous right have been giving religion their own twist and then using it for their own advantages?

[freeday]

but that is not what christianity is about. it is about having a blind faith, someone to turn to during hard times, someone to give us strength to keep moving forward when all we want to do is shut down. recieving forgiveness that no other source can give. and a hope that someday, despite how hard our lives may have been, we will rejoice on streets of gold in the end.

 

Freeday,

 

I can understand where you are coming from. I used to be where you are. The thing is, I no longer believe that sin actually exists. No sin, no need for forgiveness. I used to look for outside confirmation of my actions, now I know the only forgiveness I can truly recieve is from myself.

 

And while I can see how the promise of future "streets of gold" can help you through tough times, I can't help but think it robs a person of truly experiencing today.

 

I have the same strength I used to, the same resolve during hard times to keep going in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The difference is that now, I know these resources come from me and not from any external source...

 

IMOHO,

 

now that is an interesting coment. as long as i can remember, i have called immoral behavior sin. i don't think i could even separate the two.

 

i am happy for you and sad at the same time. i am glad that you are doing well, but sad that you don't have the same beliefs that i do. it's kind of messed up.

[freeday]

1. you are assuming that all people have the talent to preach, which i do not. i have a confidence in our pastor. he has a Phd in biblical theology. he is wise beyound my years. i enjoy learning from his experiences. just asking, what points of my interpretation would you consider wrong, and the reason behind it?

Freeday, no, I'm not assuming that at all. I suppose a spiritual teacher is one that fits a person's specific growth at that time of their life. I agree that it can be beneficial to listen to those whom we perceive as having more wisdom than our self. I'm not saying that you're wrong about anything, I just don't understand how, it seems to me, a lot of us do and have suspended reason to accept many 'fundamentalist' concepts. Also, I'm curious to know how one can accept this:

but that is not what christianity is about. it is about having a blind faith,

This, to me, seems to also say that one needs to suspend 'reason' and I don't see any advantage to that. Just because I don't see it doesn't mean there is not a valid purpose... I just don't know what it is.

 

and a hope that someday, despite how hard our lives may have been, we will rejoice on streets of gold in the end.

I'm curious to know if you take that literally or metaphorically speaking? IF you do take it literally, I'm wondering how you justify that with reason, my friend?

 

spelling is my weak point, plus when i wrote it, i was at work and in a hurry. you will know if i have been drinking, i curse a lot.

Yeah, math is my weakness... so maybe that is why I'm having a hard time figuring these things out?

However, if spelling is your weakness... when you come on here drinking... maybe you won't be spelling your curse words right?

 

i beleive the streets of gold to be a metaphor, i take a lot of the bible as a metaphor. i think it is hard to reason religion. lets face it, Son of God, walking on water, healing the blind, raising from the dead. these are not things of human reason. you have to have faith that there is a higher power (which i don't think to be unreasonable), then you have to have faith that the higher power is the one described in the bible (this becomes more of a personal preference). if you believe that Jesus is the higher power, then it is not unreasonable.

[freeday]

Antlerman: there are plenty of things that can reason that a higher power exists, since no one was present 2000 yrs ago, we have to take the gospels word that they are giving us the facts. so to imply that christianity is fact and the complete truth is almost absurd. this is probably a ploy trying to reach people who want all the answers or something. i would best describe my faith in Jesus' quote blessed is he who believes and has not seen.

[Amanda]

i beleive the streets of gold to be a metaphor, i take a lot of the bible as a metaphor. i think it is hard to reason religion. lets face it, Son of God, walking on water, healing the blind, raising from the dead. these are not things of human reason. you have to have faith that there is a higher power (which i don't think to be unreasonable), then you have to have faith that the higher power is the one described in the bible (this becomes more of a personal preference). if you believe that Jesus is the higher power, then it is not unreasonable.

 

Freeday, I think there is a higher power also. Additionally, I think these concepts attributed to "Jesus" are an embodiment of a Spirit we call holy, what some hold sacred. We agree on many things. What I like about this site, is its ability to promote critical thinking to make a more insightful decision... and as it says in the Bible, people die from lack of knowledge. How could the truth be a bad thing, right?

 

IF Jesus did those things literally, which, btw, I think he may have done some of those things literally... just remember, he said whatever he did, we too can do and even greater things! Therefore, it can not be 'magic'. Again, I'm not saying the Bible is wrong, just maybe the way we've interpreted it through the years may have errors. I am curious to know how you think we too can accomplish some of these same things literally? Also, if you think there was a divine intervention from this higher power, why doesn't it happen today?

[Skankboy]

i am happy for you and sad at the same time. i am glad that you are doing well, but sad that you don't have the same beliefs that i do. it's kind of messed up.

 

Ditto...

 

"Sin" implies an absolute morality exists in humankind. An universal "internal moral" compass if you will. In my studies of other cultures and religions, I've found not one act or idea that is considered immoral in every civilization throughout time. Not one!

 

On several occassions here I've challenged, not just christians, but everybody to come up with even one example. And everytime thus far, I've been able to find an example where it was considered a "normal" behavior in some place or time....

 

IMOHO,

[Antlerman]

Antlerman: there are plenty of things that can reason that a higher power exists, since no one was present 2000 yrs ago, we have to take the gospels word that they are giving us the facts. so to imply that christianity is fact and the complete truth is almost absurd. this is probably a ploy trying to reach people who want all the answers or something. i would best describe my faith in Jesus' quote blessed is he who believes and has not seen.

Stil no time for my other reply, so the easy first. What are you saying in this post above? I can't really tell. Are you saying you think it is absurd to think the Gospels as absolute truth, or are you saying we should take them at the word since we weren't there 2000 years ago? Your sentences are really not too clear in this post.

 

In the chance that you are saying since we weren't there 2000 years ago we should just accept them, then we should also accept the Gospel of Judas which shows that Judas was commissioned by Jesus secretly to betray him in order to accomplish the will of God in releasing him from his earthly body into his heavenly one, a very gnostic idea. Judas was the highest of the Apostles. Since we weren't there, we should also accept this as the real story?

 

Please clarify your paragraph for me. It doesn't compute.

[freeday]

Antlerman: there are plenty of things that can reason that a higher power exists, since no one was present 2000 yrs ago, we have to take the gospels word that they are giving us the facts. so to imply that christianity is fact and the complete truth is almost absurd. this is probably a ploy trying to reach people who want all the answers or something. i would best describe my faith in Jesus' quote blessed is he who believes and has not seen.

Stil no time for my other reply, so the easy first. What are you saying in this post above? I can't really tell. Are you saying you think it is absurd to think the Gospels as absolute truth, or are you saying we should take them at the word since we weren't there 2000 years ago? Your sentences are really not too clear in this post.

 

In the chance that you are saying since we weren't there 2000 years ago we should just accept them, then we should also accept the Gospel of Judas which shows that Judas was commissioned by Jesus secretly to betray him in order to accomplish the will of God in releasing him from his earthly body into his heavenly one, a very gnostic idea. Judas was the highest of the Apostles. Since we weren't there, we should also accept this as the real story?

 

Please clarify your paragraph for me. It doesn't compute.

 

in the previous statement you were talking about christianity being fact and the only truth as stated by fundamentalist. i was simply saying that there is no way posible (short of Jesus' second coming) to absolutely prove christianity is the truth.

 

i am saying that christianity involves a certain amount of blind faith. there are no eye witness alive today to attest to the fact that the 4 gospels are absolute truth. you just have to have a blind faith that it is.

 

my first sentence was implying that you can reasonable and logically deduce thier is a creator,(not quit prove there is a God, but give a definite probability that one exists) past that you have to have a faith that your religion is the most pleasing one to the creator.

 

does this help.

[Amanda]

i am saying that christianity involves a certain amount of blind faith. there are no eye witness alive today to attest to the fact that the 4 gospels are absolute truth. you just have to have a blind faith that it is.

Freeday... you're really a nice guy! You seems so genuine and open, and I always like seeing you around.

 

Now this 'blind faith', I have a problem understanding that.

 

Why can't we just use our God given ability to analyze these gospels, and let these teachings stand on their own veracity? Why would God give us a lesson and then hide all the evidence? What purpose would God have to suspend reason and to believe blindly? Wouldn't that be like looking through the dark, instead of in the light?

 

BTW, I do believe there are some wonderful teachings in there, and through the interpretations of allegories and metaphors, there is veracity to these teachings... just as there are in Buddhism, Suffis, Wiccas, Shamanism, and many more. It just doesn't make sense that God would only reveal himself to the western civilization, IMO. I'm curious to know that if a literal view does not stand in reason/light, therefore in darkness, what benefit does it have?

[freeday]

i am saying that christianity involves a certain amount of blind faith. there are no eye witness alive today to attest to the fact that the 4 gospels are absolute truth. you just have to have a blind faith that it is.

Freeday... you're really a nice guy! You seems so genuine and open, and I always like seeing you around.

 

Now this 'blind faith', I have a problem understanding that.

 

Why can't we just use our God given ability to analyze these gospels, and let these teachings stand on their own veracity? Why would God give us a lesson and then hide all the evidence? What purpose would God have to suspend reason and to believe blindly? Wouldn't that be like looking through the dark, instead of in the light?

 

BTW, I do believe there are some wonderful teachings in there, and through the interpretations of allegories and metaphors, there is veracity to these teachings... just as there are in Buddhism, Suffis, Wiccas, Shamanism, and many more. It just doesn't make sense that God would only reveal himself to the western civilization, IMO. I'm curious to know that if a literal view does not stand in reason/light, therefore in darkness, what benefit does it have?

 

 

thank you, i don't think the evidence is hidden, it has just been forgoten, Jesus' rising was the end all evidence. yet the people did not believe he had risen during that era, how much harder is it for us to believe he has risen 2000 yrs later. that is what i mean by blind faith, i think anyway.

 

as far as the western culture, his plan was revealed first in isreal. it is the western culture that beleives now. i once saw a chart of christians and demographics. as the years passed, christianity spread further and further from the center at which it had started.

 

as far as the literal view. i think there are teachings in the bible that should be taken literally, some metaphorically, some an overstatement. but i think the overall meaning is understood and provides a benifit.

[Antlerman]

Finally getting back to responding to this:

 

Antlerman:

 

great post. very well thought out. it is hard for me to fully understand your point. you write from a stand point where you do not believe in religion. where as i beleive in religion.

You say I write from a stand point where I do not believe in religion. I’m not sure what that would matter from the things I am saying. If you mean I am not being biased and try to make it sound like something more than it is, yes this is true. I am simply trying to assess it objectively from a cultural understanding of human societies. This shouldn’t have anything to do with whether or not I practice religion. I would expect anyone to look at these things objectively.

 

To through a wrench into your thoughts here, I would not say it is accurate for you to say I don’t believe in religion. I do believe religion has its merits in the human experience, and I would support and encourage those who find meaning for themselves in it to follow it if it makes them happy. However, I will absolutely discourage anyone from following the teachings of a religion that promotes divisiveness and intellectual suicide in the interest of protecting inflexible dogma. That is not healthy for people.

 

BTW, your use of the term Blind Faith is not what mainstream means by Blind Faith. You seem to be applying it to stubborn, willful ignorance, or “intellectual suicide”, and viewing that as a badge of honor showing you will continue to have “faith” despite overwhelming contrary evidence. More on this later.

 

To be clear, I don’t “disbelieve in religion” per se’, I just don’t find religious systems as something that works for me, and I will only argue against it when I see it violating honesty, or being unhealthy. My mother goes to church, I am very happy for her. I have no issues whatsoever with her religious beliefs. I enjoy taking time discussing these issues with you because, though I see problems with the teachings of the evangelical mindset being reflected in some of what you say, you are an honest person willing to take the time to consider your own thoughts.

 

i definitely understand your point about people sticking with the norm, maintaining a routine. it is what makes people feel comfortable. and i would venture to say that at least 50% of the people who show up at church, just go out of routine. and i would imagine that this is conservative.

I was talking more about simple choices and easy to follow rules, but you do raise a good point about routine. To be honest, I think I missed my calling in the religion I got involved with. It was a Pentecostal Fundamentalist church that had “the Truth!”. But it lacked some really good rituals!! I am a creature of habit and routines. I am an audiophile who has a high-end turntable and a growing vinyl collection. The ritual of handling the records, the jackets, the sleeves, the brushes, the table, the tonearm, etc all set the mind to the experience of the music about to be listened to.

 

Religions that are rich in routines are great for bring people out of the mundane world of their everyday lives. Evangelicalism, though as you say it does have routines of getting dressed, meeting at a certain time, bringing your Bible, singing your songs, passing the plate, listening to the sermon about passing the plate, passing the plate again, etc. , it’s not as transcendent a religious experience as having to light candles, do this, then that, then that, followed by that, etc. I guess that doesn’t have much to do with this, other that it’s something I wonder if something like that would have had enough to offer me without all the “this is the Truth!” bunk.

 

when you bring up the point about religion trying to adjust to society. what makes you think this? this is something i am having a hard time getting past. are you trying to imply that science has shot down a lot of ideas about the bible? and that christianity is trying to explain thier way out of it. is this the point you are trying to make.

No, this is not the point. In fact long before Darwin came along Augustine in the 5th century was saying it was incorrect to read the Bible literally. Science doesn’t aim to “shoot down” ideas about the Bible, but it is true that a lot of things people used to understand about the Bible have had to deal with new discoveries. None of it needs to make the Bible untrue, but one would hope that people were not married to their own ideas so much that they now have to attempt to discredit what has been agreed on to be reality. It only serves to make them as fools and to give all of us here and in the rest of world reason to loose respect for religion. They do a disservice to religion.

 

Anyway, the point I am trying to make about religion adjusting to society, I started touching on over in “The Ideal Religion” thread. Essentially, it is failing to speak to the way the culture thinks, what things are important to it, etc. It’s more a case of not knowing the questions and not offering any relevant answers, that about “compromising standards”. I’ll continue talking on this later also.

 

the church i go to would very much be a fundamentalist in thought, they preach most things that does not go (or endorse) with our changing society. yet it has grown expiditionally.

If they don’t preach to speak to the changing society, society will leave them behind, and their growth will both halt and begin to dwindle over time. A sudden peak in interest is again back to what I said about the McDonalds menu in a complex society.

 

It would be interesting to see statistics about where these people are coming from that make up this growth spurt in your congregation? What percentage are moving over from mainstream churches? What percentage are new converts? Of those, what are the cultural/socio-economic breakdowns?

 

you may say that people are seeking the middle, trying to get back to the good ole days.

That is not at all what I have been saying. Those are two separate things. Normal Distribution in statistics takes the shape of a bell curve. Society, religious beliefs, whatever will always take this shape. Fundamentalism is always on the down slopes of that curve where a smaller percentage of society makes up those numbers. In the pattern you will see a slight rise where the edges come up and go down, but the shape remains largely the same.

 

Right now you’re seeing an increase in Fundamentalism here in the States due to it being a reactionary movement against another shift in society from Modernity to Post Modernity. The “trying to get back to the good ‘old days” is not what the middle is. I am speaking of the reactionary ideas of fundamentalism. Those they are having a hard time adjusting to society are the ones pining for the good ole days = the Fundamentalists.

 

but i don't think that is what it is about. i feel that they teach a way to live your life that would most please Jesus. and if you beleive in him, wouldn't you want to do that.

Noble sentiments, but overly idealistic. Realistically, people are pleasing themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. Full circle back to the beginning.

[freeday]

You say I write from a stand point where I do not believe in religion. I’m not sure what that would matter from the things I am saying. If you mean I am not being biased and try to make it sound like something more than it is, yes this is true. I am simply trying to assess it objectively from a cultural understanding of human societies. This shouldn’t have anything to do with whether or not I practice religion. I would expect anyone to look at these things objectively.

 

To through a wrench into your thoughts here, I would not say it is accurate for you to say I don’t believe in religion. I do believe religion has its merits in the human experience, and I would support and encourage those who find meaning for themselves in it to follow it if it makes them happy. However, I will absolutely discourage anyone from following the teachings of a religion that promotes divisiveness and intellectual suicide in the interest of protecting inflexible dogma. That is not healthy for people.

 

i am sorry, i guess there is a distinction between the two, belief in religion and belief in God. i will agree with you on the divisiveness and intellectual suicide, but the inflexible dogma. not sure exactly what you meant by it, but if a person is to believe thier religion to be true, then it shouldn't be revised every century to accomodate the society norms. this is the problem i have with muslims, and mormons by adding stuff. i honnestly believe i study original words and teachings of Jesus. i guess this is what i mean by blind faith, i have no way of proving that these are the words Jesus spoke, but i believe that they are.

[freeday]

 

I was talking more about simple choices and easy to follow rules, but you do raise a good point about routine. To be honest, I think I missed my calling in the religion I got involved with. It was a Pentecostal Fundamentalist church that had “the Truth!”. But it lacked some really good rituals!! I am a creature of habit and routines. I am an audiophile who has a high-end turntable and a growing vinyl collection. The ritual of handling the records, the jackets, the sleeves, the brushes, the table, the tonearm, etc all set the mind to the experience of the music about to be listened to.

 

 

Religions that are rich in routines are great for bring people out of the mundane world of their everyday lives. Evangelicalism, though as you say it does have routines of getting dressed, meeting at a certain time, bringing your Bible, singing your songs, passing the plate, listening to the sermon about passing the plate, passing the plate again, etc. , it’s not as transcendent a religious experience as having to light candles, do this, then that, then that, followed by that, etc. I guess that doesn’t have much to do with this, other that it’s something I wonder if something like that would have had enough to offer me without all the “this is the Truth!” bunk.

 

now i am starting to understand, it was those damn skirts the pent's wear. women look much better in blue jeans i have never really attended a church that observed a lot of the rituals such as the catholics and what not.

 

 

No, this is not the point. In fact long before Darwin came along Augustine in the 5th century was saying it was incorrect to read the Bible literally. Science doesn’t aim to “shoot down” ideas about the Bible, but it is true that a lot of things people used to understand about the Bible have had to deal with new discoveries. None of it needs to make the Bible untrue, but one would hope that people were not married to their own ideas so much that they now have to attempt to discredit what has been agreed on to be reality. It only serves to make them as fools and to give all of us here and in the rest of world reason to loose respect for religion. They do a disservice to religion.

 

Anyway, the point I am trying to make about religion adjusting to society, I started touching on over in “The Ideal Religion” thread. Essentially, it is failing to speak to the way the culture thinks, what things are important to it, etc. It’s more a case of not knowing the questions and not offering any relevant answers, that about “compromising standards”. I’ll continue talking on this later also.

 

there are some questions that just can't be answered. i don't think it is the job of christianity to answer every difficult question in the world. just give us a basis for which to live our lives in accordance to God's will. i will admit people will jump through hoops trying to give a biblical based answer for every single question. some sound good, others don't.

 

 

If they don’t preach to speak to the changing society, society will leave them behind, and their growth will both halt and begin to dwindle over time. A sudden peak in interest is again back to what I said about the McDonalds menu in a complex society.

 

It would be interesting to see statistics about where these people are coming from that make up this growth spurt in your congregation? What percentage are moving over from mainstream churches? What percentage are new converts? Of those, what are the cultural/socio-economic breakdowns?

 

i don't know the statistics, i find most people i have met come from the small churches in surounding areas. now just asking, since the birth of christianity 2000 yrs ago, wouldn't it be fair to say that societies have been evolving and changing, yet still somewhere around 80% of the world believes in a God. i don't feel there is going to be a sudden, drop off in christianity. but i do feel that there will be a gradual decline, but no due to reasons that you suggest. well i guess they could be about the same, but due to a different purpose.

[Antlerman]

i am sorry, i guess there is a distinction between the two, belief in religion and belief in God.

I’ll throw you for yet another loop. It all depends upon how one defines God. If someone wants to hang all the higher aspirations of the human experience: love; peace; forgiveness; patience; compassion; selflessness; understanding; unity; knowledge; wisdom; fullness of the spirit on a language symbol “God”, then I would say I likewise believe in “God”. I just personally won’t use that as a word sign because of the huge historical connection with an primitive anthropomorphic image of some emotion-based external being-thing that releases “His” fierce anger on the poor helpless children and donkeys of a man who happens to have stolen some gold. That definition of God I reject with strong reasons. We are 3000 years beyond that sort of image of God.

 

i will agree with you on the divisiveness and intellectual suicide, but the inflexible dogma. not sure exactly what you meant by it, but if a person is to believe thier religion to be true, then it shouldn't be revised every century to accomodate the society norms.

Believe their religion to be true? All religions are true in the sense that they are true to the person who believes them. My mother finds Christianity to be true because it gives meaning to her. It is truth to her. But she also sees that Muslims have truth too. So do the Buddhist, etc. The core problem with the fundamentalist is that they think their version of truth drives out all others and religates them to falsehood. That is untruth. That is arrogant. That is offensive.

 

You need to understand that everyone believes their religion is true, but not everyone thinks it is true to the exclusion of all others. When you can wrap your mind around that, then you will truly understand how the world understands the relative nature of truth today. This is the reason why the church is failing to communicate to people today. Any attempts I have heard to assert this backwards view of truth, only serves to alienate people from them. If you claim exclusive truth, it sounds like some out of touch, ignorant throw-back from the Middle Ages.

 

As far as inflexible dogma, I mean those who are unwilling to say they could be wrong. "But it says it right here in the Bible!" I'm waving at you fundamentaists

 

this is the problem i have with muslims, and mormons by adding stuff.

Add to this list the Christians. They added as much to the Jewish beliefs as the Muslims did to both.

 

i honnestly believe i study original words and teachings of Jesus. i guess this is what i mean by blind faith, i have no way of proving that these are the words Jesus spoke, but i believe that they are.

Well you really aren’t. Scholarship will pretty much negates such a romantic notion. If you want to say scholarship is full of it, and you believe despite what knowledge shows us, then again this is not Blind Faith, but willful ignorance.

 

I should add here so you know I don't disrespect your faith. I'm only aiming to challenges those notions that I find "out of balance".

[freeday]

 

I’ll throw you for yet another loop. It all depends upon how one defines God. If someone wants to hang all the higher aspirations of the human experience: love; peace; forgiveness; patience; compassion; selflessness; understanding; unity; knowledge; wisdom; fullness of the spirit on a language symbol “God”, then I would say I likewise believe in “God”. I just personally won’t use that as a word sign because of the huge historical connection with an primitive anthropomorphic image of some emotion-based external being-thing that releases “His” fierce anger on the poor helpless children and donkeys of a man who happens to have stolen some gold. That definition of God I reject with strong reasons. We are 3000 years beyond that sort of image of God.

 

i understand, you believe in the thought of God, the symbol of him that people worship. i believe in the God of old that is unchanging.

 

Believe their religion to be true? All religions are true in the sense that they are true to the person who believes them. My mother finds Christianity to be true because it gives meaning to her. It is truth to her. But she also sees that Muslims have truth too. So do the Buddhist, etc. The core problem with the fundamentalist is that they think their version of truth drives out all others and religates them to falsehood. That is untruth. That is arrogant. That is offensive.

 

You need to understand that everyone believes their religion is true, but not everyone thinks it is true to the exclusion of all others. When you can wrap your mind around that, then you will truly understand how the world understands the relative nature of truth today. This is the reason why the church is failing to communicate to people today. Any attempts I have heard to assert this backwards view of truth, only serves to alienate people from them. If you claim exclusive truth, it sounds like some out of touch, ignorant throw-back from the Middle Ages.

 

As far as inflexible dogma, I mean those who are unwilling to say they could be wrong. "But it says it right here in the Bible!" I'm waving at you fundamentaists

 

i am caught up somewhere in the middle. yes i believe my religion to be the truth. but i don't believe everyone else to be wrong.(as long as the religion is monotheist) if that makes any sense. i look at other religions and see things that i don't agree with, but it doesn't nessicarily mean they are wrong.

 

for the record i am not a fundamentalist then. I COULD BE WRONG. don't think i am, but who knows. there i said it.

 

Add to this list the Christians. They added as much to the Jewish beliefs as the Muslims did to both.

 

this is where i disagree with you, Jesus was the fullfillment of judiasm, which transformed it into christianity. so i don't look at it as being added. a jew would say otherwise. but strangely enough, i hold the same beliefs as the jews and i think the muslims, up untill the NT.

 

 

Well you really aren’t. Scholarship will pretty much negates such a romantic notion. If you want to say scholarship is full of it, and you believe despite what knowledge shows us, then again this is not Blind Faith, but willful ignorance.

 

I should add here so you know I don't disrespect your faith. I'm only aiming to challenges those notions that I find "out of balance".

 

now just asking, what have the scholars negated in the bible. i have looked at several different posts on here with links and haven't found anything that is detrimental to the bible.

[Antlerman]

there are some questions that just can't be answered. i don't think it is the job of christianity to answer every difficult question in the world. just give us a basis for which to live our lives in accordance to God's will.

They're not speaking the same language as the world. That's the problem. If they don't know how to speak the language, they can't even understand what the question is, let alone even attempt an answer. And I'm not talking "answering every question", I'm talking something it should be able to answer like finding meaning in the world in which we live! In other words instead of understanding and speaking the language of the world, they are becoming irrelevant by reaching backwards, rather that outward.

 

"In accordance to God's will." Do you understand how irrelevant that sounds to me? Not because of my disbelief in the existence of some external god-being, but because it is simply a cultural notion saying it's from God, when it reality it's from them. Add to this, it from those who have no clue how the world thinks. They dismiss knowledge that makes them think outside the box. That's not what "God" looks like to the rest of the world, and to force your views to conform to this outdated definition will only result in a persons disconnect with themselves, being a product of their own culutres. Again, the fundi's simple answers are unsatisfying.

 

i don't know the statistics, i find most people i have met come from the small churches in surounding areas.

In other words, the growth is not due to people finding Christ, but rather shifting church homes, as I said.

 

now just asking, since the birth of christianity 2000 yrs ago, wouldn't it be fair to say that societies have been evolving and changing, yet still somewhere around 80% of the world believes in a God.

Not the God that burns little children. You see what I mean?

 

i don't feel there is going to be a sudden, drop off in christianity. but i do feel that there will be a gradual decline, but no due to reasons that you suggest. well i guess they could be about the same, but due to a different purpose.

What reason would you suggest that has the support of studies and research? May I guess? Is it because people prefer to live godless, sinful lives rather than obey God? I hope your answer has more substance that this which I have heard too many times before, with the effect of zero satisfaction to reason.

[Antlerman]

i am caught up somewhere in the middle. yes i believe my religion to be the truth. but i don't believe everyone else to be wrong.(as long as the religion is monotheist) if that makes any sense. i look at other religions and see things that i don't agree with, but it doesn't nessicarily mean they are wrong.

 

for the record i am not a fundamentalist then. I COULD BE WRONG. don't think i am, but who knows. there i said it.

I knew there was a reason I care to talk with you!

 

this is where i disagree with you, Jesus was the fullfillment of judiasm, which transformed it into christianity.

The Muslims view Islam as the correction and fulfillment of both. Little difference. It’s ALL based on theology. There are as many compelling arguments for Islam as there is for Christianity, as there is for Judaism. I find viewing all of them as human institutions allows all the pieces of the puzzles to fit together with the typical twisting and bending necessary in theology. The truth is man.

 

so i don't look at it as being added. a jew would say otherwise. but strangely enough, i hold the same beliefs as the jews and i think the muslims, up untill the NT.

You don’t hold the same beliefs as the Jews. Have any brats on the grill this summer?

 

Well you really aren’t. Scholarship will pretty much negates such a romantic notion. If you want to say scholarship is full of it, and you believe despite what knowledge shows us, then again this is not Blind Faith, but willful ignorance.

 

I should add here so you know I don't disrespect your faith. I'm only aiming to challenges those notions that I find "out of balance".

 

now just asking, what have the scholars negated in the bible. i have looked at several different posts on here with links and haven't found anything that is detrimental to the bible.

Goodness. I didn’t say scholarship has negated the Bible. You said you are reading Jesus original words. What I said is in response to that. I’ve said many times, that the Bible is true, but not as a literal, historical, scientific record. It is true as a work of human expressions of spiritual ideas in the language of metaphor and mythology. Whether someone finds meaning in those “truths” is of course dependent on cultural views and personality traits. But the point remains, scholarship reveals to orgins and the nature of the Bible writings, and they don't match what you said.

[freeday]

i wouldn't look at it as people want to live Godless, sinfull lives. i think that people forget about him, and he becomes less and less important in thier lives as time passes, then it gets to a point where it becomes routine not to worship him. then people get comfortable in their distant relationship with God.

 

i think most people are born with an instinct to comply with the societies norms, in don't think people want to live immoral lives regardless of religous beliefs, or lack of them.

 

i think christianity can provide the answers to the meaning of the world by using the bible (which i guess would be reaching back). i understand your skeptisism of the saying "in accordance to God's will", because this could be alahs will, buhda's will, God's will.

 

but if you come to the conclusion thier is a higher power, don't you want to find a religion that will explain him to you, not just wonder around in the dark.

[Antlerman]

i wouldn't look at it as people want to live Godless, sinfull lives. i think that people forget about him, and he becomes less and less important in thier lives as time passes, then it gets to a point where it becomes routine not to worship him. then people get comfortable in their distant relationship with God.

I suppose that might be true with people who were part of a religion for purely social reasons, in which case they are not really forgetting about God, but the lifestyles and practices of the Christian culutre. It sort of like, when you break up with a long term relationship you have to break the patterns and routines established surrounding that person, until in time you no longer have those rituals associated with them.

 

But in the case of those like us who were very much seeking meaning, truth, fulfillment, etc, it's less a case of "forgetting about God", as it is being disappointed in the offerings of the system and abandoning it in the quest for meaning and answers that do speak to our questions. I would not ever say at any point that I am "comfortable in their distant relationship with God." That same drive that took me to look to the Church has never left me and there is nothing distant about that at all in me.

 

For me I would say that I feel more freed from the shackles of the religious insistance on "The Truth" found in their theological definitions of God that box in all that idea stands for, than living "outside the church". Reality is that I am infinitely more alive than stuck in a relationship that hardly addressed the basic needs of my heart or intellect. That's vastly different than being comfortable with a distant relationship with God.

 

i think most people are born with an instinct to comply with the societies norms, in don't think people want to live immoral lives regardless of religous beliefs, or lack of them.

Agreed.

 

i think christianity can provide the answers to the meaning of the world by using the bible (which i guess would be reaching back).

Disagreed. If it could it would.

 

BTW, I don't consider using the Bible for spiritual insights is the same as what I mean by nostalgia or the fundamentalist turning back the clock. What I mean by reaching back, is to dismiss the legitamacy of the knowledge of the world today in favor of notions of any previous culture. The Bible has plenty of timeless axioms, but also plenty of things that cannot be applied to today's world. The world is not static, and to say the Bible applies in everything to all time is a fallacy.

 

but if you come to the conclusion thier is a higher power, don't you want to find a religion that will explain him to you, not just wonder around in the dark.

Right there in red is the reason you and others are attracted to fundamentalism, and why it utterly failed for me! You're trying to define the undefinable. You're trying to make the menu choices simple. However, the meal is mediocre food. Any attempt to do so has put God in a box and limits the potential for the human spirit, and furthermore put the power of the knowledge of God into the hands of individuals who run the system.

 

"Wander around in the dark" is propeganda from those who want to perserve their hold of the definitions of God. It is hardly wandering around in the dark. It is a boundless exploration of the human spirit that in unchained by saying No to theology. All the axioms of being born again, etc applies equally to all points of major spiritual insights in the human experience anywhere in the world. Franky, I chuckle that my "salvation" happened when I left the church.

[NotBlinded]

but if you come to the conclusion thier is a higher power, don't you want to find a religion that will explain him to you, not just wonder around in the dark.

When you put aside the image of God that man has created, you will then find God. I have come to understand what Jesus meant when he said to be as little children. IMO, he meant to forget everything that you have been taught and to look at the world as a child sees it before they have been taught how to see it. They are not worrying about tomorrow or yesterday, they are living for that very moment with no preconceived notions about anything. Jesus also talks about this in the sermon on the mount. "See how the flower grows, it toils not"...etc. God isn't in the description. There is no need to fear not knowing. It is when your mind is quite is when you will feel God's presence. Once again...IMO.

[Amanda]

When you put aside the image of God that man has created, you will then find God, IMO. I have come to understand what Jesus meant when he said to be as little children. IMO, he meant to forget everything that you have been taught and to look at the world as a child sees it before they have been taught how to see it. They are not worrying about tomorrow or yesterday, they are living for that very moment with no preconceived notions about anything. Jesus also talks about this in the sermon on the mount. "See how the flower grows, it toils not"...etc. God isn't in the description. There is no need to fear not knowing. It is when you mind is quite is when your will feel God's presence. Once again...IMO.

 

NBBTB, that is so insightful, IMO!

 

Don't you think that people are at different levels in their spiritual journeys? When ever the student is ready, the teacher appears? It seems that people are probably where they are suppose to be. It is probably not 'meant' to be, that all are to be at the same place. Of course there seems to be different paths too, which I think end in the same place. The only aspect I see as detrimental is the condemnation of another's beliefs... unless it hurts someone or is the forcing of it on others. Then again, it seems okay to ask someone to analyze the rationale supporting their beliefs, that seems like a perfectly valid thing to do.

 

Also, it seems to me... Freeday has been about the most open minded fundamentalist to come here. Am I right?

 

And it's not because he's just being agreeable either!

[NotBlinded]

"Wander around in the dark" is propeganda from those who want to perserve their hold of the definitions of God. It is hardly wandering around in the dark. It is a boundless exploration of the human spirit that in unchained by saying No to theology. All the axioms of being born again, etc applies equally to all points of major spiritual insights in the human experience anywhere in the world. Franky, I chuckle that my "salvation" happened when I left the church.

Hey Amanda...I think Antlerman just said what I said but in a different way! Isn't this cool? A child that has not been taught these preconceived notions isn't "wandering around in the dark" at all! They are wondering at the light.

 

By the way Antlerman and Amanda...y'all rock! (Hey...I'm an Okie)

 

Oh, and yes Amanda, freeday is trying very hard to listen to us and he address us with respect. If I came here when I believed as he does...well...you could just call me !!!111!!11!11!!! :-}

 

Oh, also Amanda, I think that once everyone does come to this 'same place', that is what is meant by Heaven on earth. That at first glance sounds like an arrogant thing to say, but I'm not saying that there is any one certain path that will lead one to this destination. I chose Heaven on earth because I am familiar with it...just a path, but not the only one indeed. Heck, I think they are all saying the same thing!

[NotBlinded]

BTW, I don't consider using the Bible for spiritual insights is the same as what I mean by nostalgia or the fundamentalist turning back the clock. What I mean by reaching back, is to dismiss the legitamacy of the knowledge of the world today in favor of notions of any previous culture. The Bible has plenty of timeless axioms, but also plenty of things that cannot be applied to today's world. The world is not static, and to say the Bible applies in everything to all time is a fallacy.

Through my studies, I have found there are four purposes a myth serves:

 

Mystical

Physical

Sociological

Psychological

 

The physical and sociological conditions have expanded, changed and/or been clarified through time. This part is not needed of an ancient myth. It needs to be updated or remembered for what it was. One thing it can't do is to be applied to today's society.

 

The psychological aspect can still be applied today, but some adjustments need to made because of the different sociological state that we now reside in. Although, for the most part, I would think that it is still valuable as it is if we can put ourself in a similar situation. It has great importance in trying to understand the reasons we do things and respond to situations the way we do.

 

What we are left with is what is timeless: The mystical aspect. This is nothing but wonder and ahh-haa moments that we all share and can explore because there is no description of it. Like you said, it is definately not wandering around in the dark at all. It is awe inspiring and it really doesn't matter what myth you read. If one can understand the purpose of the myth, their mind will never be restrained.