One God Vs Three Gods - Proof The Bible Has Been Corrupted.

[freeday]

notblindedbytheblight: in reading what you said, i was thinking to myself, this sounds like it makes perfect sense. i can understand how you could read and interpret it this way. then begs the question, who is right? or better, does it matter? this somewhat fits into my own idea of a loving and forgiving God. fuck, i am so confused, i can't even type!!

 

antlerman: i have read up on some of the cultural history, somebody posted a good site about it the other day, i think thier name started with a T., can't remember now.

 

i have been doing OK, well that is pretty much a lie, i am homeless, living with my family. enough said. waiting on them to finish my new house, they are taking forever.

[freeday]

OK, i am better now, when you look at each individaul point of how Jesus could be God and break each down point by point. you could argue that he is not God. but i am not ready to be a jew yet. i think when you look at it as a whole, you still get the resounding image that Jesus is Lord. what is easier, to forgive a man of his sins or to make him walk? now that is assuming the gospells are correct. and antlerman and others who look at the historical aspects and culture of the relavent times could easily provide skepticism of the gospels account. but through all this, not even related to the topic of discussion. my idea of a litteral hell is slipping further and further away. the amount of evidence that discredits the idea of Jesus being God is significantly amounting. so how could God send someone to hell for not believing him to be God. i completely understand how someone could not believe he is Lord. it does make perfect sense to me, but i am unable to shed my Xian blinders.

 

antlerman: in rereading your post, yes i would say that i have a modalistic monarchi approach to the trinity. it makes more sense to me.

[Antlerman]

OK, i am better now, when you look at each individaul point of how Jesus could be God and break each down point by point. you could argue that he is not God. but i am not ready to be a jew yet. i think when you look at it as a whole, you still get the resounding image that Jesus is Lord. what is easier, to forgive a man of his sins or to make him walk? now that is assuming the gospells are correct. and antlerman and others who look at the historical aspects and culture of the relavent times could easily provide skepticism of the gospels account. but through all this, not even related to the topic of discussion. my idea of a litteral hell is slipping further and further away. the amount of evidence that discredits the idea of Jesus being God is significantly amounting. so how could God send someone to hell for not believing him to be God. i completely understand how someone could not believe he is Lord. it does make perfect sense to me, but i am unable to shed my Xian blinders.

 

antlerman: in rereading your post, yes i would say that i have a modalistic monarchi approach to the trinity. it makes more sense to me.

Hi freeday. You sound exhausted. You know it has taken me 20 years to get to the place I am today, and frankly it's really been in the last year and a half that I have really be exploring new understandings of all these questions on this level I am today. It largely happened after I found this site and started talking about all these thoughts that had been simmering in my mind and heart over these last 20 years since I left the church.

 

I love this site to be able to process and formulate my thoughts to myself as I try to articulate them to others. I've really covered a lot of new ground in talking with you and it's been really great for me. It's funny in a way, I feel like I've moved up many major hurtles one after another in the last several months in particular.

 

I really have had no interest in destroying yours or anyone else's faith. I only fight against narrow or irrational thinking that isn't necessary for any belief or point of view, and dogmatic rigidness which I feel strangly against as it blocks that person from realizing the potentials of their own lives, and the beauty of others in the world. It seems this is a frustrating and probably confusing time for you, but of course you are where you are because you were not finding satisfaction in that system. We all know that place.

[freeday]

OK, i am better now, when you look at each individaul point of how Jesus could be God and break each down point by point. you could argue that he is not God. but i am not ready to be a jew yet. i think when you look at it as a whole, you still get the resounding image that Jesus is Lord. what is easier, to forgive a man of his sins or to make him walk? now that is assuming the gospells are correct. and antlerman and others who look at the historical aspects and culture of the relavent times could easily provide skepticism of the gospels account. but through all this, not even related to the topic of discussion. my idea of a litteral hell is slipping further and further away. the amount of evidence that discredits the idea of Jesus being God is significantly amounting. so how could God send someone to hell for not believing him to be God. i completely understand how someone could not believe he is Lord. it does make perfect sense to me, but i am unable to shed my Xian blinders.

 

antlerman: in rereading your post, yes i would say that i have a modalistic monarchi approach to the trinity. it makes more sense to me.

Hi freeday. You sound exhausted. You know it has taken me 20 years to get to the place I am today, and frankly it's really been in the last year and a half that I have really be exploring new understandings of all these questions on this level I am today. It largely happened after I found this site and started talking about all these thoughts that had been simmering in my mind and heart over these last 20 years since I left the church.

 

I love this site to be able to process and formulate my thoughts to myself as I try to articulate them to others. I've really covered a lot of new ground in talking with you and it's been really great for me. It's funny in a way, I feel like I've moved up many major hurtles one after another in the last several months in particular.

 

I really have had no interest in destroying yours or anyone else's faith. I only fight against narrow or irrational thinking that isn't necessary for any belief or point of view, and dogmatic rigidness which I feel strangly against as it blocks that person from realizing the potentials of their own lives, and the beauty of others in the world. It seems this is a frustrating and probably confusing time for you, but of course you are where you are because you were not finding satisfaction in that system. We all know that place.

 

i do love this site too. it has been a real eye opener. i never really had the opportunity to really discuss religous points of views with other people, becuase most every one around here believes the same thing. but i do thank you for beating the dogmatic rigidness out of me. i finally understand why you were saying that some aspects of christianity are unhealthy for the mind and spirit.

[freeday]

ok guys and gals , this is an interesting conversation we are having whether Jesus is Lord. so in continuing with the theme, i will add to the problem with not looking literally as Jesus being lord.

 

in searching i found an interesting argument. i found a pretty massive list, which is supposed recorded outside the bible of numerous martyrs in the 1st century that died for what they believed in. http://www.allaboutfollowingjesus.org/chri...persecution.htm

 

the argument goes, why would someone die for a lie. if this was a conspiracy that people made up after christ's death, why would they die for it. this makes sense to me. could they have known for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was lord and savior, and that was there reason for believing it to the grave. you won't see me throwing my neck on the line for the truth, much less a lie.

[♦ ficino ♦]

hi, freeday. First of all, good luck with your house. It must be tough living with relatives and waiting for what are the usual construction delays and overruns to be dealt with. I'm waiting for the new apt. my new boyfriend and I bid on to get to contract (held up in estate of owner's father).

 

You know, I went from Protestantism to Catholicism (not that you will want to do that necessarily!) partly because of the sort of questions you and Antlerman and others have debated on here. Once you get into them you realize that the bible isn't just dropped out of heaven. It was written by people who were already privy to much more extensive discussions orally among their communities. Some books of the NT even allude to earlier ones. This gradually led me to wonder why Protestants tend to hold the bible over against the church. In fact it's the church that already was chugging along, created the bible, decided what books to adopt into the bible, had a tradition of interpretation already that guided how to read the bible and how to select what writings to consider inspired.... I don't think there's any way to figure out Christological or Trinitarian theology just on one's own from the bible alone. You inevitably end up a heretic. I think the stories in the bible and its message were designed back then to lead converts to the church, which then taught the whole teaching. So that's why Catholics, Orthodox and many Episcopalians and Lutherans stick pretty closely with tradition as a guide to understanding the bible - esp. parts like the Gospel of John, with lots of language that can be construed to yield more than one conclusion about Jesus' exact relationship with the Father.

 

I'm an atheist now but that's because I think christianity as a whole is false, not because I was disappointed as a Catholic as such.

 

When I was in graduate school a professor of mine recommended C.H. Dodd who wrote a big book about The Fourth Gospel. I never finished it, though! But you may want to dip into some commentaries. If you're really smoking, it's also worth while to read commentaries by notable figures of the early church like St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, etc. Quite a different take than what you get in many modern ones!

 

You and I had a brief exchange about "circular reasoning" and the flood but I don't remember what thread it was on. do you?

 

Take care

[freeday]

hi, freeday. First of all, good luck with your house. It must be tough living with relatives and waiting for what are the usual construction delays and overruns to be dealt with. I'm waiting for the new apt. my new boyfriend and I bid on to get to contract (held up in estate of owner's father).

 

You know, I went from Protestantism to Catholicism (not that you will want to do that necessarily!) partly because of the sort of questions you and Antlerman and others have debated on here. Once you get into them you realize that the bible isn't just dropped out of heaven. It was written by people who were already privy to much more extensive discussions orally among their communities. Some books of the NT even allude to earlier ones. This gradually led me to wonder why Protestants tend to hold the bible over against the church. In fact it's the church that already was chugging along, created the bible, decided what books to adopt into the bible, had a tradition of interpretation already that guided how to read the bible and how to select what writings to consider inspired.... I don't think there's any way to figure out Christological or Trinitarian theology just on one's own from the bible alone. You inevitably end up a heretic. I think the stories in the bible and its message were designed back then to lead converts to the church, which then taught the whole teaching. So that's why Catholics, Orthodox and many Episcopalians and Lutherans stick pretty closely with tradition as a guide to understanding the bible - esp. parts like the Gospel of John, with lots of language that can be construed to yield more than one conclusion about Jesus' exact relationship with the Father.

 

I'm an atheist now but that's because I think christianity as a whole is false, not because I was disappointed as a Catholic as such.

 

When I was in graduate school a professor of mine recommended C.H. Dodd who wrote a big book about The Fourth Gospel. I never finished it, though! But you may want to dip into some commentaries. If you're really smoking, it's also worth while to read commentaries by notable figures of the early church like St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, etc. Quite a different take than what you get in many modern ones!

 

You and I had a brief exchange about "circular reasoning" and the flood but I don't remember what thread it was on. do you?

 

Take care

 

it was on the "has this been debunked" thread under the colosseum.

 

you are right, the church came before the book. the religion created the book, so i guess it would be futile to use the book to define the religion. i am really working on this. it is hard to break out of the "it is the infalable word of God" shell i have grown up in.

 

sometimes i just want to read the book and come to my own conclusion. but how is this possible when a religioin choose the book. you would have to agree with the religion for choosing the book in the first place. not sure exactly what i am saying, or even if you will understand me.

 

i guess in a nutshell. how can we know what is written in the gospells is what really happened. i guess that is why i brought up the point of the martyrs.

 

and to top it off, i have spent most of the night reading why jews don't believe in Jesus. they provide a lot of the same arguements you guys do. and they provide a convincing argument might i add. after all this time, i thought you guys were athiest, you are really jews.

[♦ ficino ♦]

sometimes i just want to read the book and come to my own conclusion. but how is this possible when a religioin choose the book. you would have to agree with the religion for choosing the book in the first place. not sure exactly what i am saying, or even if you will understand me.

I understand exactly, freeday. This is one of the main points Catholics bring up when they try to show that the Reformation went too far and threw out the baby with the bath water. The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura, i.e. "(by) scripture alone," does not meet its own requirements, because that principle is not taught in scripture. In fact the NT gives the picture of there being a larger, more complete teaching, of which scripture gives the major part but doesn't claim to be exhaustive. The NT also warns against interpreting scripture by one's own private judgment apart from the church's tradition of teaching. But the principle of private judgment is exactly what drives protestantism. Its result is two thousand or more denominations. Surely that result is not consistent with the picture of the early church you get even in the NT.

 

 

and to top it off, i have spent most of the night reading why jews don't believe in Jesus. they provide a lot of the same arguements you guys do. and they provide a convincing argument might i add. after all this time, i thought you guys were athiest, you are really jews.

 

heh heh. don't worry, I'm an atheist. Putting on tefillin makes my arm hurt too much.

[Antlerman]

ok guys and gals , this is an interesting conversation we are having whether Jesus is Lord. so in continuing with the theme, i will add to the problem with not looking literally as Jesus being lord.

 

in searching i found an interesting argument. i found a pretty massive list, which is supposed recorded outside the bible of numerous martyrs in the 1st century that died for what they believed in. http://www.allaboutfollowingjesus.org/chri...persecution.htm

 

the argument goes, why would someone die for a lie. if this was a conspiracy that people made up after christ's death, why would they die for it. this makes sense to me. could they have known for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was lord and savior, and that was there reason for believing it to the grave. you won't see me throwing my neck on the line for the truth, much less a lie.

My understanding of the early martyrs were firstly, that it was only a few rare instances under certain circumstances, then became widespread in the 3rd century under the Emperor Decius. Of those early ones, it was less about dying for Jesus as it was not being given offical sanction to not particpate in the civil ceremonies of sacrificing to the state. The Jews were excluded from this because of a long history and them being an established religion that was odd about these sorts of things.

 

The Christians on the otherhand were not on the same level. They would be considered a cult whose refusal to sacrifice without official recognition and license would be to threaten the control of the state. It would have been considered being a trator. So really, it wasn't about believing in Jesus, but not being recognized as an established religion that petetioned for exemption from these practices.

 

This is a much better look at it then the one from the apologists site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...hy/martyrs.html

 

So the question "would someone die for a lie"? Well, what were they dying for? That Jesus was God? That Jesus was Christ? Really, to me the early Christians were dying because they felt they were obeying gods law by not sacrificing - just like the Jews didn't. But what does it mean?

 

People die all the time for beliefs. That death speaks only to the conviction of the beliefs, not the validity of it. "Allahu Akbar" the terrorist shouts as he detonates his explosive belt killing babies and children in the name of God. That only means he believed it enough to die for it, not that what he believed was fact.

[NotBlinded]

OK, i am better now, when you look at each individaul point of how Jesus could be God and break each down point by point. you could argue that he is not God. but i am not ready to be a jew yet. i think when you look at it as a whole, you still get the resounding image that Jesus is Lord. what is easier, to forgive a man of his sins or to make him walk? now that is assuming the gospells are correct. and antlerman and others who look at the historical aspects and culture of the relavent times could easily provide skepticism of the gospels account. but through all this, not even related to the topic of discussion. my idea of a litteral hell is slipping further and further away. the amount of evidence that discredits the idea of Jesus being God is significantly amounting. so how could God send someone to hell for not believing him to be God. i completely understand how someone could not believe he is Lord. it does make perfect sense to me, but i am unable to shed my Xian blinders.

freeday...I'm sorry. I don't want to confuse you. And dear, you wouldn't be a Jew if Jesus wasn't god in the literal sense. You would find that God doesn't belong to an 'idea' that describes 'It'.

 

I'll try saying it this way:

 

What is relevant when you read the bible, or any religious book, is to look at it with respect to the truth, not the ego. When the words become your story and you find yourself identifying with a story, the words become meaningless. It is in this manner that when you take your story as truth, the other story will become wrong. This is the ego and it is not the truth. But, when you look at the stories with no desire to find yourself, or to identify, with the story, the words will point you to the truth. The words used to describe the light by many, many people are not the truth. The light the words are pointing to is the truth.

 

Don't pick a story and claim it to be the truth, because it will lose all its meaning. Once you stop doing this, all stories become important. You will start to see the truth...and...yes...it will set you free. Free from feeling that you have to choose one story over the other. Free from the turmoil the attachment to a story can cause you. You will have no desire to show which one is right. You will start to notice that when Paul (I think) speaks of the Christ nature, that he is speaking about the same essence inside us all as the Buddhists do when they say the Buddhist nature. You will also see the same essence when the Hindus speak of Atman, the indwelling God nature.

 

They are all stories that are trying to point to the indescribable divine. Don't hold onto to the story...the divine isn't the story.

 

The question, "who is right" becomes unimportant. That is the ego. They are all right when understood as they should be.

 

I like you man....

[NotBlinded]

the argument goes, why would someone die for a lie. if this was a conspiracy that people made up after christ's death, why would they die for it. this makes sense to me. could they have known for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was lord and savior, and that was there reason for believing it to the grave. you won't see me throwing my neck on the line for the truth, much less a lie.

I can think of a couple ways this could happen.

 

They did believe it freeday...they believed the story. Just as the ones that crucified Jesus believed their story. This is what happens when egos clash. If one story contains the truth, as seen through the ego, then this automatically makes someone else wrong. This is why Jesus said, "forgive them for they know not what they do." He understood that they believed they were right and he was wrong...which is a far cry from the truth. They took their story to be the truth because they took the story and made it God. Jesus was not preaching exclusivity.

 

They may have also known the 'truth' about who he was. He was the beacon, of their time, that lead them to the light. He was their lord and savior, but not as perceived through the ego. You just have to look at that with a different perspective. Not the perpsective that creates enemies by claiming the one and only truth, but the one that knows the truth of what the words lord and savior means.

[freeday]

ok guys and gals , this is an interesting conversation we are having whether Jesus is Lord. so in continuing with the theme, i will add to the problem with not looking literally as Jesus being lord.

 

in searching i found an interesting argument. i found a pretty massive list, which is supposed recorded outside the bible of numerous martyrs in the 1st century that died for what they believed in. http://www.allaboutfollowingjesus.org/chri...persecution.htm

 

the argument goes, why would someone die for a lie. if this was a conspiracy that people made up after christ's death, why would they die for it. this makes sense to me. could they have known for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was lord and savior, and that was there reason for believing it to the grave. you won't see me throwing my neck on the line for the truth, much less a lie.

My understanding of the early martyrs were firstly, that it was only a few rare instances under certain circumstances, then became widespread in the 3rd century under the Emperor Decius. Of those early ones, it was less about dying for Jesus as it was not being given offical sanction to not particpate in the civil ceremonies of sacrificing to the state. The Jews were excluded from this because of a long history and them being an established religion that was odd about these sorts of things.

 

The Christians on the otherhand were not on the same level. They would be considered a cult whose refusal to sacrifice without official recognition and license would be to threaten the control of the state. It would have been considered being a trator. So really, it wasn't about believing in Jesus, but not being recognized as an established religion that petetioned for exemption from these practices.

 

This is a much better look at it then the one from the apologists site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...hy/martyrs.html

 

So the question "would someone die for a lie"? Well, what were they dying for? That Jesus was God? That Jesus was Christ? Really, to me the early Christians were dying because they felt they were obeying gods law by not sacrificing - just like the Jews didn't. But what does it mean?

 

People die all the time for beliefs. That death speaks only to the conviction of the beliefs, not the validity of it. "Allahu Akbar" the terrorist shouts as he detonates his explosive belt killing babies and children in the name of God. That only means he believed it enough to die for it, not that what he believed was fact.

 

i understand your piont here. they could have been dying for the right to worship, not for the cause of Jesus. similiar to the cival rights movement in the sixties. i wouldn't lay my life down for pres. bush, but i would to defend our country. there is a distinct difference. but the point the article brought up, is that some of the earliest martyrs knew Jesus personally, or had been a witness to them. making them a martyr for the cause of christianity.

[freeday]

notblindedbytheblight: wow. you are right, there are always two sides to the story. maybe it was how they percieved what he said when teaching. maybe they plucked certian stories and teachings to go with what they thought. and maybe they were corrupted due to passing time. most will account for the authorship of the gospels being between 60-100 AD. so at least 30 yrs after Jesus' crucifiction. i can't remember what someone said yesterday, much less 30 yrs. later.

 

but i have this problem. i want to know the truth. i don't think i would call it an ego thing, but more of a security blanket. but do i turn a deaf ear to what could be the truth (or a good moral lesson), because my ego keeps me from believing it.

 

in your first response, this is a difficult concept to grasp. but i think what you are saying is, what matters most from the story, is the lesson you learn from it. that the story shouldn't be used to defend every little thing as if you were in a court of law.

 

don't appologize for confusing me. there is nothing wrong with challenging someone's preconcieved ideas. i was just frustrated, couple of things going on in my personall life that is wearing me down. but it will be allright in about 1 month.

[Antlerman]

i understand your piont here. they could have been dying for the right to worship, not for the cause of Jesus. similiar to the cival rights movement in the sixties. i wouldn't lay my life down for pres. bush, but i would to defend our country. there is a distinct difference. but the point the article brought up, is that some of the earliest martyrs knew Jesus personally, or had been a witness to them. making them a martyr for the cause of christianity.

The thing I just want to point out about that article is the way they make all sorts of unsupported assumptions and conclusions that don’t stand up at all. Let me demonstrate so you can see what I mean:

 

This is dramatic, since they all witnessed the alleged events of Jesus and still went to their deaths defending their faith. Why is this dramatic, when many throughout history have died martyred deaths for a religious belief? Because people don’t die for a lie. Look at human nature throughout history. No conspiracy can be maintained when life or liberty is at stake. Dying for a belief is one thing, but numerous eye-witnesses dying for a known lie is quite another.

They’re setting this up that if wasn’t true, then it’s a conspiracy. Is there no other possibility that an outright, devious, malicious lie? When you frame the argument like that you’re misleading the reader into seeing the “logic” of your conclusions.

 

How many people followed Jim Jones in death by drinking his magic Kool-Aid? You see, they were eye-witnesses too who were all too happy to die for their beliefs. There was no conspiracy to maintain there. How many other’s throughout the history of the world have willing laid down their lives for their beliefs in some leader, or some messiah? There would nothing unique about a personal disciple of some Judean preacher willing to die for his beliefs in his leader. They are right, they would not have died for a lie – but were they beliefs supportable by objective evaluations? Were the beliefs of Jim Jones? (I’m not making a direct comparison of him and Jesus, only on how faith motivates people to their own deaths).

 

I’ll call this sort of argument they present as logical illogic. Frankly, it’s just plain intellectual dishonesty.

 

but i have this problem. i want to know the truth. i don't think i would call it an ego thing, but more of a security blanket. but do i turn a deaf ear to what could be the truth (or a good moral lesson), because my ego keeps me from believing it.

I have to respond to this comment you made to NB. Boy, do I understand what this means!! I could go on about this for sixty thousand posts.

 

It the most difficult thing to come to the place where you recognize that truth, on this level, is really totally subjective. There are “objective” realities… sort of. Those being more scientifically arrived at where two or more people can agree on the validity of understanding something outside major influences of subjective biases, like the “reality of gravity”. But when it comes to interpreting what something “means”, that is very subjective. If anything on this level can be called “truth”, it would be this statement: The only truth is there is no truth. Frankly it’s about what is truth for the individual, an agreed upon truth by a culture, and then an agreed upon truth independent of a culture, which would be a scientific reality.

 

In ALL these realities, “truth” is constantly subject to change. It is never static.

 

Granted some truths seem immutable, such as the natural forces of gravity, but there may be a place or time where that reality may not apply. Certainly on a personal level truth is always in flux. Good night! If I look back to the reality of the world to me 20 years ago versus the reality of the world to me today… it’s a night and day difference. Cultural realities are likewise ever and always evolving. Some truths may seem or feel immutable as a perception of human society, but there a plenty of examples where even these truths do not apply and other truths take their place.

 

The only true security blanket people will every find is “the insecurity blanket”. All the rest is an illusion. Honestly, I know that sound frightening as hell, but once we let go of an external truth and look inward, then we actually find it - at that moment in time. The only truth is there is no truth.

 

Truth doesn’t exist by itself that we need to go find or come to know. We create truth. We find truth in ourselves. Truth is what works. What works, becomes truth. We change, cultures change, knoweldge changes, truths change with us.

[freeday]

Antlerman: "The only truth is there is no truth."

 

the more i research, the more i think, the more this statement becomes as significant as the gravitational pull of the sun. and now i understand how difficult it was for people to deconvert. i feel like a lightning bolt is going to strike me down and send me to eternal hell for my doubts.

 

but, what if there isn't an illusion. i personally don't think science will ever be able to explain what caused the big bang, or abiogenisis. so this leaves you to wonder. what if? but that also raises the ego question someone brought up earlier. maybe it doesn't matter if i am wrong, maybe humanity created hell, maybe there is no heaven to try to please God to get too. so this leaves the question, you can't prove there is or isn't a God. so i can't see how you would accept there isn't one. and i do honnestly feel that there was a human named Jesus born in isreal 2000 yrs ago. there is plenty of secular and nonsecular evidence of him. so we can't be for sure exactly what his purpose was. it does sound romantic that he was here to save us. this makes me like the idea of him.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman: "The only truth is there is no truth."

 

the more i research, the more i think, the more this statement becomes as significant as the gravitational pull of the sun. and now i understand how difficult it was for people to deconvert. i feel like a lightning bolt is going to strike me down and send me to eternal hell for my doubts.

The difficulty is in conceptualizing the world with a different framework of language. It’s retraining your thought habits to a new paradigm. That fear of hell popping up is a sense of unsure footing being exploited by your old thoughts trying to keep itself valid.

 

It’s like quitting smoking; you make yourself afraid you can’t survive without that cigarette nearby to rescue you. The addiction has a voice of its own masquerading as your own voice. It’s your insecurity freaking you out. Once you quit smoking you realize how strong you really were and that you were being lied to by your own fears and addictions.

 

but, what if there isn't an illusion. i personally don't think science will ever be able to explain what caused the big bang, or abiogenisis. so this leaves you to wonder. what if? but that also raises the ego question someone brought up earlier. maybe it doesn't matter if i am wrong, maybe humanity created hell, maybe there is no heaven to try to please God to get too. so this leaves the question, you can't prove there is or isn't a God. so i can't see how you would accept there isn't one.

Well, that’s a huge question. I think the easiest way to explain this for me is that I am open to all possibilities. I will never say there is proof God doesn’t exist. That would not be true. What is true is that God’s existence (if he exists), is not self-evident. What evidences are offered are all logic based and faith based arguments. There is no objective way to test and verify that the evidence is sound and reliable. It is always emotional proof.

 

I have sufficient evidence that if I don’t fill my car’s gas tank with gasoline, I will wind up being stranded on the road unable to move. This sort of knowledge has value to me as it is reliable and has real meaningful consequences for me in my daily life. The arguments for God not only do not have any real support, they have no consequences in this world in any sort of meaningful way for me either. It’s like saying to me that in addition to adding gasoline to my car, it is necessary for me to strike the trunk lid 17 times with a rubber chicken while hopping on my left foot, failure to do so will result in my car stalling on the road. Why should I act on that? Is it less meaningful to me than folding my hands, closing my eyes, and sending wishful thoughts up to the clouds in hopes of a meaningful result in this world?

 

Short answer: We also can’t proof there aren’t leprechauns, but how does that impact how I should live my life? Everything that religion offers I can get in this world without it.

 

and i do honnestly feel that there was a human named Jesus born in isreal 2000 yrs ago. there is plenty of secular and nonsecular evidence of him. so we can't be for sure exactly what his purpose was. it does sound romantic that he was here to save us. this makes me like the idea of him.

There actually really isn’t that level of evidence for him, but I won’t argue here against there being a possible real man behind the myth. Your point of the romantic ideal being appealing to you is really what the power of the story is for you. If the language and the symbology speaks to you in a meaningful way, then if it has meaning to you. For me at this time in my life it is far more a distraction than anything beneficial. Too hard to separate the baby from the bathwater on that one, but what’s more, I just may not find that approach to meaning in my life the right language for me. I respond more to artist expressions of the human spirit, and the beauty of the world. Those too are a languages of the spirit.

[freeday]

well you just answered the question right there, i have never been able to quite smoking. i guess i have a dependent personality.

 

as far as the leprechauns, it is easy to not believe in them and go about daily life. but the problem is the leprechauns don't offer that eternal gift that religion offers. this is not so easy to pass over. i fully understand that there is no objectional proof. but what about the emotional proof. what if that is the essence of God working. giving you those emotions. many people here will testify to the emotional power of religion. you find beauty and emotion from music and the world. is this more important than the persons fealings that come from religion. i would go as far to say that some preachers can speak with such power that it could be a form of art.

[Antlerman]

well you just answered the question right there, i have never been able to quite smoking. i guess i have a dependent personality.

I was a pack a day smoker and have now being a non-smoker for over 5 years. I would say I have an addictive personality also. But the power of will is stronger. Having quit I came to realize how much of a servant I was to it. It was my master, I was its slave. Now it's the other way around. I am the master and it no longer exists in my life. I am free. Quit and you'll see what I mean.

 

as far as the leprechauns, it is easy to not believe in them and go about daily life. but the problem is the leprechauns don't offer that eternal gift that religion offers. this is not so easy to pass over.

What do you mean? Finding a leprechaun can lead to untold riches in this world! Granted, it's not eternal gold, but hey, riches are riches. The point is eternal life, a pot of gold, power over your own cigarette addiction, God, leprechauns, elves, fairies, etc are symbols that motive and inspire the human heart. Who cares what the promised treasure is. It's all the same thing.

 

Can you find that sort of inspiration in life without these mythical beings? I think that's the question that you are asking.

 

i fully understand that there is no objectional proof.

Objectional proof? I think you mean objective proof.

 

but what about the emotional proof. what if that is the essence of God working. giving you those emotions. many people here will testify to the emotional power of religion. you find beauty and emotion from music and the world. is this more important than the persons fealings that come from religion. i would go as far to say that some preachers can speak with such power that it could be a form of art.

Well that's one way to look at it. Honestly, I think that's what people put the face of God on to describe that emotion. I call it our response to the universe, or our response to Life. Is my inspiration or vision that comes from music and the world more important than the person's feeling that come from religion? No. I've always said it's all the same thing. Except I would say that religion has some really nasty pitfalls to it that more than a small percentage of the time wind up ensnaring the human spirit in the dogma of the system, rather than setting it free to explore its own existence. For me, music is free. The beauty of the world is free. The only rule is respect.

 

I would agree some preachers can be quite inspired, poetic, visionary, eloquent, etc. To me one who can do this with an open mind and heart to the world is a real leader. Unfortunately, all too often what you have is eloquent politicians and sales men. Humility is the key to spiritual power, and I have yet to meet a genuinely humble charismatic preacher. They are just that - charismatic: Slick, and convincing sales men who manipulate the emotions of people like the country music "artist" (so called) who adds a splash of lost dog, broken heart, wife left, mother dies, and cute little story line designed specifically to make you emotional.

 

It's cheap tripe and not art at all. It doesn't come from the heart. Meaningful preaching, meaningful art comes from a sincere heart for the sake of the spirit alone. I see no way to achieve that when you're wrapped up in the politics of "we are right and others are wrong" of religious doctrines. In fact it is impossible to acheive that. That's why it feels "icky" to me. It's not real. It's pretend spiritual. It sickens me, rather than inspire.

[freeday]

i think you have that perception of preachers because you were once one yourself. you never fully understand the scope of someones profesion until you do it. so maybe you do have some insider knowledge. but from my perspective, every time i see my pastor, he is the nicest guy in the world. always positive and sincere. maybe it is just a front. who knows. did you come accross some really bad preachers in your workings?

 

congrats on the quiting smoking. i have no will power. foolfrums quite several years ago. but i never could. personally, i like it to much to quite. the only reason i would like to, is watching the COPD patients die once a month or so.

[Antlerman]

i think you have that perception of preachers because you were once one yourself. you never fully understand the scope of someones profesion until you do it. so maybe you do have some insider knowledge. but from my perspective, every time i see my pastor, he is the nicest guy in the world. always positive and sincere. maybe it is just a front. who knows. did you come accross some really bad preachers in your workings?

I was never a pastor. I graduated a Bible college with a degree in theology on my way into the ministry, but my doubts about the beliefs I was preaching in minor roles in the church and in my personal “witnessing” to others led me to confront head on the problems with the system I was experiencing. It was all about me being sincere in leading people to believe something I had grave doubts and concerns about.

 

In that role I had plenty of exposure to ministers and the system of religion which does open one’s eyes to the hypocrisies of many in the ministry, especially those in the Charismatic/Pentecostal world. All you need do is turn on the T.V. for a taste of their bullshit.

 

I’m not saying all preachers are slimy sales-scum, but I find those who have to lie to themselves to continue to preach to others are motivated by something I despise – insincerity. To continue to believe something that requires someone with that level of knowledge to perform a self-lobotomy in order to convince themselves sufficiently enough to sell it to others to support their business/ministry, is to me selling your soul and lying to humanity.

 

Those ministers who are sincere and have a genuine, and humble heart I will respect. But again I find it hard to see how someone can hold to exclusivist views and not have their heart poisoned by them. Those views will diminish the power of love for themselves in their attitudes to the world and to humanity outside the walls of their exclusive cult. Ministers who are not inflexible and dogmatic in the beliefs are far more likely to understand what love is. Ministers like your pastor, if they are sincere men should take care that to not take a position of insistence on their beliefs being the Truth and all other beliefs “wrong” if they hope to continue to have any value to the world.

 

congrats on the quiting smoking. i have no will power. foolfrums quite several years ago. but i never could. personally, i like it to much to quite. the only reason i would like to, is watching the COPD patients die once a month or so.

“I like it too much”. That’s your addiction speaking to you. Honestly, your breath smells like shit, and so does your hair and all your clothes. The pores of your skin leak the reeking stench of stale tobacco in the morning, and your hands are yellow stained by the pollution that comes off the garbage the industry sticks in the roll of paper you put in your lips. You offend the senses of everyone you come within 3 feet of. You taste only half the flavor of food, and you can barely smell anything in the air that gives rise to the inspiration of the spirit.

 

Do you like that “too much” to quit?

 

Quit! Do it now before you do serious damage to your body. Your missing life being slave to the disease of smoking. The cigarette lies to you.

[Abiyoyo]

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

 

 

It says in the Nt that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit without measure. That means that the Holy Spirit of God, was upon Jesus without any limitations. Ex: Ellijah, Moses, Samson, etc. these are some examples of men from the Ot that are directly related to any portion of Gods Spirit, just being upon them.

 

Moses parted the red sea, Elijah cast fire down from the heavens, Samson collapsed a building with his hands. Also, on a different scale; there were some to the likes of Samuel, Eli, Isaiah, etc. that also had a portion of this same Spirit upon them in the prophecies by God, and other related attributes that didnt necessarily involve extreme, almost unbelievable acts.

 

Yet, here is Jesus, being acclaimed to the healings and miracles, along with His overall authoritive representation of His Father. Also in conjunction with the I am statements and statements directed toward His authority from the Father.

 

Most modern day evangelist give credit of heirness to Jesus, because He claimed to be from the Father. All I say is that when Jesus referred to His Father, the scriptures also say that the Spirit lead Him to the desert, in which He encountered something on another level than any of the above; direct dialogue with Satan. Jesus is the way, and the life. I truly believe that. But I believe that Jesusis the only way to the Father, the Father God of Israel.

 

Some people misconstrue the idea that Jesus said He was the only way to the Father, with the notion of "saving souls". This is misleading and hurtful, as well as confusing to most. Jesus spoke in direct emphasis of His Father and His will for Him(Jesus). I believe Jesus did pay a price for all, and provided a way to the true living God of Israel; for many, as was prophesised in past.

[NotBlinded]

The only truth is there is no truth.

Of course, Antlerman, you know that this is a self-contradicting statement. How do we know this statement is true if there is no truth?

[NotBlinded]

i think it is John, were Jesus says, "before Abraham was born, I Am." i think this strongly implies that he was God. and the people around must have inferred this meaning too, because thier response to it was to stone him.

 

 

It says in the Nt that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit without measure. That means that the Holy Spirit of God, was upon Jesus without any limitations. Ex: Ellijah, Moses, Samson, etc. these are some examples of men from the Ot that are directly related to any portion of Gods Spirit, just being upon them.

 

Moses parted the red sea, Elijah cast fire down from the heavens, Samson collapsed a building with his hands. Also, on a different scale; there were some to the likes of Samuel, Eli, Isaiah, etc. that also had a portion of this same Spirit upon them in the prophecies by God, and other related attributes that didnt necessarily involve extreme, almost unbelievable acts.

 

Yet, here is Jesus, being acclaimed to the healings and miracles, along with His overall authoritive representation of His Father. Also in conjunction with the I am statements and statements directed toward His authority from the Father.

 

Most modern day evangelist give credit of heirness to Jesus, because He claimed to be from the Father. All I say is that when Jesus referred to His Father, the scriptures also say that the Spirit lead Him to the desert, in which He encountered something on another level than any of the above; direct dialogue with Satan. Jesus is the way, and the life. I truly believe that. But I believe that Jesusis the only way to the Father, the Father God of Israel.

 

Some people misconstrue the idea that Jesus said He was the only way to the Father, with the notion of "saving souls". This is misleading and hurtful, as well as confusing to most. Jesus spoke in direct emphasis of His Father and His will for Him(Jesus). I believe Jesus did pay a price for all, and provided a way to the true living God of Israel; for many, as was prophesised in past.

You are confusing to me Yoyo. I agree with this paragraph:

 

It says in the Nt that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit without measure. That means that the Holy Spirit of God, was upon Jesus without any limitations. Ex: Ellijah, Moses, Samson, etc. these are some examples of men from the Ot that are directly related to any portion of Gods Spirit, just being upon them.

 

But, these two paragraphs confuse me:

 

Most modern day evangelist give credit of heirness to Jesus, because He claimed to be from the Father. All I say is that when Jesus referred to His Father, the scriptures also say that the Spirit lead Him to the desert, in which He encountered something on another level than any of the above; direct dialogue with Satan. Jesus is the way, and the life. I truly believe that. But I believe that Jesusis the only way to the Father, the Father God of Israel.

 

Some people misconstrue the idea that Jesus said He was the only way to the Father, with the notion of "saving souls". This is misleading and hurtful, as well as confusing to most. Jesus spoke in direct emphasis of His Father and His will for Him(Jesus). I believe Jesus did pay a price for all, and provided a way to the true living God of Israel; for many, as was prophesised in past.

Jesus was the way, the truth and the life, but he wasn't trying to say that God was restricted to Isreal. That is what he preached against. The I AM is the indwelling God in everyone and he was a teacher that was spreading this "Good News". So, what is it that you see as misleading and hurtful if it isn't for the very notion of an exclusive God? God isn't restricted to Isreal, nor is God restricted to any religion or any thought. Why do you think that God came from Isreal? One of the teachers came from Isreal, yes, but there have been many teachers that recognize the I AM (in Christian language). There are many today also. He is not the only way. I don't think it is correct to limit God to a certain nation's understanding. This essence is worldwide and goes far and beyond any country's borders.

 

in your first response, this is a difficult concept to grasp. but i think what you are saying is, what matters most from the story, is the lesson you learn from it. that the story shouldn't be used to defend every little thing as if you were in a court of law.

Yes, it is difficult to grasp. I took me a long time to understand it, but when I did, I about feel out of my chair.

 

Once you can look at the story for what it was intended to do (point to God - that is indescribable), then you can look at all the stories and see this essence in them all. They were all saying the same thing but they were using their language, their understandings of their society and their time period. Any one of use that has a talent for writing would be able to sit down and try to describe God (which cannot be described) within the setting we are writing in. The story could have real people, places and events and combined in such a way that tries to point the reader in the direction of God. The essence of the story lies beyond the words (or symbols) used to describe it. It has to be this way because we are not describing something other than a 'knowing'. Have you ever tried to describe a feeling without using metaphors or something other than what it is in order to have someone at least get an 'idea' of what you're talking about? Same thing here...you have to look beyond the symbols.

[Antlerman]

The only truth is there is no truth.

Of course, Antlerman, you know that this is a self-contradicting statement. How do we know this statement is true if there is no truth?

I always love it when someone points this out - and are serious about it proving something (which I know you're not). It only proves our particular language we speak with is ill-equipped to express that concept, not that the concept is invalid. I like the statement as it stands because of the seeming paradox it creates, plus it sounds really catchy.

[NotBlinded]

The only truth is there is no truth.

Of course, Antlerman, you know that this is a self-contradicting statement. How do we know this statement is true if there is no truth?

I always love it when someone points this out - and are serious about it proving something (which I know you're not). It only proves our particular language we speak with is ill-equipped to express that concept, not that the concept is invalid. I like the statement as it stands because of the seeming paradox it creates, plus it sounds really catchy.

I knew you knew, I just couldn't help myself!

 

But, in a sense, this statement that I use to use, "I can't trust myself to make the right decisions" can be seen as a fallacy in my mind when I look at it and say, "Well, if I can't trust myself, how can I trust that I mistrust myself?" It really did change the way I think about that.