Pleasure

[Kuroikaze]

I'm not certain, but I think you may be a bit off here. Actually one of the identifying phrases Piper uses to describe himself is "Christian hedonist", so I don't think he considers the term to be synonymous with something bad. I think he considers that each of us, not only will, but should seek pleasure - now, he may be a bit different from a "normal" understanding of a hedonist, since he says he expects to find the most possible pleasure by following Jesus' example of losing himself in order to gain himself.

 

I actually studied Piper's theology somewhat when I was still a believer, so I know a bit about his concept of Christian Hedonism.... My disagreement with him is that he seems to think non-believers all left Christianity because they wanted a good time, and Christianity wasn't giving it too them...or that non-Christians only find happiness in drinking and unprotected sex with strangers.

 

It might surprise Piper to know that this isn't the case.

 

In any case, the main point of my post is that Christianity has not made my life more pleasurable, but more difficult and painful...even now when I'm no longer a believer it continues to give me problems, its just not as successful as it used to be. Basically, what I'm saying is that his theory doesn't fit my empirical evidence.

[Kuroikaze]

The general idea I get is this : One of the best ways for God to increase his glory, happens when we discover we get the most pleasure from knowing Him. So if we truly do find the most possible joy through esteeming a relationship with God as the most productive soil in which to root our search for highest quality pleasure -- then it works out so God's seeking His own glory also fulfills his desire for his creation to to enjoy maximum pleasure.

 

This would work if there was never an instance when gods glory and our pleasure conflict...but even Piper admits that these instances exist when he points out that god could send his son to hell...even if Piper can accept it I very much doubt his son will be feeling much pleasure at that moment. Again, even Piper claims that Hell is a cessation of pleasure.

 

I agree that he attempts to tackle some difficult questions, unfortunately his answers make about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine, as the saying goes.

[Lycorth]

Jesus wants those who choose to follow him to enjoy abundant life and joy unspeakable! Whatever those are, is open to interpretation.

 

That's a noble and healthy personal view, but on what do you base this?

 

If it's not Babblical, aren't you afraid of "adding to" the message of Jebus?

[SOIL]

Hi Varokhar, (Cool, - yet another new name/person - or at least new to me anyway).

 

Before I try to respond to what I consider the main thrust of your post - I want to firstly chase a little rabbit trail regarding something that sort of bugs me. Why do you intentionally misspell various names? (I recall seeing several people do that back when I was a "regular" 'round these parts). Does making fun of something one once thought holy give 'em some kind of a buzz? I hope it doesn't look like I am trying to belittle you with my question (I don't think I am) -- Rather, I simply and sincerely just want to know why?

 

......

 

OK - sorry about that interruption - I felt a need to get that out of the way before I plunge into what I probably should be spending my time on.

 

If he wants us to seek other pleasures, he sure didn't seem to leave room for it. Unless, of course, we are to unlearn the natural definition of "pleasure" and re-learn it as "serving Jebus like a blind slave."

(I added the Blue italics to emphasize what I want to to talk about),

 

Maybe Jesus is teaching us something. Namely, (sort of like searching for rattlesnakes?), sometimes we are more likely find what we seek during times we are not even looking for it. (OK - I guess I should offer some background info here - when I was just a little guy, I used to play out on the desert close to my house in the outskirts of Tucson Arizona. Sometimes I would go trying to find a rattlesnake - please don't ask me why! - but it seemed like the only times I would actually find any, was when I wasn't looking for 'em.)

 

What if pleasure is in some ways like that? Perhaps sometimes we experience the best quality of the stuff during times when we didn't even think we were in pursuit. As I type this, I realize it may seem like I am contradicting the basic premise of this thread (but hey, that's never stopped me before!) - I guess I'll just charge right on ahead.

 

I'm thinking of my sex life now. Seems like during the times when I have been more interested in bringing pleasure to my wife (loving my neighbor as myself?) - it was during those times when I enjoyed sexual pleasure most - as compared with other times when it seemed I was mainly looking to maximize my own personal pleasure and viewed her pretty much just as an adjunct toward that goal.

 

-Dennis

[currentchristian]

Hey CC, I'm derailing the thread for a sec, but are you Catholic? Are you gay? I gathered from some of your recent posts that you have a same-sex partner, but maybe I misread you. Anyway, I'm an ex-Catholic gay person, so I'm curious about someone's reasons for being Catholic and in a gay or lesbian relationship - I am really sorry if I am getting the facts wrong about you.

 

Kuroikaze, I really loved your response above. I hear you. Despite all the studying I did, in the end I came down to not believing in a mean god, and it seemed the god of scripture is mean.

 

Hi ficino...Yes, on the gay question; no on the Catholic one. In terms of reconciling being gay and being Christian, for me both are natural inclinations in which I am very comfortable and content.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

... his answers make about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine, as the saying goes.

 

Were you a Rich Mullins fan, Kuroikaze? (The "screen door on a submarine" brought to mind one of his songs with just that line.)

 

-CC

[SOIL]

...

... Despite all the studying I did, in the end I came down to not believing in a mean god, and it seemed the god of scripture is mean.

ficino,

 

I have certainly felt the same during some extended periods of time - especially when I concentrate most on the Old Testament revelation of Him (though I realize I may not be interpreting things correctly - especially since I wasn't alive in those days and cultures). However, as I'm coming to believe Jesus is the best way God reveals who he is .... I'm putting some distance from my "God is mean" stance.

 

For instance, the way Jesus acted toward women seems (to me) to be markedly less mean when compared with how most mere men in that culture appeared for the most part to treat women as an inferior class.

 

Of course the gospel teaching about how Jesus loved "sinners" more than his very life (and reputation) also communicates a nicer image of God - certainly one less mean than the darker images I have entertained.

 

-Dennis

[currentchristian]

Jesus wants those who choose to follow him to enjoy abundant life and joy unspeakable! Whatever those are, is open to interpretation.

 

That's a noble and healthy personal view, but on what do you base this?

 

If it's not Babblical, aren't you afraid of "adding to" the message of Jebus?

 

Hello Varokhar. Abundant life and joy unspeakable are biblical states of being we may inhabit, contrary to the many long-faced Christians you might see!

 

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it in abundance." (KJV: "...have it more abundantly.") - Jesus, according to John 10.10

 

"...you rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." St. Peter, according to I Peter 1.8

 

My mother was not a religious woman -- until I recruited her to the A/G when I was 16. In an argument with a Catholic who said that sex was for one purpose--procreation, my mother responded in a way that shocked me, being age 10 at the time: "If God didn't want us to have sex, he wouldn't have made it feel so good."

 

Like wealth and power and fame, pleasure is permissible -- but it is fraught with danger if it becomes our chief pursuit. We must enjoy it wisely and moderately.

 

-CC

[SOIL]

...

In any case, the main point of my post is that Christianity has not made my life more pleasurable, but more difficult and painful...even now when I'm no longer a believer it continues to give me problems, its just not as successful as it used to be. Basically, what I'm saying is that his theory doesn't fit my empirical evidence.

Kuroikaze,

 

Yeah, I think I can understand what you are saying. I have encountered many difficult and painful times especially in the last 10 years or so - and I have often blamed Christianity for them. I have been trying to discover if I am correct at laying the blame at the feet of Christianity - and/or - if Christianity is in fact the correct place to put the blame, but Christ's feet are not there, in the same place.

 

(I do remember Jesus saying something about many people calling him Lord even when he actually never knew them.)

 

I'm not so sure about whether my honesty about some of my own lack of empirical evidence will make it any easier should I at some point actually decide to have a go at trying to "re-evangelize" anyone here - but ... since I respect you for being honest maybe it's appropriate for me to return the favor.

 

-Dennis

[Lycorth]

Hello, SOIL

 

Before I try to respond to what I consider the main thrust of your post - I want to firstly chase a little rabbit trail regarding something that sort of bugs me. Why do you intentionally misspell various names? (I recall seeing several people do that back when I was a "regular" 'round these parts). Does making fun of something one once thought holy give 'em some kind of a buzz? I hope it doesn't look like I am trying to belittle you with my question (I don't think I am) -- Rather, I simply and sincerely just want to know why?

 

I misspell them because I don't respect them. If I had any respect for Jebus or the Babble, etc, I'd spell them properly.

 

OK -

Maybe Jesus is teaching us something. Namely, (sort of like searching for rattlesnakes?), sometimes we are more likely find what we seek during times we are not even looking for it.

 

Interesting - but if Jebus wanted to teach us something, then why not just say it? Surely, being all-knowing, he must've realized that humans aren't as smart as Gawd and he really ought not to be speaking in parables or using vague analogies, as he is oft depicted.

 

Part of the reason I both disbelieve in and loathe Xianity is its lack of straightforwardness. When we want to tell someone something important, we don't beat around the bush; we say what we mean, in as clear as possible a voice. The use of parables and analogies bespeaks a god who would rather make things hard (and thus be cruel, which is inconsistent with the thought of the Xian god as "all-loving") or else is a product of strange human minds - and hence unreal.

 

Hello Varokhar. Abundant life and joy unspeakable are biblical states of being we may inhabit, contrary to the many long-faced Christians you might see!

 

Let's see...

 

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it in abundance." (KJV: "...have it more abundantly.") - Jesus, according to John 10.10

 

Seems like Jebus was not giving a thumbs-up the the pursuit of earthly pleasure, but rather talking about himself, ie, stroking his own ego and making himself the end-all and be-all of the believer's life, just like a good cult leader should:

 

From BabbleGateway.com:

7Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

 

And...

 

"...you rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." St. Peter, according to I Peter 1.8

 

It seems that this passage is in reference to praising Gawd to be rewarded with hope, not a support of the pursuit of earthly pleasure:

 

From BabbleGateway.com:

3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

 

I fail to see where Jebus is in favor of Xians doing anything but focusing solely on him. Such passages are actually the source of Xian asceticism, it would seem, and not a divine stamp of approval for living a good, materially happy life.

 

My mother was not a religious woman -- until I recruited her to the A/G when I was 16. In an argument with a Catholic who said that sex was for one purpose--procreation, my mother responded in a way that shocked me, being age 10 at the time: "If God didn't want us to have sex, he wouldn't have made it feel so good."

 

I'm sure an acid trip feels pretty good, but I wouldn't equate that with divine approval.

 

Sex feels good because it's appealing to the senses which are involved in it. No god has anything to do with it just because it feels good.

 

Like wealth and power and fame, pleasure is permissible -- but it is fraught with danger if it becomes our chief pursuit. We must enjoy it wisely and moderately.

 

Well-put, but any Buddhist or Satanist, etc, could've said the same. It is hardly a Xian monopoly.

 

I approve of the healthy way you try to interpret your religion, CC, but there is no room for such common sense in Xianity.

[SOIL]

This would work if there was never an instance when gods glory and our pleasure conflict...but even Piper admits that these instances exist when he points out that god could send his son to hell...even if Piper can accept it I very much doubt his son will be feeling much pleasure at that moment. Again, even Piper claims that Hell is a cessation of pleasure.

...

I'm won't try to speculate how Piper would respond to what you have said - but I will offer what I am thinking.

 

Firstly, God doesn't always get everything he desires.

 

Though God in one sense "desires that all come to repentance" - he (and we) know that will not happen. God also desires that mankind be significant enough that a person can make a decision which God will not override by sheer force. God seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to allow sinful man to be able to make a legitimate choice towards him (even after the person has previously chosen to go the other way). The physical life of his son is a high price for this ability of mankind to have a legitimate offer to be able to repent and then be considered "clean".

 

It appears to me anyway (and bear in mind I'm not as Calvinistic as Piper) - that God possibly has things set up so even he has to follow some rules (maybe these rules are mostly aligned with the character of who he is). He allows for humans to experience maximum pleasure and he wants that - but maybe that very possibility dictates that there must be something so worthwhile (glorious) that rejecting it carries devastating consequences.

 

I can certainly see (and agree with) your point that a person who suffers in hell is not enjoying the maximum pleasure God desires for them. As such it would seem (to me at this point in my life) that God's glory is not shining as great in these instances (at least not so much as it would if that person would have chosen to seek their pleasure in such a way that their heavenly eternity would have shown God's positive promises to be true).

 

I guess the ideal intent of God is what I have looked at mostly. I think God prefers to receive Glory through genuinely happy people.

 

I realize you most likely think there needs to be more to my answer - and perhaps you are correct - but I am not certain Piper (or myself) is talking about as much as you may think is being laid on the table.

 

-Dennis

[currentchristian]

I fail to see where Jebus is in favor of Xians doing anything but focusing solely on him. Such passages are actually the source of Xian asceticism, it would seem, and not a divine stamp of approval for living a good, materially happy life.

 

There is every reason to believe that YouKnowWho desires that his subjects live a good, materially happy life. Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber. His first miracle was at a wedding reception where he turned water into ... no, not grape juice ... wine. He knew how to hang out and laugh. Don't believe me? Check this out for irrefutable proof.

 

There is no sin in having a good time. No sin in enjoying the many pleasures of this life. Do all that one does in moderation and do nothing that hurts oneself, another or the community, and the conscience can rest comfortably upon the pillow. Seems to me.

 

-CC

[Lycorth]

There is every reason to believe that YouKnowWho desires that his subjects live a good, materially happy life.

 

Then please list one reason - one that can't be contextually interpreted as having nothing to do with earthly pleasure.

 

Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber. His first miracle was at a wedding reception where he turned water into ... no, not grape juice ... wine.

 

Accusations are not evidence. He was called those things by people who themselves despised them, in order to smear him - not because anyone had any proof they were true.

 

And turning grape juice into wine doesn't mean Jebus was ok with pleasure. Otherwise, he'd have actually taught it, instead of spending his entire ministry teaching people to hate everything in life (including themselves) for the sake of the "Heavenly Kingdom."

 

He knew how to hang out and laugh. Don't believe me? Check this out for irrefutable proof.

 

What a bad photoshop.

 

There is no sin in having a good time. No sin in enjoying the many pleasures of this life. Do all that one does in moderation and do nothing that hurts oneself, another or the community, and the conscience can rest comfortably upon the pillow. Seems to me.

 

You are absolutely right - there is no sin in having a good time. Avoiding harming others or oneself is also great for the conscience. It's an excellent concept to live by.

 

Problem is, it's not what Xianity teaches.

[SOIL]

...

.... My disagreement with him is that he seems to think non-believers all left Christianity because they wanted a good time, and Christianity wasn't giving it too them...or that non-Christians only find happiness in drinking and unprotected sex with strangers.

 

It might surprise Piper to know that this isn't the case.

I didn't see Piper necessarily implying that (though I admit some folks certainly do). I think he is saying people who are Christians do have better reasons to expect a pleasurable eternity - and also a different kind of pleasure while their bodies are still functioning on this side of the common earthly grave (of course physical death awaits both Christian and non-christian alike).

 

In a previous post I gave a personal example of a different kind of pleasure when I spoke about finding pleasure while looking for our own verses when we are concentrating more on bring bringing pleasure to another. I'm not saying it's necessary to be a Christian to experience (in this life) the latter type - I just think the teachings of Christ claim it is the better way - and it looks to me like Jesus' acted in his own life as if that must be true.

 

Folks like C.S. Lewis have spoken of a more deep pleasure - for instance his illustration about a day at the seaside for a child who wouldn't leave playing in the mud in order to experience actually building real sand castles on a real beach.

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

...

Interesting - but if Jebus wanted to teach us something, then why not just say it? Surely, being all-knowing, he must've realized that humans aren't as smart as Gawd and he really ought not to be speaking in parables or using vague analogies, as he is oft depicted.

 

Part of the reason I both disbelieve in and loathe Xianity is its lack of straightforwardness. When we want to tell someone something important, we don't beat around the bush; we say what we mean, in as clear as possible a voice. The use of parables and analogies bespeaks a god who would rather make things hard (and thus be cruel, which is inconsistent with the thought of the Xian god as "all-loving") or else is a product of strange human minds - and hence unreal.

...

Wow Varokhar,

 

I think you have opened up a very very interesting subject.

 

This subject has been extremely interesting to me in recent years as I think the correct understanding of why Jesus spoke in parables (and why the Bible is not more straightforward) is a significant key to unlocking some very important things.

 

Sorry I can't take the time just now to wade in to these waters - but maybe after I go home and get something to eat....

 

-Dennis

[currentchristian]

There is every reason to believe that YouKnowWho desires that his subjects live a good, materially happy life.

 

Then please list one reason - one that can't be contextually interpreted as having nothing to do with earthly pleasure.

 

 

The very first commandment: "Have lots of sex and lots of babies."

 

Loving oneself is a commanded pleasure. Loving one's neighbor is a commanded pleasure. Loving God (for many but not for all) is a commanded pleasure.

 

Another one I like is: "I would above all that you prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers." (III John 1.2)

 

You are right, Varokhar, that the expression of Christianity that we have seen and see can be quite hum-drum. But it doesn't have to be! And it many cases it is not.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

...

 

Part of the reason I both disbelieve in and loathe Xianity is its lack of straightforwardness. When we want to tell someone something important, we don't beat around the bush; we say what we mean, in as clear as possible a voice. The use of parables and analogies bespeaks a god who would rather make things hard (and thus be cruel, which is inconsistent with the thought of the Xian god as "all-loving") or else is a product of strange human minds - and hence unreal.

 

Great literature often is not straightforward. I find Shakespeare hard to get, but he's worth it. Hemingway is easy to get, but I find reading Hemingway a burdensome, loathsome chore. (Sorry to Hemingway fans.)

 

But I don't think God can win this kind of debate. God is not straightforward enough. God is too straightforward. God is not inclusive enough. God is too inclusive. God is sortta like poor police: damned either way -- not quick enough enforcing law or too quick enforcing law.

 

-CC

[Kuroikaze]

I'm won't try to speculate how Piper would respond to what you have said - but I will offer what I am thinking.

 

Firstly, God doesn't always get everything he desires.

 

Though God in one sense "desires that all come to repentance" - he (and we) know that will not happen. God also desires that mankind be significant enough that a person can make a decision which God will not override by sheer force. God seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to allow sinful man to be able to make a legitimate choice towards him (even after the person has previously chosen to go the other way). The physical life of his son is a high price for this ability of mankind to have a legitimate offer to be able to repent and then be considered "clean".

 

It appears to me anyway (and bear in mind I'm not as Calvinistic as Piper) - that God possibly has things set up so even he has to follow some rules (maybe these rules are mostly aligned with the character of who he is). He allows for humans to experience maximum pleasure and he wants that - but maybe that very possibility dictates that there must be something so worthwhile (glorious) that rejecting it carries devastating consequences.

 

I can certainly see (and agree with) your point that a person who suffers in hell is not enjoying the maximum pleasure God desires for them. As such it would seem (to me at this point in my life) that God's glory is not shining as great in these instances (at least not so much as it would if that person would have chosen to seek their pleasure in such a way that their heavenly eternity would have shown God's positive promises to be true).

 

I guess the ideal intent of God is what I have looked at mostly. I think God prefers to receive Glory through genuinely happy people.

 

I realize you most likely think there needs to be more to my answer - and perhaps you are correct - but I am not certain Piper (or myself) is talking about as much as you may think is being laid on the table.

 

-Dennis

 

Let me just say that first off I really appreciate your open honesty, and willing to admit when you aren't sure, or don't have an exact or satisfying answer.

 

Most Christians who come here pretend they know every answer even when it is clear they do not. I guess they feel the must present an united and undivided front against "evil" or whatever,

but in the end they just come off as jerks because they act like the philosophical questions that drove us away from Christianity are easy to answer...effectively telling us we are stupid for not knowing the answers

 

 

I guess in the end what it comes down to for me is that if you are right and all of this is true then I'll just have to accept hell, because there is no way I could ever believe this stuff again, it violates everything I think is right.

 

I'd like to think that if god exists he is big enough to understand my reasons for doubting him and let it go...if not then, well, I can't do much about it

[Lycorth]

Great literature often is not straightforward. I find Shakespeare hard to get, but he's worth it. Hemingway is easy to get, but I find reading Hemingway a burdensome, loathsome chore. (Sorry to Hemingway fans.)

 

Shakespeare wrote in language his contemporary audience could understand. Our difficulty in understanding his works lies in the evolution of the English language from his time to ours.

 

But I don't think God can win this kind of debate. God is not straightforward enough. God is too straightforward. God is not inclusive enough. God is too inclusive. God is sortta like poor police: damned either way -- not quick enough enforcing law or too quick enforcing law.

 

Who here has ever complained that Jebus is "too inclusive" or "too straightforward"? The only times I ever heard Xianity criticized for any (perceived) over-inclusiveness was during my Nazi days, from Nazis who were anti-Xian.

 

Part of the problem is that the god of Xianity isn't presented as being inclusive or straightforward. He speaks in parables, analogies, and relies on humans when he ought to know enough to appear to us all and cut the crap, and furthermore requires us to jump through all sorts of hoops and defy all sorts of natural desires and healthy perogatives in order to be "worthy" of Heaven.

 

If Jebus were more open and didn't make a big deal about people's sexuality, religion, or lack of faith, he'd earn no criticism there.

[currentchristian]

Part of the reason I both disbelieve in and loathe Xianity is its lack of straightforwardness. When we want to tell someone something important, we don't beat around the bush; we say what we mean, in as clear as possible a voice. The use of parables and analogies bespeaks a god who would rather make things hard (and thus be cruel, which is inconsistent with the thought of the Xian god as "all-loving") or else is a product of strange human minds - and hence unreal.

 

Great literature often is not straightforward. I find Shakespeare hard to get, but he's worth it. Hemingway is easy to get, but I find reading Hemingway a burdensome, loathsome chore. (Sorry to Hemingway fans.)

 

But I don't think God can win this kind of debate. God is not straightforward enough. God is too straightforward. God is not inclusive enough. God is too inclusive. God is sortta like poor police: damned either way -- not quick enough enforcing law or too quick enforcing law.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

I'd like to think that if god exists he is big enough to understand my reasons for doubting him and let it go...if not then, well, I can't do much about it

 

Me, too. This world is a confusing mess. There is so much pain and suffering, injustice and fear, that even if there is a Creator interested in this world (as I believe) I can definitely understand when some don't know it, don't find it, follow another one, or leave it.

 

My hope is that in the end when we are free of these bodies and our prejudices and pain, and all our brainwashing (face it, we are all brainwashed) the Light shows us capital-t Truth and then we have perhaps for the first time in our existence an opportunity to walk into the Light or walk away from the Light. I'm hoping everyone walks into the Light!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Great literature often is not straightforward. I find Shakespeare hard to get, but he's worth it. Hemingway is easy to get, but I find reading Hemingway a burdensome, loathsome chore. (Sorry to Hemingway fans.)

 

Shakespeare wrote in language his contemporary audience could understand. Our difficulty in understanding his works lies in the evolution of the English language from his time to ours.

 

But I don't think God can win this kind of debate. God is not straightforward enough. God is too straightforward. God is not inclusive enough. God is too inclusive. God is sortta like poor police: damned either way -- not quick enough enforcing law or too quick enforcing law.

 

Who here has ever complained that Jebus is "too inclusive" or "too straightforward"? The only times I ever heard Xianity criticized for any (perceived) over-inclusiveness was during my Nazi days, from Nazis who were anti-Xian.

 

Part of the problem is that the god of Xianity isn't presented as being inclusive or straightforward. He speaks in parables, analogies, and relies on humans when he ought to know enough to appear to us all and cut the crap, and furthermore requires us to jump through all sorts of hoops and defy all sorts of natural desires and healthy perogatives in order to be "worthy" of Heaven.

 

If Jebus were more open and didn't make a big deal about people's sexuality, religion, or lack of faith, he'd earn no criticism there.

 

Well, you make some valid points and some invalid points -- seems to me.

 

Remember that the religious leaders of Jesus' day, at least as reported by the gospels, often expressed the view that Jesus was too inclusive of sinners, tax collectors, women, prostitutes, Samaritans, the sick, the poor, the ostracized. This is the Jesus I really like! The one who excludes no one by virtue of their status in the worlds of culture, politics or religion.

 

-CC

[SOIL]

( Oops - I guess I am sort of getting off-topic - and in a thread I started yet! -- oh well .... )

 

...

Interesting - but if Jebus wanted to teach us something, then why not just say it? Surely, being all-knowing, he must've realized that humans aren't as smart as Gawd and he really ought not to be speaking in parables or using vague analogies, as he is oft depicted.

...

Varokhar,

 

Well I'm fed now - but I do still have some other things I need to do tonight - so I wont try to say everything I want to say about this subject in this one single post.

 

Maybe the slice I can cut off for now is just to point at how Jesus responded when his disciples were asking about why he taught in parables.

 

I guess I'll start by pointing at an answer Jesus gave - as well as the passage in Isaiah he refereed to as he was giving his answer. These passages have been some of the most perplexing things to me, especially as I have tired to compare what Jesus said with how the church today spreads the gospel.

 

One thing I noticed recently is the way a new "translation" / paraphrase / commentary called The Message renders Matthew 13:11-15. When I compare that with way the New International Version reads for Matthew 13:11-15 you can see the idea that comes from the way Eugene H. Peterson (translator for The Message) thinks. ( I would like to talk to Eugene personally some time and ask him what specifically caused him to word his paraphrase just that way).

 

At this time I am thinking the help of the Holy Spirit is very needed in order for me to be able to see the full coherence and beauty of many of the teachings of the Bible as a whole and of Jesus' teachings in particular. A complete and satisfying understanding certainly doesn't come easily to me - I guess I may be too much like the people God told Isaiah to preach to. (Man, I think I might have tried to un-volunteer after God told me what I was supposed to say.)

 

In subsequent posts I hope to return and offer my slant in regard to this intriguing subject.

 

For now though maybe it's best to just say I don't claim to have "ears to hear" - though I do feel there is something in Jesus' words which will most likely prove to be very much worth my hearing.

 

(I remember the story Jesus told about the guy who sold everything he had in order to buy the field containing the treasure he found).

 

I plan to continue spending time in thought (and prayer) asking God to open these eyes and ears I closed and plugged. I want to "deal with God face to face" and become healed. I expect that "dealing" may appear more like the wrestling match Jacob experienced than any gentle love pats (coming from either party - most likely).

 

 

-Dennis

[Dave]

....Firstly, God doesn't always get everything he desires.

Then the god your talking about isn't omnipotent.

Though God in one sense "desires that all come to repentance" - he (and we) know that will not happen.

Then the god is not omniscient since it would already know.

God also desires that mankind be significant enough that a person can make a decision which God will not override by sheer force....

How do you know that?

I can certainly see (and agree with) your point that a person who suffers in hell is not enjoying the maximum pleasure God desires for them.

Since neither exists, it's not worth much worrying about now is it?

[SOIL]

I'd like to think that if god exists he is big enough to understand my reasons for doubting him and let it go...if not then, well, I can't do much about it

 

Me, too. This world is a confusing mess. There is so much pain and suffering, injustice and fear, that even if there is a Creator interested in this world (as I believe) I can definitely understand when some don't know it, don't find it, follow another one, or leave it.

 

My hope is that in the end when we are free of these bodies and our prejudices and pain, and all our brainwashing (face it, we are all brainwashed) the Light shows us capital-t Truth and then we have perhaps for the first time in our existence an opportunity to walk into the Light or walk away from the Light. I'm hoping everyone walks into the Light!

 

-CC

Now I think that's a cool post!

 

CC you are saying what I feel to a big extent.

 

Kuroikaze, I think God respects folks like you perhaps more than folks who call themselves "Christians" but really never even think about some of the things you are willing to "deal with" --- (I can't point you at a chapter and verse to support my position just off the cuff right now - but I can at least say what I feel).

 

I think God wants us to try to keep our eyes and ears open - maybe one reason I come here is I try to be willing to at least hear and consider various points of view.

 

Probably God is "big enough" to understand me .... even when I hang out here ...

Heck - I suspect God may also be big enough to handle it if some of the regular ex's around here were to step into a church again from time to time.

 

-Dennis