Jump to content

God Inspired Bible.


garrisonjj
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please, I just do not understand how a 2000 year old book can claim to be inspired directly by "god?" Where did the initial idea arise from? I mean, did god give an interview with a Barbra Walters type? Did he appear at the ampithetere before these guys? I don't mean to be blith, but how could such a book be so fuckin revered?

Also, the garden of eden was a set up if god knows everything. Did he not will evil into existence? This is the chief reason I am a proud atheist today. What god creates an evil,,,only to later save we poor sinful fuckers from eternal hell!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are some of the many problems which helped me to leave Xianity.

 

If God is all-knowing and all-good, how could he have created things like he supposedly did, knowing precisely how they'd turn out? He must not be all-good, or not all-knowing then; he can't be both.

 

The Babble is revered because the people who have spread it managed to ingrain the idea deeply enough into people's heads. Add to that the general superstitiousness of people of the times, and the general lack of knowledge about the nature of the world and of humanity.

 

Xianity spread because of many factors, and some plain rotten luck. Today, it only survives because of the traditions and habits of western civilization; it could never have caught on if it were a modern invention. That's part of why crazy new cults (like the Moonies or the Branch Davidians), despite how many of them end up, never gain a lot of adherents - humans are just too educated and too enlightened to fall for crazy stuff like that.

 

Now, all we have to do is just help our fellow humans see that Xianity of all stripes is no different than David Koresh's cult or that of Jim Jones, and ultimately no healthier for the human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, all we have to do is just help our fellow humans see that Xianity of all stripes is no different than David Koresh's cult or that of Jim Jones, and ultimately no healthier for the human race.

 

Why must we be evangelists for any "cult"? Why not share views and ideas, grow together in understanding, try to empathize with others, etc. I don't understand trying to convert the world to theism or atheism or any other "ism."

 

I guess I'm just not much of an evangelist.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just not much of an evangelist.

So what's your take on the Great Commission CC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just not much of an evangelist.

So what's your take on the Great Commission CC?

 

I have a couple of thoughts on the Great Commission.

 

1. This command was given to the apostles of Jesus, not necessarilly to everyone who'd ever follow Jesus. There surely was a need at the establishment of the Way to "go into all the world." This is not necessary today. The story has been told and the good news has been published.

 

2. If this command is intended for all followers of Jesus, and it may be, there's a very big difference between spreading the good news to those who have an interest and beating others over the head to believe. "Winning the lost" and "saving souls for Jesus," and being a "soul winner," have nothing to do with the GC, seems to me. All these tricks to get the "unchurched" "churched" seem so much nonsense to me.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must we be evangelists for any "cult"? Why not share views and ideas, grow together in understanding, try to empathize with others, etc. I don't understand trying to convert the world to theism or atheism or any other "ism."

 

That's not what your god has instructed you to do.

 

You may be more sensible than to beat anyone over the head with Xianity (since you follow such a liberal version of it), but Jebus said to go and spread his message to everyone. He didn't specify how, but he just said to do it.

 

Sharing ideas and views is how enlightened, mature people do things. You may be better than the religion you follow, but your religion still states what it does. You may try to reinterpret it in a way that both supports your own lifestyle choices and the plain text of the Babble, but you must realize how dishonest this is.

 

Jebus said to evangelize the whole world. For you not to be doing it is un-xian. That's not a bad thing, of course, just a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must we be evangelists for any "cult"? Why not share views and ideas, grow together in understanding, try to empathize with others, etc. I don't understand trying to convert the world to theism or atheism or any other "ism."

 

That's not what your god has instructed you to do.

 

You may be more sensible than to beat anyone over the head with Xianity (since you follow such a liberal version of it), but Jebus said to go and spread his message to everyone. He didn't specify how, but he just said to do it.

 

Sharing ideas and views is how enlightened, mature people do things. You may be better than the religion you follow, but your religion still states what it does. You may try to reinterpret it in a way that both supports your own lifestyle choices and the plain text of the Babble, but you must realize how dishonest this is.

 

Jebus said to evangelize the whole world. For you not to be doing it is un-xian. That's not a bad thing, of course, just a fact.

 

I don't see it this way, as you might guess. No dishonesty here, as I see it.

 

It is not recorded that Jesus instructed his followers to do more than go out, preach the good news (and if it's true, it is very good news), and make disciples among all nations among those interested. I'm with the Qur'an on this one: "There should be no compulsion in religion."

 

The good news should be available in the marketplace of ideas, but there should be no coersion, no cheesy Jesus-marketing, no trying to "save the lost."

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it this way, as you might guess. No dishonesty here, as I see it.

 

It is not recorded that Jesus instructed his followers to do more than go out, preach the good news (and if it's true, it is very good news), and make disciples among all nations among those interested.

 

Jebus does give an indication of what he would like done with those who would not permit him to become their god in Luke 19:27 - But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

 

I'm with the Qur'an on this one: "There should be no compulsion in religion."

 

Oh? So why does Is-lame have the concept of Hell, as seen in such passages as 33:64 - Lo! Allah hath cursed the disbelievers, and hath prepared for them a flaming fire...

 

The good news should be available in the marketplace of ideas, but there should be no coersion, no cheesy Jesus-marketing, no trying to "save the lost."

 

We are in agreement there, but again, it's not what the Babble teaches - and part of the reason people like me oppose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jebus does give an indication of what he would like done with those who would not permit him to become their god in Luke 19:27 - But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

 

The passage in Luke 19 is a parable, not to be taken literally.

 

However, there will be a day (seems to me) in which those who do not want to be citizens of the reign of God will have to be consigned elsewhere -- in order to establish peace and justice, an end to war and suffering. But as I have written elsewhere, this world is such a mess that I don't think many actually have an opportunity to accept or reject Jesus as king (there are too many Jesuses on the loose).

 

I trust there will be a future time in which all the truth is fully revealed in an obvious manner. Only then will those unwilling to embrace it have to be destroyed. I trust it will be very few, if any, who will not submit to the glory of that moment. But even if it is one person lost, it will be a sad day: God is not williing that any should perish and God does not take pleasure in the demise of the wicked.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, I just do not understand how a 2000 year old book can claim to be inspired directly by "god?" Where did the initial idea arise from? I mean, did god give an interview with a Barbra Walters type? Did he appear at the ampithetere before these guys? I don't mean to be blith, but how could such a book be so fuckin revered?

Also, the garden of eden was a set up if god knows everything. Did he not will evil into existence? This is the chief reason I am a proud atheist today. What god creates an evil,,,only to later save we poor sinful fuckers from eternal hell!!!

 

Hi garrisonjj, good observation. There are so many problems. Firstly, the bible isn't just a single book, but set of books which were voted upon inclusion into a canon by corrupted church fathers. Secondly, they left out dozens upon dozens of books. Thirdly, if God inspired or wrote the bible we have today, why did he write it in such an ancient and archaic language which most modern people cannot speak? I would imagine if there was a god who did write the bible, it would have been in a language that didn't need to be changed or translated into a different language. Also, I would have waited til there was the printing press and/or computers to avoid errors of spelling and grammar. Also, if this god would have waited til the computer age of information and the Internet, perhaps Christianity might be more in line with consistency, so they wouldn't have to resort to the "original greek or hebrew says this".

 

People who say the bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of God are idolaters according to scripture, since they elevate scripture more than God himself.

 

I would say the best reason for being an atheist is not the "Evil" one finds in the bible, because it is evil doesn't necessarily make it untrue. However, that is one reason you can reject it (as a moral individual). I personally believe the only rational reason to completely reject the biblegod is the lack of verifiable evidence, which is more of a scientific approach, because the scientific method is clearly superior to any other method we can use.

 

You are right however, about the whole concept of God being all knowing, but also not desiring anyone to go to hell, so why make hell in the first place? Christians oftentimes back themselves into a corner because they use this most simple of logical fallacies. What is more likely? That these contradictory ideas are the result of divine revelation from an all knowing being OR they are a result of psychotic/barbaric people who used it on the mass of ignoramus human beings who were too stupid or scared to think for themselves?

 

You would be amazed at christians who deny what their own bible says, when I point out that their god created evil. They deny it up and down, in spite of all the scripture I give to them. They first deny it is in the bible, then when you show them it is in the bible, they say "You took that out of context" as a robotic excuse. Yes, I just took an imaginary verse that isn't in the bible "out of context". Christianity is full of lazy, irrational, semi-retarded individuals.

 

Keep up the good fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The passage in Luke 19 is a parable, not to be taken literally.

 

No, the passage in Luke comes at the end of a parable, but is not part of the parable itself. It is meant to clarify the parable - that God can do whatever he wants and will reward those who serve him - and punish those who don't do a good enough job.

 

Jebus takes it a step further by defining the terms of "good service" and "reward" by saying that all those who do not serve him by submitting to his "lordship" must be rewarded by death.

 

However, there will be a day (seems to me) in which those who do not want to be citizens of the reign of God will have to be consigned elsewhere -- in order to establish peace and justice, an end to war and suffering.

 

Why should people who don't want to be Xian be "repatriated" elsewhere? I suppose we should all be packed up in cattle cars and relocated east?

 

You may want to think about what you're implying there :scratch:

 

But as I have written elsewhere, this world is such a mess that I don't think many actually have an opportunity to accept or reject Jesus as king (there are too many Jesuses on the loose).

 

I disagree - Xianity is very prevalent, the information about it is widely available, and there are many groups which try to spread Xian belief of all sorts of flavors.

 

Plenty of people have the opportunity to examine Xianity and accept or reject it.

 

I trust there will be a future time in which all the truth is fully revealed in an obvious manner. Only then will those unwilling to embrace it have to be destroyed.

 

What truth? Such as Jebus being lord? If I refuse to embrace that, must I be destroyed?

 

Perhaps I was wrong in my evaluations of you...

 

I trust it will be very few, if any, who will not submit to the glory of that moment. But even if it is one person lost, it will be a sad day: God is not williing that any should perish and God does not take pleasure in the demise of the wicked.

 

Then God (assuming you believe that he is all-powerful and all-loving) should actually do something about it, instead of claiming to bemoan the destruction of "evil doers." A god with the characteristics typically assigned to the Xian god has no moral authority to condemn anyone when he clearly doesn't use his power to save them in proper fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is full of lazy, irrational, semi-retarded individuals.

 

Wow, quite an indictment there. I'd say Christianty also is full of hard-working, rational, bright individuals. Like every system of thought under the sun, one encounters all sorts of people huddled beneath the Christian umbrella hoping to stay dry in a very rainy world.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is what the Christians make him, he has no power without a Christian definition of what he is, and the definition (nature of God) has changed throughout history. The Bible is only part of that definition, the rest of God's nature comes from latter writers and religious philosophers. What does all this mean? That God is not a constant entity with defined parameters, he is whatever you think he is including non-existant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The passage in Luke 19 is a parable, not to be taken literally.

 

No, the passage in Luke comes at the end of a parable, but is not part of the parable itself. It is meant to clarify the parable - that God can do whatever he wants and will reward those who serve him - and punish those who don't do a good enough job.

 

Jebus takes it a step further by defining the terms of "good service" and "reward" by saying that all those who do not serve him by submitting to his "lordship" must be rewarded by death.

 

However, there will be a day (seems to me) in which those who do not want to be citizens of the reign of God will have to be consigned elsewhere -- in order to establish peace and justice, an end to war and suffering.

 

Why should people who don't want to be Xian be "repatriated" elsewhere? I suppose we should all be packed up in cattle cars and relocated east?

 

You may want to think about what you're implying there :scratch:

 

But as I have written elsewhere, this world is such a mess that I don't think many actually have an opportunity to accept or reject Jesus as king (there are too many Jesuses on the loose).

 

I disagree - Xianity is very prevalent, the information about it is widely available, and there are many groups which try to spread Xian belief of all sorts of flavors.

 

Plenty of people have the opportunity to examine Xianity and accept or reject it.

 

I trust there will be a future time in which all the truth is fully revealed in an obvious manner. Only then will those unwilling to embrace it have to be destroyed.

 

What truth? Such as Jebus being lord? If I refuse to embrace that, must I be destroyed?

 

Perhaps I was wrong in my evaluations of you...

 

I trust it will be very few, if any, who will not submit to the glory of that moment. But even if it is one person lost, it will be a sad day: God is not williing that any should perish and God does not take pleasure in the demise of the wicked.

 

Then God (assuming you believe that he is all-powerful and all-loving) should actually do something about it, instead of claiming to bemoan the destruction of "evil doers." A god with the characteristics typically assigned to the Xian god has no moral authority to condemn anyone when he clearly doesn't use his power to save them in proper fashion.

 

You make some good points. What I had hoped to say is this: If this planet is a laboratory, then we are not in charge. What is amiss in the laboratory (causing hatred, wars, death, heartache, violence), for whatever reason this situation has arisen, will be made right at some point. Those in the laboratory who do not want things made right must be relocated. This is the prerogative of the owner of the lab. We are merely tenants, guests, creatures.

 

At this time there are too many voices vying for our allegience. It's very confusing. And God's people (whoever or whatever they are) have done a terrible job eliminating wars and pain and have contributed too often to various earthly terrors. Therefore, seems to me, the truth (whatever that is) will be revealed to all, clearly and irrefutably. Those who submit to it, and I hope that's everyone, will be "saved." Those who remain in a state of rebellion will be "condemned." (Not to a hellfire, but to annihilation.)

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some good points. What I had hoped to say is this: If this planet is a laboratory, then we are not in charge. What is amiss in the laboratory (causing hatred, wars, death, heartache, violence), for whatever reason this situation has arisen, will be made right at some point. Those in the laboratory who do not want things made right must be relocated. This is the prerogative of the owner of the lab. We are merely tenants, guests, creatures.

 

But if we're the experiments, then it's up to the scientist to correct things. He can't blame us for not doing what he wanted when he, as an all-powerful god, has the power to make us and this world behave just how he likes. He has the power to destroy evil and then we'd only have differing degrees of goodness to choose from, with no potential to do harm. If he doesn't do this, and gets mad at us for not doing what he wants, he's a hypocrite and unworthy of worship.

 

Is it the prerogative of the lab owner to abuse his creations? By permitting the Devil to roam free, to inspire us with temptation and allow sin to endure, this can easily been seen as abuse. Certainly neglect. If evil exists, it's not our fault, but God's, for God made the Devil but only sent him here when he rebelled - he didn't repair the Devil and make him "good" as any responsible manufacturer would do.

 

At this time there are too many voices vying for our allegience. It's very confusing. And God's people (whoever or whatever they are) have done a terrible job eliminating wars and pain and have contributed too often to various earthly terrors. Therefore, seems to me, the truth (whatever that is) will be revealed to all, clearly and irrefutably. Those who submit to it, and I hope that's everyone, will be "saved." Those who remain in a state of rebellion will be "condemned." (Not to a hellfire, but to annihilation.)

 

Again, does that "truth" include belief in Jebus, despite his apparent neglect in maintaining peace and goodness in creation? For one, I'd rather be annihilated than bend my knee to a deadbeat like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some good points. What I had hoped to say is this: If this planet is a laboratory, then we are not in charge. What is amiss in the laboratory (causing hatred, wars, death, heartache, violence), for whatever reason this situation has arisen, will be made right at some point. Those in the laboratory who do not want things made right must be relocated. This is the prerogative of the owner of the lab. We are merely tenants, guests, creatures.

 

But if we're the experiments, then it's up to the scientist to correct things. He can't blame us for not doing what he wanted when he, as an all-powerful god, has the power to make us and this world behave just how he likes. He has the power to destroy evil and then we'd only have differing degrees of goodness to choose from, with no potential to do harm. If he doesn't do this, and gets mad at us for not doing what he wants, he's a hypocrite and unworthy of worship.

 

Is it the prerogative of the lab owner to abuse his creations? By permitting the Devil to roam free, to inspire us with temptation and allow sin to endure, this can easily been seen as abuse. Certainly neglect. If evil exists, it's not our fault, but God's, for God made the Devil but only sent him here when he rebelled - he didn't repair the Devil and make him "good" as any responsible manufacturer would do.

 

At this time there are too many voices vying for our allegience. It's very confusing. And God's people (whoever or whatever they are) have done a terrible job eliminating wars and pain and have contributed too often to various earthly terrors. Therefore, seems to me, the truth (whatever that is) will be revealed to all, clearly and irrefutably. Those who submit to it, and I hope that's everyone, will be "saved." Those who remain in a state of rebellion will be "condemned." (Not to a hellfire, but to annihilation.)

 

Again, does that "truth" include belief in Jebus, despite his apparent neglect in maintaining peace and goodness in creation? For one, I'd rather be annihilated than bend my knee to a deadbeat like that.

 

I think it's a lot like parents and children. Parents create children, willfully, with full knowledge of possibilities. The child might be born with severe disabilities, might be sick and die prematurely, might suffer all sorts of pain. Yet, love gives birth to the next generation, risks and all. Every parents knows his or her daughter or son will die, will face sadness and disappointment, might even struggle his/her whole life. Yet...a generation comes and a generation goes, while the earth remains forever. So, too, with God. The image of "Father" or "Mother" is not too far off, I think.

 

The truth is the truth -- whatever the truth might be. I fully expect the truth to include Jesus as Redeemer (that's why I'm Christian). But the truth will be the truth, no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks. I willingly bend my knee to the truth as I understand it in the here and now, and I plan to bend my knee to the truth I find when the here and now are no more.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a lot like parents and children. Parents create children, willfully, with full knowledge of possibilities. The child might be born with severe disabilities, might be sick and die prematurely, might suffer all sorts of pain. Yet, love gives birth to the next generation, risks and all. Every parents knows his or her daughter or son will die, will face sadness and disappointment, might even struggle his/her whole life. Yet...a generation comes and a generation goes, while the earth remains forever. So, too, with God. The image of "Father" or "Mother" is not too far off, I think.

 

That would sail if the god of the Babble wasn't portrayed as an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. A being with those characteristics doesn't need to "parent" us as he'd know how to make a flawless world, have the power to do it, and the love to not permit anything evil to ruin it. The fact that anything less than a flawless paradise exists clearly tells us that a god capable of creating such place doesn't exist.

 

Parents are not perfect, almighty beings. They have to use everything at their disposal at times to raise their kids right - and sometimes that doesn't work. But no parent who loves their children would permit evil to afflict them if they had the power to prevent it.

 

There is no need for punishment or guidance, if the god you posit exists. He could make the world a paradise beyond our wildest dreams, especially if he loves us. It does not exist, therefore said god does not exist - or do you posit an imperfect god without said characteristics?

 

The truth is the truth -- whatever the truth might be. I fully expect the truth to include Jesus as Redeemer (that's why I'm Christian). But the truth will be the truth, no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks. I willingly bend my knee to the truth as I understand it in the here and now, and I plan to bend my knee to the truth I find when the here and now are no more.

 

So yes, I am worthy of your god's wrath because I refuse to believe.

 

This highlights the dangers of thinking the Jebus myths are literal - even with the rest of Xianity reduced to basically harmless analogies and metaphors, the belief in a literal Jebus and a literal retaliation on God's part against the undesirable "sinners" of the world always ends up in non-xians getting trashed simply because of a difference in religious belief.

 

As I've always said since my deconverison, any literal interpretation of Xian mythology is a foul and fell thing, since it always seems to end up in teachings of divine vengeance against the "undesirables" of the universe :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would sail if the god of the Babble wasn't portrayed as an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. A being with those characteristics doesn't need to "parent" us as he'd know how to make a flawless world, have the power to do it, and the love to not permit anything evil to ruin it. The fact that anything less than a flawless paradise exists clearly tells us that a god capable of creating such place doesn't exist.

 

Parents are not perfect, almighty beings. They have to use everything at their disposal at times to raise their kids right - and sometimes that doesn't work. But no parent who loves their children would permit evil to afflict them if they had the power to prevent it.

 

There is no need for punishment or guidance, if the god you posit exists. He could make the world a paradise beyond our wildest dreams, especially if he loves us. It does not exist, therefore said god does not exist - or do you posit an imperfect god without said characteristics?

 

The truth is the truth -- whatever the truth might be. I fully expect the truth to include Jesus as Redeemer (that's why I'm Christian). But the truth will be the truth, no matter what I or you or anyone else thinks. I willingly bend my knee to the truth as I understand it in the here and now, and I plan to bend my knee to the truth I find when the here and now are no more.

 

So yes, I am worthy of your god's wrath because I refuse to believe.

 

This highlights the dangers of thinking the Jebus myths are literal - even with the rest of Xianity reduced to basically harmless analogies and metaphors, the belief in a literal Jebus and a literal retaliation on God's part against the undesirable "sinners" of the world always ends up in non-xians getting trashed simply because of a difference in religious belief.

 

As I've always said since my deconverison, any literal interpretation of Xian mythology is a foul and fell thing, since it always seems to end up in teachings of divine vengeance against the "undesirables" of the universe :rolleyes:

 

A couple of thoughts, Varokhar.

 

Your unbelief now is one thing, in my view. Atheism/agnosticsm are logical, reasonable conclusions. (So is theism, in my opinion.) My reference is to a future time in which That Which is Out There is seen face to face, known completely, fully revealed without all the interference we have today. If such an event happens, then the wise man or woman would walk toward that Being. There can still be arguments, debates, etc., with that Being, but likely all will be fully known in that moment and understood. At such time, those who will not merge with that Being will be relocated. There is no other option. An argument I read all the time on this forum, and it's a reasonable argument, is that there can be no Being of Love in a world full of such turmoil as ours. Okay, so if that Being is to rid the world of turmoil, that Being must be allowed the right of removing those causing turmoil. This has nothing to do with one's religion or views but with one's willingness to surrender to the love and light of the Being. (For me, this "being" is "Father" revealed in Jesus. Yes, a literal Jesus. In my view.)

 

Regarding your first point. As you know, the story goes that the original creation was flawless, very good, perfect. All was set. Something happened. We don't know what, for sure. There's a story of explanation, as you know, but what does this story really, really mean? It is my view that there was a perfect creation, then something happened and interrupted it. One day, all will be made right again. The Being Behind it All lets the experiment run until then. This Being is indeed limited in many ways. He's a landowner off on a long journey, now and then sending back representatives to offer instruction to the tenants.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument I read all the time on this forum, and it's a reasonable argument, is that there can be no Being of Love in a world full of such turmoil as ours. Okay, so if that Being is to rid the world of turmoil, that Being must be allowed the right of removing those causing turmoil. This has nothing to do with one's religion or views but with one's willingness to surrender to the love and light of the Being. (For me, this "being" is "Father" revealed in Jesus. Yes, a literal Jesus. In my view.)

CC, Why is it I always here you speak of the world as "a mess', being in "disarray", "full of turmoil", etc? I don't know what neighborhood you live in, but it seems pretty darned ordered to me most places on this planet. Of course there are areas of disarry (Irag comes to mind), but I don't see the world as FULL of misery. It seems you do.

 

I see that what misery does exist is part of what makes us humans. Without it, then we are not humans. I've asked this before and have yet to have a Christian answer me, why is faith good for humans if it teaches us to hate ourselves, to hate this life, and to pray to become non-human? What good is it?

 

I deeply disagree with the veiw that the world is full of misery. The world is full of love. Redemption, salvation is in the hands of humans, not some being who doesn't live this life and promises to turn us into some sort of ascended creatures that has no connection to this world.

 

So in my view, Christianity is unhealthy because rather that teaching people to see love int the world, it teaches them to focus on death here, and pray to be delivered from this life which they call death, misery, and "a mess".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument I read all the time on this forum, and it's a reasonable argument, is that there can be no Being of Love in a world full of such turmoil as ours. Okay, so if that Being is to rid the world of turmoil, that Being must be allowed the right of removing those causing turmoil. This has nothing to do with one's religion or views but with one's willingness to surrender to the love and light of the Being. (For me, this "being" is "Father" revealed in Jesus. Yes, a literal Jesus. In my view.)

CC, Why is it I always here you speak of the world as "a mess', being in "disarray", "full of turmoil", etc? I don't know what neighborhood you live in, but it seems pretty darned ordered to me most places on this planet. Of course there are areas of disarry (Irag comes to mind), but I don't see the world as FULL of misery. It seems you do.

 

I see that what misery does exist is part of what makes us humans. Without it, then we are not humans. I've asked this before and have yet to have a Christian answer me, why is faith good for humans if it teaches us to hate ourselves, to hate this life, and to pray to become non-human? What good is it?

 

I deeply disagree with the veiw that the world is full of misery. The world is full of love. Redemption, salvation is in the hands of humans, not some being who doesn't live this life and promises to turn us into some sort of ascended creatures that has no connection to this world.

 

So in my view, Christianity is unhealthy because rather that teaching people to see love int the world, it teaches them to focus on death here, and pray to be delivered from this life which they call death, misery, and "a mess".

 

Well, Antlerman, I guess the "half full, half empty" metaphor comes into play. Of course you are right in many ways. There is so much good and beauty and love and order and bliss in the world. But there is, also, the opposite. I don't know which tips the scale. Likely, it's a close call. But there are so many suffering, so much pain, so much misery. The balance (Buddhist "middle way") is found in rejoicing in all that is good and wonderful while doing all we can to alleviate the suffering that arises from that which is not good and not wonderful. (But, as you wrote, it is that which is not-good that helps us see better and appreciate more that which is good!)

 

Of course everyone has their view of what Christianity does, but for me it offers not an escape, but hope that all will be fixed. Faith does not teach me to hate myself; in fact, love of self is necessary if we are to love others. Faith does not teach me to hate this life, but to cherish it and hope for another one when this one is over. Faith does not cause me to pray to be non-human, but to be a more perfected human, a more compassionate, kind, patient, loving human. I suppose faith might teach some to do what you wrote, but in my view it should not.

 

I suppose it's a matter of perspective and a personal issue as to how one makes use of religious energy.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your unbelief now is one thing, in my view. Atheism/agnosticsm are logical, reasonable conclusions. (So is theism, in my opinion.) My reference is to a future time in which That Which is Out There is seen face to face, known completely, fully revealed without all the interference we have today. If such an event happens, then the wise man or woman would walk toward that Being. There can still be arguments, debates, etc., with that Being, but likely all will be fully known in that moment and understood. At such time, those who will not merge with that Being will be relocated. There is no other option. An argument I read all the time on this forum, and it's a reasonable argument, is that there can be no Being of Love in a world full of such turmoil as ours. Okay, so if that Being is to rid the world of turmoil, that Being must be allowed the right of removing those causing turmoil. This has nothing to do with one's religion or views but with one's willingness to surrender to the love and light of the Being. (For me, this "being" is "Father" revealed in Jesus. Yes, a literal Jesus. In my view.)

 

Regarding your first point. As you know, the story goes that the original creation was flawless, very good, perfect. All was set. Something happened. We don't know what, for sure. There's a story of explanation, as you know, but what does this story really, really mean? It is my view that there was a perfect creation, then something happened and interrupted it. One day, all will be made right again. The Being Behind it All lets the experiment run until then. This Being is indeed limited in many ways. He's a landowner off on a long journey, now and then sending back representatives to offer instruction to the tenants.

 

Again, the Xian god possess characteristics which would allow him to fix things immediately instead of dilly-dallying around whilst people lapse in and out of faith and bad things continue to happen. Your explanation would have merit if the god of the Babble wasn't protrayed as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving being. If God indeed exists and possesses the attributes ascribed to him in the Babble, then he's not some landowner off on a holiday, he's a deadbeat dad who does nothing to fix the problems his broken creation has made.

 

And if he happened to reveal himself, he's got some serious answers to pony up, or for my part, I'll happily give him the finger and choose oblivion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your unbelief now is one thing, in my view. Atheism/agnosticsm are logical, reasonable conclusions. (So is theism, in my opinion.) My reference is to a future time in which That Which is Out There is seen face to face, known completely, fully revealed without all the interference we have today. If such an event happens, then the wise man or woman would walk toward that Being. There can still be arguments, debates, etc., with that Being, but likely all will be fully known in that moment and understood. At such time, those who will not merge with that Being will be relocated. There is no other option. An argument I read all the time on this forum, and it's a reasonable argument, is that there can be no Being of Love in a world full of such turmoil as ours. Okay, so if that Being is to rid the world of turmoil, that Being must be allowed the right of removing those causing turmoil. This has nothing to do with one's religion or views but with one's willingness to surrender to the love and light of the Being. (For me, this "being" is "Father" revealed in Jesus. Yes, a literal Jesus. In my view.)

 

Regarding your first point. As you know, the story goes that the original creation was flawless, very good, perfect. All was set. Something happened. We don't know what, for sure. There's a story of explanation, as you know, but what does this story really, really mean? It is my view that there was a perfect creation, then something happened and interrupted it. One day, all will be made right again. The Being Behind it All lets the experiment run until then. This Being is indeed limited in many ways. He's a landowner off on a long journey, now and then sending back representatives to offer instruction to the tenants.

 

Again, the Xian god possess characteristics which would allow him to fix things immediately instead of dilly-dallying around whilst people lapse in and out of faith and bad things continue to happen. Your explanation would have merit if the god of the Babble wasn't protrayed as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving being. If God indeed exists and possesses the attributes ascribed to him in the Babble, then he's not some landowner off on a holiday, he's a deadbeat dad who does nothing to fix the problems his broken creation has made.

 

And if he happened to reveal himself, he's got some serious answers to pony up, or for my part, I'll happily give him the finger and choose oblivion.

 

Asking the hard questions of any authority figure, God included, is a good thing. No argument here. My hope is that one day we'll understand everything better much than we do now. I guess that's what I call faith -- the substance of things not yet seen.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking the hard questions of any authority figure, God included, is a good thing. No argument here. My hope is that one day we'll understand everything better much than we do now. I guess that's what I call faith -- the substance of things not yet seen.

 

I agree that it is a good thing, but the god of the Babble wants submission, not questions, and if he's all-knowing, he should understand that by not revealing himself or doing anything about evil in the here and now, he's only driving people away from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Antlerman, I guess the "half full, half empty" metaphor comes into play. Of course you are right in many ways. There is so much good and beauty and love and order and bliss in the world. But there is, also, the opposite. I don't know which tips the scale. Likely, it's a close call. But there are so many suffering, so much pain, so much misery. The balance (Buddhist "middle way") is found in rejoicing in all that is good and wonderful while doing all we can to alleviate the suffering that arises from that which is not good and not wonderful. (But, as you wrote, it is that which is not-good that helps us see better and appreciate more that which is good!)

 

Of course everyone has their view of what Christianity does, but for me it offers not an escape, but hope that all will be fixed. Faith does not teach me to hate myself; in fact, love of self is necessary if we are to love others. Faith does not teach me to hate this life, but to cherish it and hope for another one when this one is over. Faith does not cause me to pray to be non-human, but to be a more perfected human, a more compassionate, kind, patient, loving human. I suppose faith might teach some to do what you wrote, but in my view it should not.

 

I suppose it's a matter of perspective and a personal issue as to how one makes use of religious energy.

 

-CC in MA

I was thinking of the half full, half empty metaphor, but I didn't use it because I don't see it as a 50/50 sort of thing. Let's take your own life for instance. Would you say that you are miserable 50% of the time? I'm not. However, I could be miserable 50% of the time, or even higher, if the way I perceived things framed it in such a way as to spell: m-i-s-e-r-y. However an outsider might look at it and say it's good. In a less depressed viewpoint, so might the person who is viewing everything so negatively.

 

I just don't see that life is half misery. However, when we feel bad things, our psychology tends to magnify it way out of proportion. This is where philosophies kick in to change how we look at things, but Chistianity takes that and turns it into a whole thelogy about a "fallen world" instead. It's not a fallen world. Life is moving forward. Life is dynamic. Life seeks life. The Christian looks at life and sees death. It promises a fix to something that isn't broken. To say it needs to be fixed, is to call something that is good, bad. A philosophy that does this is unhealthy, IMO.

 

Example: "That's OK honey, I know you're unhappy about not being a smart or as pretty as others, but when you meet a good man he will love you and make you feel good about yourself! You will become Mrs. John Perfect, and that's who you will then be, not the faulty creature that you are now". That's the Christian message. You're broken, and you need Jesus (your husband) to give you self-worth and a love for being alive. Phooey! It's fine if he's a teacher to help impart a healthy philosophy, but save you? Never.

 

Life isn't broken. It works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a fallen world. Life is moving forward. Life is dynamic. Life seeks life. The Christian looks at life and sees death. It promises a fix to something that isn't broken. To say it needs to be fixed, is to call something that is good, bad. A philosophy that does this is unhealthy, IMO.

 

Example: "That's OK honey, I know you're unhappy about not being a smart or as pretty as others, but when you meet a good man he will love you and make you feel good about yourself! You will become Mrs. John Perfect, and that's who you will then be, not the faulty creature that you are now". That's the Christian message. You're broken, and you need Jesus (your husband) to give you self-worth and a love for being alive. Phooey! It's fine if he's a teacher to help impart a healthy philosophy, but save you? Never.

 

Life isn't broken. It works.

 

 

This is beautiful. I really like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.