Why would something good hide in darkness?

[SOIL]

...

So don't get all huffy with Karl just because you can't bear to see the awful implications of his insight.  Or what that might make you an accomplice to, as a worshipper.  Humiliation might be the least of your worries.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cerise,

 

If the reason I got "all huffy" with Karl was becasue I can't bear to see the awful implications of his insight - what is the reason so many ex-christians get "all huffy" with me? Are you going to tell me how wrong I am to try to use the same type of logic patterns I see being used?.

 

When I worship God I don't see that as making me an accomplice to everything he does. One of the things that goes along with my worshiping him, is my understanding that I don't understand everything he does - my worship is saying I trust him - not that I understand or even agree with what he does.

 

As far as where humiliation fits in the order of my worrries - you are correct - it is near the bottom. I have been humiliated many times - but I am still alive and kicking. I think the fear of being humiliated can prevent me from enjoying simple things - like sharing with others how I feel about what is important to me.

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

Cerise,

 

Yes you are right I did pretty much forget to respond to that post.  Now that I look back to see why I avoided specific responses - I remember the way it effected me.  If you want someone to respond to a point you are making - you may be more likely to encourage that, by avoiding preceding your point by something like "Ah yes...bullshit bullshit bullshit" - that did not automatically move your post to the top of my "todo list" of posts I most desire to dignify with a response.  Look, I know you are emotional about this subject, perhaps in part  because people like me claim you may find help in a place where you just refuse to go - and you desire to find hope so much.  If that is the case, I can certainly understand that - as I too have "been there, done that", and I can still feel the pain.

Also the intentional misspelling of the name 'Jesus' doesn't encourage me to respond.

 

I think you could have made your good points without using techniques that simply make me want to leave this place and never come back again.

 

For instance, the point about how pagan symbolism can be used to understand aspects of who Jesus claims to be - is very insightful, and I like to see such points - so I keep reading what you post.  However, you can make it either hard or relatively easy for me to read and desire to respond to your posts.  That particular post ended up more on the "hard" side - when with a little self-control you could have presented the same good points in a manner that would have rendered your points "easy" for me to want to respond to.

 

Job eventually heard God (I forget about whether he actually "saw" him) - and yes, he was not "full of sin" and/or necessarily "running away from him" - at least I don't think he was.  Job had some pretty fiesty things to say to God - his so-called "friends" gave him a hard time about that - but God basically sided with Job rather than his friends.

 

I don't know if things need to be "complicated and mysterious" in order to be true - but I do think sometimes true things are that way.

 

Well again - I need to be doing other things.

 

I appreciate what you are going through Cerise - as I also have difficulty with why this world is the way it is.  You have felt the pain much more personally than I have - and I respect that.

 

I want to be able to communicate with you without it taking so much emotional energy - I make this post so maybe you can see how - if you also want to communicate with me - you can reduce my initial gut reaction to just "leave".

 

-Dennis

 

P.S.

"Knowing a god should not have to be an obstacle course leading to a spike lined pit in order to be true."  I don't think I would use the term "obstacle course" but even if I did, I would not say it leads to a "spike lined pit" - I think the effort extended to "know God" leads to heaven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Cheese with your whine, Dennis? Or care to nail your feet a little more into that cross? I really don't think you've matyred yourself quite enough with this post.

 

There really isn't a whole lot keeping me from telling you to FOAD Dennis. You've long since ceased to deserve any responses from me that are anything more the kurt calls for you to wake up and smell the hummus.

 

Poor little chrisitan, did I misspell the (non) name of your savior? Well so did you. I believe his name was Immanuel. At the very most, Iesus. Not "Jesus" as you so commonly call it.

 

Go ahead and leave this place Dennis. Never come back. You are doing nothing at all here except farting around, wasting my time. You post the same posts, you say the same old song and dance, and you laud you idols like Kreeft and Lewis to the sky. Personally, I'm tired of it. Personally, I'm tired of explaining things to you, and pouring my feelings out to you so you can pat me condecendingly on the head and post about how you aren't doing jack all about genocide and it just pains you so much. FOAD.

 

God "sided with Job" did he? If losing your family and your house and your health is what happens when God is on your side, you can keep it.

 

Once again you've left me with a post full of whining and self-righteousness without ever really answering any questions beyond "I don't know but God is good anyway". That's not enough. You haven't really said anything new to me since the day you came here. Maybe it's time you left and then came back with something to actually say.

 

If you want to go, then go. I will certainly not stop you. At this point, I actually wish to encourage you. Go.

[SOIL]

Cerise,

 

I wonder if I should dare ask what "FOAD" means?

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Thankful,

 

Upon first reading, yes, I did think your post was harsh.

 

I don't have any problem with telling you my thoughts however - when I can justify trying to summon up the needed emotional energy, thought, and time - and hopefully I can temper such volumes with compassion, honesty, fairness, etc...

 

None of the needed ingredients always seems to come easily though - plus I still need to try to help the company (the one I work for) earn some more money!

 

Cerise and I go way back (so to speak), - on this board anyway - so I have tried to give her posts first priority - and I just can't respond to all of these posts just now.

 

-Dennis

[NotBlinded]

I don't know but I have pretty good idea what the "F" stands for.  However, unless you think my post is to harsh, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

Oh...oh...I wanna guess!

 

F@*# off and die?

[SOIL]

That would have been my guess - but I am hoping it is not the case.

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Here is a snippet - mini, mini transcript - of what is said at 55:00 minutes into the audio :

Oruel says:

"I cannot hope for mercy",

 

and he says:

"infinite hopes may be yours, but be sure that whatever else you get, you will not get justice"

 

"Are the god's not just, grandfather?"

 

"Oh, no child, what would become of us if they were?"

 

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

1:00:39 - At 1 hour, 00 minutes, and 39 seconds into the talk:

Suppose God had written a book. "Hey, Job I wrote this book myself, it's the best book in the world, it explains every single question you have, it's the answer to the problem of evil."

1:01:37

Yep, you can see him, you can't see the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is God himself living in your soul with maximum intimacy.

1:02:41

So to start with Christ is to get both, both the distance and the intimacy, because he is the son of the father and the sender of the Holy Spirit.

[SOIL]

00:41:02

I could not hold out against ungant for half an hour

 

00:41:56

Here is the ... in a sense the fundamental problem of human life:

 

You've got to be perfect - you can't be perfect.

 

You've got to be just - you can't be just.

 

You've got to please God - you can't please God.

 

This is why those people who read the sermon on the mount with a smile, and say how enlighted Jesus is - I think are fools.

 

When I read the 10 commandments, I'm only a little terrified, I mean 300 is a major league batting average ...

 

00:42:49

that's the X-Ray, that's not the operation.

 

That's law, that's not Grace.

 

This book is, is really about the triumph of Grace.  But the problem has to be seen as almost unsolvable before you can really be grateful for Grace ...

[NotBlinded]

Would we need grace if not for god?

[SOIL]

00:44:13

I said the first problem was faith and reason, the second problem was the hardest thing about faith and reason, reconciling God's goodness with our suffering, the third problem was the problem behind the problem, why does God hide, why can't we see him?  Why can't we see God face to face? And the answer is because we don't yet have faces.  Then the fourth problem is the problem behind the problem behind the problem - why don't we yet have a face? And the answer is because we are two-faced.  Romans 7 I love that ...

[SOIL]

Would we need grace if not for god?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NotBlind,

 

Maybe that depends on whether we would have a conscious "if not for god"?

 

-Dennis

[Checkmate]

Nivek,

I don't remember having heard the word 'grok' used before.

 

When I tried to look it up at the trusty on-line Webster's dictionary site, they ended up getting me to do a "free trial" thing for their unabridged version.

 

(I added the bold emphasis)

 

 

(Any and all help anyone can offer me, would be much appreciated!)

 

-Dennis

 

 

Sorry I'm late guys, but I've been having computer troubles again. Been in and out, viewing from the peanut gallery and such. I was hoping that Nivek would reply to this himself, but since he didn't I'll toss in the explanation for "grok".

 

It is a word coined by Robert E. Heinlein in his sci-fi classic "Stranger In A Strange Land". I haven't read that gem since the '70s, but if memory serves me it basically means to understand, comprehend, or get the gist of.

 

It's funny Dennis, how the Holy Ghost did not equip you with the gift of tongues to "grok" that meaning!

 

(I'm sorry. But I couldn't resist it!)

 

Anyway...That's all the insight I wanted to provide you with, Dennis.

 

 

You may all now carry on with the scheduled debate. Play nice! (HAHAHAHA!!!)

[dogmatically_challenged]

SOIL. To me it don't matter what your perception of the bible is. It"s the fact that you support it as the werd of gawd. If the book itself is problematic, bigoted, contradictory and lacking in evidence for it's claims, then any theology that tries to tackle these problems will fail if we scratch the surfice deep enough. Theology is dishonest. It always has been.

 

The seeds of altruism and the best methods in spirituality can't be built on such a book as the bible without OPENLY admitting that the bible is the work of men and not god breathed. For these seeds to blossom into a flower and not a weed we must all openly reject the ugliness that abounds in your book as lies told by human beings who at the time were not drawing on the light from within.

 

The gems in your book came from people who were using reason and emathy at the time of inspiration. I'ts much more reasonable to say that the gems in your book came at moments when these human writers were at thier best and that they were drawing on the goodness that is inherent in us. If there is a god I can't see why we can not assume that the goodness inherent in us all is a free gift from god no strings attached. Something put in place at some point in our evolutiion.

 

(Thanks Lokmer)

[SOIL]

00:45:28

The god's are veiled because we veil ourselves.  She takes a lifetime to see that.

[NotBlinded]

NotBlind,

 

Maybe that depends on whether we would have a conscious "if not for god"?

 

-Dennis

Well, we could say that having a conscience comes from god (any god), but that would discount the ones that have a conscience without knowing god. You could say that god gives us a conscience before we are born (we don't have to know him), but that would be hard to prove. You would have to ask someone that has never had any life experiences and I don't think a person would even be conscious lacking all 5 senses. How could someone communicate to you that they know right from wrong without any external input for the brain to process?

[SOIL]

00:49:20

"...picking something out of it - what was it? And I saw, bright gold hung in flecks upon the thorns of the bushes.  The rams had left some of their golden wool on them as they raced past, this she was gleaning, handful after handful, a rich harvest."  This is phyche of course.  "What I had sought in vain, by meeting the joyous and terrible brutes with my own power, she took at her leisure, she won without effort, what utmost effort could not win for me."  Now the gold comes on the thorns, thorns are a symbol of suffering.  This is the deepest answer to why we must suffer.  We must suffer the onrush of divine Grace.  In our present condition that has to be suffering.

[dogmatically_challenged]

SOIL. To me it don't matter what your perception of the bible is. It"s the fact that you support it as the werd of gawd. If the book itself is problematic, bigoted, contradictory and lacking in evidence for it's claims, then any theology that tries to tackle these problems will fail if we scratch the surfice deep enough. Theology is dishonest. It always has been.

 

The seeds of altruism and the best methods in spirituality can't be built on such a book as the bible without OPENLY admitting that the bible is the work of men and not god breathed. For these seeds to blossom into a flower and not a weed we must all openly reject the ugliness that abounds in your book as lies told by human beings who at the time were not drawing on the light from within.

 

The gems in your book came from people who were using reason and emathy at the time of inspiration. I'ts much more reasonable to say that the gems in your book came at moments when these human writers were at thier best and that they were drawing on the goodness that is inherent in us. If there is a god I can't see why we can not assume that the goodness inherent in us all is a free gift from god no strings attached. Something put in place at some point in our evolutiion.

 

(Thanks Lokmer)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bump.

[SOIL]

SOIL. To me it don't matter what your perception of the bible is. It"s the fact that you support it as the werd of gawd. ...

...

(Thanks Lokmer)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(I added the Bold emphasis)

 

D._C.

 

What is it about all this misspelling of important words?

 

(You already preceded those words with "you support it" - so it is not as if you would be cursed with having to deal with people thinking you had actually typed "word of God" directly - as if coming from your own self!)

 

...

 

Why do you say "(Thanks Lokmer) at the end of your post - and your "bumped" post?

 

-Dennis

[dogmatically_challenged]

(I added the Bold emphasis)

 

D._C.

 

What is it about all this misspelling of important words?

 

(You already preceded those words with "you support it" - so it is not as if you would be cursed with having to deal with people thinking you had actually typed "word of God" directly - as if coming from your own self!)

 

...

 

Why do you say "(Thanks Lokmer) at the end of your post - and your "bumped" post?

 

-Dennis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I may be atheist, but what if I'm wrong? I will not support slander of our Creator if there is one. God doesn't even have to love me as much as I want. Just in case there is a Creator I take offense to the bible slanders of the possible Author of our universe.

 

I thank Lokmer only because of what I got from some of his posts, nothing more. There are some gems in the bible.

[Caretaker]

I may be atheist, but what if I'm wrong? I will not support slander of our Creator if there is one. God doesn't even have to love me as much as I want. Just in case there is a Creator I take offense to the bible slanders of the possible Author of our universe.

But is it slander to be skeptical of someone?

[dogmatically_challenged]

But is it slander to be skeptical of someone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if you don't see any evidence of a creator. Why would a being who is intelligent enough to create the whole damn universe be offended by athiests. If there is a god I am not afraid of it.

 

If there is a god true skepticism is not a slander but an honest search for god. I will accept only the most reasonable findings that are also based on evidence.

[SOIL]

Soil,

 

You may not like those scriptures but they are there. Also, you said that "Moses said that...." and such, but there is a problem with that..... God, in the OT doesn't have a problem with such atrocities.  He causes them to happen, he says so.  Even if you don't want to pin the blame on God it shows the bible is a book written by EVIL PEOPLE.  Why on earth would we want to accept their version of god as truth?

 

However, that does still not explain the 2 she bears that god sent to maul to death 42 children because Elijah got called "bald head." Does not explain how we could call a god loving who would drown to death innocent infants and kittens in the flood.  If he is all powerful he could have MERCIFULLY just snapped his fingers and made everyone disappear.  Read the OT Prophets where God says..... "In those days, I will cause....."  [insert terrible and horrid punishment].  Again, why not just make everyone disappear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thankful,

 

Now that I am rereading your post - I should probably change what I said earlier - Actually, now that I reread your post - I don't really think it is too harsh after all. You didn't use any profanity and it doesn't appear as if you are mainly trying to make all Christians look like idiots who are much less enlightened than yourself.

 

I think one of the problems concerning the people of earth - at the time when the Old Testament was written - is that basically most all of the people who lived in those days would be considered by most folks, these days, as being "EVIL PEOPLE". Much of what was taught by Moses and others as having been "the word of God", if obeyed, would have produced people who were at least LESS EVIL than those living in surrounding cultures. Maybe God can only improve people just so much at a time - in small gradual steps?

 

As far as those people (and kittens) who were killed either by she-bears or the great flood - I can only assume there were lessons taught (to the surviving humans) which served as seeds planted - that will eventually bloom into human goodness which would not have been possible if God had simply "just snapped his fingers and made everyone disappear". Remember, as a Christian, I don't think the book is closed for any person (or kitten for that matter) at the moment when physical death in this world happens. I won't know whether true justice has been enacted over the full scope of reality until I am able to see (like God) throughout all of Time without chronological limitations --- (see/hear Time and Eternity).

 

I'll try to get to commenting on the remainder of your post in a separate post - I'm trying to keep my posts a bit smaller - so if I lose something - it doesn't take so long to retype it.

 

-Dennis

[dogmatically_challenged]

SOIL

make all Christians look like idiots who are much less enlightened than yourself.

I can’t help it if you feel stupid by what I or others here say. You are in intellectual SOIL. You do not HAVE to be stupid to fall for the mind virus, you only have to be brainwashed and/or just be human. Even Smart people can be had.

 

SOIL

Much of what was taught by Moses and others as having been "the word of God", if obeyed, would have produced people who were at least LESS EVIL than those living in surrounding cultures. Maybe God can only improve people just so much at a time - in small gradual steps?

This is a good defense of a peoples doing the best they could given how things were back then. However, it is a lame excuse for an omni-powered being who’s nature IS love. We today are more moral than your god was yesterday. Funny that. What you are saying here is that god is not super intelligent and is not all powerful. Our limitations can not be an obstacle for a super intelligent being who is also all powerful. Those ugly laws of moses were not criticized by your god and they should have been. It does not matter how flawed and backwards we might be ,god should never od commanded or condoned ugliness, hatred, bigotry, unjust laws, or violence of any kind ever ever. There never should have been a chosen people either. Through out all time your god should have had a covenant with all peoples and not just one as well. Your book is an absurd and dangerous fiction.

 

SOIL

As far as those people (and kittens) who were killed either by she-bears or the great flood - I can only assume there were lessons taught (to the surviving humans)

Gods! At this ONE moment you disgust me SOIL! If your god has omni-powers and IS love then no one, especially children should have been used as an example. A being with such powers and who’s very nature is to love would be limited to using his powers to love. That means no torture or violence ever ever. A being with the powers as given us in the bible who IS love can teach by example and be effective without taking away our freewill. Don’t blame me for the extraordinary claims of the nature and abilities of your god..

[dogmatically_challenged]

SOIL. diggen thinks god has a long term plan as well.

 

Why don't you refute my rebutal to him here.

 

Take a stabb at that.