Serious Question To Christians

[Grandpa Harley]

Neon,

All the understanding I have is that God is omniscient and came to earth to identify with us. I would assume, being the creator, that he well knows both blessing and suffering.

 

I don't remember saying God was too mysterious to understand. I know what he has given me in Love, but don't know what he has withheld from me in Love. Who said it was a this or that, an either, or, an absolute? Even the bible says we only see in part.....

 

Red: Where does this opinion come from. It's certainly not biblical.

Green: No, you know what you attribute to the monster you follow. It it's not knowledge, it's an opinion...

Purple: So, suddenly the bible has authority, although you ewspouse inthe red sentence a wholly non-biblical view of 'why God did the Jesus thing'...

 

 

BTW the Red reason is at odds with the idea of Jesus being there before creation as part of God, since that would mean Jesus wasn't human, but a god in the form of a human, incapable of sacrificing anything since, no matter what happened, he was going to come out ok...

 

As to gaining empathy for the human condition - excrement. The life of an itinerant teacher was 'odd' even by the standards of a culture as alien to use as first century Judaism - a 35 year old single man with no family, was unheard of in those times. His 'human' experience was pretty poor by all applicable standards. This is why people play the mystery card, and even then it's a misnomer, since it's not an unknowable thing, it's a thing known only to initiates... and not even clergy seem initiated to the 'facts' of the matter... which indicates less there is something hidden and more there is nothing behind the curtain at all... Basically, you're making up pretty stories to account for an absent God you hope exists, and like to pin 'good things' on when they happen in your life, as opposed to it being 'happy chance', which is a lot more likely a scenario than the creator of the universe being interested in anyone here...

[Alice]

 

People do not learn to love because they encounter hate - they learn love from love.

 

People do not learn to live peacefully from enocuntering war and persecutions, they learn from the experience of peace.

 

People do not learn to compromise because they have been oppressed. Compromise arises out of experience of being valued and considered.

 

If your god thinks that exposure to violence and evil and pain and suffering is a good method for moving mankind towards somekind of perfected ideal then he's never visited a residential children's home. Exposure to all that is bad in this 'vain world' does not produce good results - it tends to harm.

 

If your arguments were based in any kind of truth then children who have been abused the most would be the 'strongest' adults. Yes of course, some are able to overcome - they overcome 'despite' the suffering, they overcome because they encounter love and goodness somewhere and this lifts them.

 

Alice,

 

I believe that if you think too individualistically instead of corporately you will miss how God's plan works.

 

OK - lets try this corporately then,

 

Nations do not learn to love because they encounter hate - they learn love from love.

 

Nations do not learn to live peacefully from enocuntering war and persecutions, they learn from the experience of peace.

 

Nations do not learn to compromise because they have been oppressed. Compromise arises out of experience of being valued and considered.

 

Your idea that we somehow move forward on the shoulders of the previous generation is hardly born out in the rise and fall of civilisations throughout history.

 

 

I do not see how an atheist could be one of these manifested sons because Jesus described a son as one who only does what the Father shows him to do. A son does not act independently or in his own direction, but faithfully represents what the Father would do in the same situation.

 

In these terms - I do not see how a Father can be a Father if some of his children are born into times and nations where no one has heard of him and he makes no attmept to get in touch or manage any aspect of the child's life and commits 'failure to protect' on an unbelievably massive scale.

 

In my line of work, the absenteeism and failure to protect on the scale we see where god is concerned - would find a child adopted into a new family.

 

 

What do you want from Ex-Christians? Why do you persist in espousing a world view that on a site where it is universally abhorred? What do you hope to gain, other than being an irritant?

 

I'd been thinking a similar thing reading through this thread. You sound pretty 'decided' for this kind of 'dialogue' John.

 

Have you ever encountered a situation in which suffering you have observed or experienced has raised doubts - even for a moment, just how 'loving' a Father this god is?

[Neon Genesis]

Neon,

All the understanding I have is that God is omniscient and came to earth to identify with us.

First of all, if God came to Earth to identify with us, then why doesn't God make himself easier to understand? How can you identify with someone where you can only understand part of them? Second of all, God coming to Earth as Jesus doesn't count as God "suffering" because everything was rigged from the start for Jesus to win and Jesus' suffering is contradicted by the resurrection whereas other people suffer far worse and never get a miracle, essentially nullifying any "suffering" Jesus went through.

 

I would assume, being the creator, that he well knows both blessing and suffering.

But that makes no sense. If God is invincible because God is all-powerful, then how can God truly know suffering? Either God is invincible and no one can make him truly suffer or God does indeed suffer and is not invincible and the bible lied about God being perfect. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

I don't remember saying God was too mysterious to understand. I know what he has given me in Love, but don't know what he has withheld from me in Love. Who said it was a this or that, an either, or, an absolute? Even the bible says we only see in part.....

You said so right here

We are limited by our understanding and maturity as we are now, and we express that to the best of our abilities.

Either we are limited by our understanding or we can indeed understand God. According to dictionary.com, the word understanding means, "mental process of a person who comprehends; superior power of discernment." Definition of the word limited, "characterized by an inability to think imaginatively or independently; lacking originality or scope; narrow." If your knowledge is limited, then that means you have an inability to think imaginatively or independently. If you have an inability to think, then you can't both be limited in your knowledge and also have an understanding of God's motivations behind allowing suffering. Having knowledge and being limited are two entirely contradictory concepts that are completely incompatible with each other.

[Antlerman]

Again, the Centrurion passage depends on which version you read. The earliest versions don't cite demons, just a healing... but the whole passage appears to be a late(ish) interpolation to give the impression that Jesus was recognised by the Romans (which, pre-mortem he wasn't, and his death passed unnoticed by Roman recordists, even the Sainted Josephus' father didn't mention the earthquakes and walking dead)

 

I assume you must be addressing illustrative myth, rather than a cosmology... Is this the case?

 

GH,

 

To me, Bible study is more art than science. I go with what God teaches me heart to heart. You can study the life out of anything, but that does not work for me. If it works for others that is fine too. If a passage speaks to me, I retain it and if not, I let it pass until later. I really do not care what means were used to write or assemble the Bible. I just know that it helps me through life and this is enough for me.

 

John

Very well then. With that in mind, since your interpretation is a heart-based one it is subjective and cannot be taken as speaking from you to the whole world at large, unless you consider yourself a prophet for mankind. You interpret what "bears witness to your spirit". This is fine, but then objective truth is no longer a factor unless you plan to match that with objective source to be weighed and consider through solid scholarship. Therefore... it's what makes sense to you. It how you understand how God speaks to you.

 

But is it valid for you then to presume that God speaks the same thing to others? In other words, what he says to you is objective truth than must apply to all others, or put another way how you feel is the truth for all mankind? Using God as the source of this sort of 'inner witness', then do you suppose maybe others may have a different message from him? And if so, then maybe that message is a part of the puzzle you don't understand and are remiss in thinking they are 'wrong' (such as considering all of us as "lost" or "non-spiritual"). If not, how do you judge your understanding of truth from theirs? Who or what makes your sense of truth right versus theirs? The Bible? A sense of appointment as an oracle of God?

 

I think Gramps really nailed it in asking is this illustrative myth versus a cosmology?

[Guest end3]

I think we can merge thoughts here.....it seems as though there is no acceptance of "not knowing all" in a Spiritual sense, yet many here are fine with "not knowing all" in a physical sense. There in not one (small O), who can define scientifically, the subject of my choosing, nor is there one (small O) who can give me a complete Spiritual understanding.

 

You can fluff it or flower it all you want, but that is your choice.

 

DRIVER! Stop the short bus, I want to walk....

[Antlerman]

I do not see how an atheist could be one of these manifested sons because Jesus described a son as one who only does what the Father shows him to do. A son does not act independently or in his own direction, but faithfully represents what the Father would do in the same situation.

 

<snip>

 

A son of God is not one by birth, but one by training and maturity to be able to say that if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. How can you be such a son if you do not believe that He is and have not learned to hear His voice? Jesus spent the first 30 years of His life learning sonship so that finally God testified of Him and said that this was His beloved Son in whom He was well pleased. To me (and this is only me), life is about being conformed to the image of the Son as He was conformed to the image of the Father so we can overcome as He overcame and was counted worthy to rule over the works of His Father's hands.

 

John

This should prove to be interesting. For argument's sake, who are you to judge that the atheist is in fact not doing exactly what the Father (God) is showing him to do? Maybe the fact that they see religion as anything but representing a whole and healthy world view, that following their heart in giving the middle finger to the religious institution and all its corrupt icons, and seeking truth elsewhere is exactly what God wants! Isn't that in essence what Jesus did in decrying the religious system of his day? “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you!”

 

What exactly do you consider "serving God"? Serving a religious symbol? Or is it at it's heart serving love, peace, humanity, truth, sincerity, community, health, healing, and compassion? What is serving God? To make you scratch your head a little, what's more important the name God, or those qualities that are supposed to be God? Who is serving God? Who are you judging isn't, and by what standards? Maybe this is starting to make sense what my debate with Kat22 was in part to illustrate.

 

Maybe listening to your own voice is listening to God? It's not a case of listening to "lusts". But in the vast majority of times it's listening to our conscience. Actions betray the nature of what that is, not someone's religious affiliation or outright rejections. "You shall know them by their fruits". Not their doctrines.

[Legion]

There in not one (small O), who can define scientifically, the subject of my choosing, nor is there one (small O) who can give me a complete Spiritual understanding.

End what would it mean to have spiritual understanding? Who has it?

 

I go to a biologist and expect her to have some understanding of organsims. I go to a psychologist and expect him to have some understanding of the mind. So who has spiritual understanding? And what did they study to acquire this understanding?

[Guest end3]

This is like identifying a pattern...I think I can do this

 

 

biologist ---> organisms

psychologist ---> mind

God ---> Spiritual

 

..."they", unless you mean trinity, is God, and I am unable to speculate if God studies...

 

give me another one....

[Legion]

biologist ---> organisms

psychologist ---> mind

God ---> Spiritual

So you seem to asserting that if I want to go to someone who has an understanding of spiritual matters then I need to go to God.

 

Okay, how do I go to God? How do I go to God and inquire about spiritual matters? Are you going to say prayer? If so, I'd only like to point out that I've been a Christian End. I have prayed many prayers. But eventually I came to suspect that prayer was merely one part of myself speaking to another part of myself.

[Antlerman]

biologist ---> organisms

psychologist ---> mind

God ---> Spiritual

So you seem to asserting that if I want to go to someone who has an understanding of spiritual matters then I need to go to God.

 

Okay, how do I go to God? How do I go to God and inquire about spiritual matters? Are you going to say prayer? If so, I'd only like to point out that I've been a Christian End. I have prayed many prayers. But eventually I came to suspect that prayer was merely one part of myself speaking to another part of myself.

Just a point of observation that got missed, following LR's analogy pointing to humans for these areas the answer would be a priest or theologian. Why would you bypass God as the source of answers for biology and psychology, yet not for spirituality if God is the Creator? Is it because religion is failing to offer answers, whereas the sciences aren't. (long rhetorical pause)

[florduh]

OK, organisms and minds exist, and there are disciplines that study them.

 

The spiritual is another matter. Most people "feel" there is something out there, or just really want there to be. On that basis, and no other, spirituality is imagined and expressed in a myriad of individual ways. If the spiritual realm really existed, it would be experienced in the same way by everyone. It is disingenuous to claim your view of the spiritual realm is the only valid one since all views are constructed in the human mind.

[Antlerman]

OK, organisms and minds exist, and there are disciplines that study them.

 

The spiritual is another matter. Most people "feel" there is something out there, or just really want there to be. On that basis, and no other, spirituality is imagined and expressed in a myriad of individual ways. If the spiritual realm really existed, it would be experienced in the same way by everyone. It is disingenuous to claim your view of the spiritual realm is the only valid one since all views are constructed in the human mind.

I just added an edit to my post in the last sentence that should address this.

[Guest end3]

I will spare you the "how I went to God" speech as it will just piss people off.

 

The point that I was making was....we don't know all concerning the physical nor do we don't know all concerning the Spiritual, and the conclusion you have drawn is one of a scientist....as you have stated, you think you are talking to yourself. I am a "scientist" in another camp. My assumption, theory, whatever, is that peoples prayers are perceived not to be answered because we possess a lack of complete Spiritual understanding and is prohibited by God through Love. Man's view of science has evolved, and Spiritual can not?? I could certainly spend hours heckling scientists about incomplete understanding......I could call them hypocrites....scientists cheat all the time for the promise of big $$......

[Guest end3]

AM,

 

That is why I directed LR to the truth, God, rather than a theologian or priest....the good news is I can go straight to the source and miss the human aspect...

[Guest end3]

Please Florduh,

I am not existing in a Spiritual existance, or possibly it might be experienced by many the same way.

[florduh]

We don't know all concerning the physical, and probably never will. However, we revise our understanding as new information comes to light. We can all agree on the definition of reality as it is studied.

 

When it comes to understanding or learning more about the spiritual, you and everyone else are free to just make it up, as there is nothing to really study except personal feelings and philosophies and how you think things must be for it all to make sense to you. Another spiritual person may have a completely different "revelation." That "process" does not get you any closer to an external truth. It's all in your head. It may serve you as a working philosophy of life, but it isn't real to anyone else.

[Grandpa Harley]

How is this more on topic than the suffering caused by institutional, 'spiritualized'(sic), prejudice?

 

At the moment, I have Kratos telling me that Atheists aren't equal in creation, and the Gospel of Forrest Gump...

[florduh]

There's a topic?

[Guest end3]

And that is certainly your choice Florduh....

[florduh]

And that is certainly your choice Florduh....

 

What is?

[Grandpa Harley]

There's a topic?

 

There's a rumour... but lets let it go where it may...

[Guest end3]

To believe as you wish...

[florduh]

Ah. That's everyone's choice.

 

I believe as much as I am able to.

[Grandpa Harley]

Believe or simply hold opinions?

[Legion]

End I am trying desperately over here to prevent my cynicism from overwhelming me.

 

My suspicion is that what we often called “spiritual†is actually something else. And that if we were to study this thing then we would gain an understanding of “spiritual†matters as a corollary.

 

I see that you often seem to divide reality into the physical and the spiritual. I think that nature is richer than most currently realize. I think you are right that the understanding of science is incomplete. And I also think any scientist worth their salt would readily agree.

 

I am feeling frustrated End. And I am not entirely certain why.