So Um... Why Don't The "devout" Xians Stick It Out?

[rayskidude]

...God does not require worship or human belief; as Paul said to the Athenians:

Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

 

God doesn't require anything from us - He graciously created us that we might have a life of inexpressible joy of enjoying His Person & His Creation forever.

A person doesn't get to have that "joy" unless they believe, so contrary to your claim, belief is required.

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

Please read the post again - and what it's in response to; the original statement was that 'God requires worship' as though He needed something from us But I responded that God does not require worship.

 

The belief you state as being required is the belief that people must have in God in order to enjoy His great eternal blessings - which is correct.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

[Mriana]

Every now and then, good discussion can occur. I've experienced a few. And in the end, there's mutual respect. The best that can be hoped for. Not "I beat them".

 

I would love to see that happen, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

[centauri]

...God does not require worship or human belief; as Paul said to the Athenians:

Act 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

Act 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,

Act 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

 

God doesn't require anything from us - He graciously created us that we might have a life of inexpressible joy of enjoying His Person & His Creation forever.

A person doesn't get to have that "joy" unless they believe, so contrary to your claim, belief is required.

John 3:36

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

Please read the post again - and what it's in response to; the original statement was that 'God requires worship' as though He needed something from us But I responded that God does not require worship.

 

Did you or did you not write this?

God does not require worship or human belief

...God doesn't require anything from us

[rayskidude]

"Did you or did you not write this?

God does not require worship or human belief

...God doesn't require anything from us

 

Yes - in His Person, God does not require us to believe in Him as though He needs something from us to give Him significance. Our belief in God adds nothing to His existence, God needs nothing from us for Him to continue to be God.

 

God does require that people believe in Him if we are to experience the blessings that He has promised to those who repent from sin and turn to Him in faith. This is human belief which results in blessings to its practioners.

[Snakefoot]

"Did you or did you not write this?

God does not require worship or human belief

...God doesn't require anything from us

 

Yes - in His Person, God does not require us to believe in Him as though He needs something from us to give Him significance. Our belief in God adds nothing to His existence, God needs nothing from us for Him to continue to be God.

 

God does require that people believe in Him if we are to experience the blessings that He has promised to those who repent from sin and turn to Him in faith. This is human belief which results in blessings to its practioners.

 

So, gawd DOES require something from us? Have you reversed your previous proclamation?

[rayskidude]

When you see the world - with all the beauty & harmony in the balance of nature, with the abundant diversity of life forms, with all the joy in human love - both brotherly & romantic, with all the amazing things that Mankind has accomplished - what do you see as the source for all this? Random processes of chance and time?

I see an amazing nature, and the universe as the source. Existence, Nature (as a whole), All and everything, as being the source of it. And it's amazing. Isn't amazing that time and a process led to what we are and where we are? I think it is. It doesn't get more amazing by inventing a fantasy to explain it. Accepting it, and seeing it for what it is, gives me a "spiritual" experience.

 

A wonderful piece of rock doesn't become more amazing because I believe a Rock-Gnome made it.

 

So when you see the intricate complexity of nature, the vast diversity within the plant & animal kingdoms, the harmony and efficacy of the water, carbon, & nitrogen cycles - not to mention the delicate balance of forces within the atomic nucleus >> you see all of this as 'a ripple of order in a universe of chaos?'

[Guest Davka]

So when you see the intricate complexity of nature, the vast diversity within the plant & animal kingdoms, the harmony and efficacy of the water, carbon, & nitrogen cycles - not to mention the delicate balance of forces within the atomic nucleus >> you see all of this as 'a ripple of order in a universe of chaos?'

Actually, the universe is not chaotic. Far from it - it is quite orderly, with natural law and mathematical precision underlying everything that happens.

 

It is also random, to an extent. But that very randomness is itself governed by laws. Random samplings will always resolve into a bell curve when they get large enough. If a blindfolded man throws a handful of gravel randomly, each bit of gravel will describe a mathematically predictable, orderly curve. The entire handful will exhibit predictable behavior. Yet where each bit of gravel ends up will be random nonetheless.

 

There is a fascinating pattern to the universe. The relationship between matter and energy and light creates fractals, according to the laws of physics. No "god" is needed to explain or enjoy the beauty of complexity.

 

Your question is faulty on a very basic level. You seem to think that enjoyment of astonishing complexity requires that one believe there was a conscious creator behind the complexity. But if that were so, then your enjoyment of your astonishingly complex "god" would require that you believe that Someone had created "god."

 

Here's the way that argument really plays out:

 

Atheist/agnostic: There is no creator.

 

Believer: Then were did the Universe come from?

 

Atheist/agnostic: It always existed.

 

Believer: That's irrational. All complex things need a creator and a beginning.

 

Atheist/agnostic: Then where did God come from?

 

Believer: He always existed.

 

Atheist/agnostic: But you just said that all complex things need a creator and a beginning.

 

Believer: *crickets*

[Mriana]

"Did you or did you not write this?

God does not require worship or human belief

...God doesn't require anything from us

 

Yes - in His Person, God does not require us to believe in Him as though He needs something from us to give Him significance. Our belief in God adds nothing to His existence, God needs nothing from us for Him to continue to be God.

 

God does require that people believe in Him if we are to experience the blessings that He has promised to those who repent from sin and turn to Him in faith. This is human belief which results in blessings to its practioners.

 

OK, now here is my questions for you Rayskidude. How do you know God is a he? Are you sure it is a he? Are you sure it even looks human? What if god is an it, with no form or mass. What if it is purely fluidic like mercury or a gas like hydrogen? What if it is like the wind? What if it is non-matter or rather anti-matter? What if it is the Way, as in the Tao? I could go on like this forever, but I think you get the point and no, I do not believe your way is necessarily the right way or even the Way at all. For all I know, the Way could be the Tao or it could be the 8 Fold Path and the 4 Noble Truths. As you can see, I can cover a lot of different things in this line of questioning, even if I have ask my Buddhist son the right number in the 8 Fold Path, because the number always slips my mind. Somehow I have a feeling you don't have a handle on the whole even, just like the blind men and the elephant, because you haven't studied anything but your own religion and probably haven't gotten very far into science to know much about it either.

[Snakefoot]

"Did you or did you not write this?

God does not require worship or human belief

...God doesn't require anything from us

 

Yes - in His Person, God does not require us to believe in Him as though He needs something from us to give Him significance. Our belief in God adds nothing to His existence, God needs nothing from us for Him to continue to be God.

 

God does require that people believe in Him if we are to experience the blessings that He has promised to those who repent from sin and turn to Him in faith. This is human belief which results in blessings to its practioners.

 

So, gawd DOES require something from us? Have you reversed your previous proclamation?

 

Since no answer seems forthcoming, I posit for all and sundry:

 

If gawd does require something of us, according to xtianity we are required to observe and follow the commandments, Levitical law, the writings of Paul, et al.

 

If gawd does not require anything of us, none of the commandments et al need be followed.

 

[centauri]

"Did you or did you not write this?

God does not require worship or human belief

...God doesn't require anything from us

 

Yes - in His Person, God does not require us to believe in Him as though He needs something from us to give Him significance. Our belief in God adds nothing to His existence, God needs nothing from us for Him to continue to be God.

 

God does require that people believe in Him if we are to experience the blessings that He has promised to those who repent from sin and turn to Him in faith. This is human belief which results in blessings to its practioners.

Your original context was this:

God doesn't require anything from us - He graciously created us that we might have a life of inexpressible joy of enjoying His Person & His Creation forever.

 

Whether or not you realize it, you were advertising that your version of God doesn't require anything from humans for them to experience the joy of his creation for eternity.

You've now acknowledged that God does require something from humans in order for humans to receive rewards and escape punishment.

This requirement is actually an ultimatum.

[rayskidude]

So when you see the intricate complexity of nature, the vast diversity within the plant & animal kingdoms, the harmony and efficacy of the water, carbon, & nitrogen cycles - not to mention the delicate balance of forces within the atomic nucleus >> you see all of this as 'a ripple of order in a universe of chaos?'

Actually, the universe is not chaotic. Far from it - it is quite orderly, with natural law and mathematical precision underlying everything that happens.

 

I completely agree - I was quoting a evolutionary scientist re: the universe of chaos. Scientists have some to see much more order in the universe than many though should be present - and so they've sought for the reasons why.

 

There is a fascinating pattern to the universe. The relationship between matter and energy and light creates fractals, according to the laws of physics. No "god" is needed to explain or enjoy the beauty of complexity.

 

But this is a statement of faith - you believe that these axiomatic mechanistic laws just exist on their own.

 

Your question is faulty on a very basic level. You seem to think that enjoyment of astonishing complexity requires that one believe there was a conscious creator behind the complexity. But if that were so, then your enjoyment of your astonishingly complex "god" would require that you believe that Someone had created "god."

 

No, I don't say that enjoyment of nature requires belief in God - I state that the existence of complexity/diversity/harmony/balance/vastness/intracacy that we see in all of Creation points to an intelligent, conscious Designer/Creator. When you see a beautiful garden - you think as well of the gardener, do you not?

 

As Aquinas noted, God is the great Uncaused Cause of all things visible and invisible. The argument actually is this: is it more reasonable to understand that all the wonder we observe in the universe is simply inherent in the universe itself (and possibly brought about by a random fluctuation as part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty) - or is it more reasonable to understand that the intracate design we see points to a Designer?

[Guest Davka]

There is a fascinating pattern to the universe. The relationship between matter and energy and light creates fractals, according to the laws of physics. No "god" is needed to explain or enjoy the beauty of complexity.

 

But this is a statement of faith - you believe that these axiomatic mechanistic laws just exist on their own.

 

It's not faith, it's belief. Belief in the same sense that I exercise belief every time I sit down in a chair. I trust the chair will hold me, because it has held me in the past. I trust gravity to continue working, because it has always done so. But it is belief based on repeatable, verifiable evidence which is agreed on by all humanity. No "faith" is required to see what is in front of your nose.

 

Yours is faith based on a book, and even those who believe in that book disagree about what it means.

 

What's more, you believe that God "just exists on his own." The difference is that you're invoking an invisible unprovable being and claiming that it always was. I see no need for the once-removed 'always was' sky daddy. I can simply look at the visible universe and accept that it always was.

 

Your question is faulty on a very basic level. You seem to think that enjoyment of astonishing complexity requires that one believe there was a conscious creator behind the complexity. But if that were so, then your enjoyment of your astonishingly complex "god" would require that you believe that Someone had created "god."

 

No, I don't say that enjoyment of nature requires belief in God - I state that the existence of complexity/diversity/harmony/balance/vastness/intracacy that we see in all of Creation points to an intelligent, conscious Designer/Creator. When you see a beautiful garden - you think as well of the gardener, do you not?

False analogy. The universe is not arranged like a garden. It is more like an alpine meadow, carved by a glacier and grazed by deer. It is wild, and the fractal patterns are not the kind of thing a gardener would do at all.

 

If God "designed" human beings and all other forms of life, then he's a miserably inadequate engineer. The human spine, designed for crouching and tree-dwelling, is terrible for walking upright - thus the need for chiropractors. Similarly, the human pelvis was never designed to be twisted at an angle so that we might walk upright, and the result of that twist is that childbirth is more dangerous for human beings than for any other species.

 

When I look at life forms on Earth, I see evidence for evolution everywhere. Vestigial tails in humans, vestigial finger bones in whales - the list goes on and on. Life that was designed would look very, very different. A universe designed to create a habitat for humans would look very, very different. Even our DNA would be different - a second-rate computer programmer could write cleaner code. Human DNA makes Microsoft look efficient.

[rayskidude]

OK, now here is my questions for you Rayskidude. How do you know God is a he? Are you sure it is a he? Are you sure it even looks human? What if god is an it, with no form or mass. What if it is purely fluidic like mercury or a gas like hydrogen? What if it is like the wind? What if it is non-matter or rather anti-matter?

 

I believe that God is not male, but is an immaterial Spirit; that is - God consists of a spiritual essence, being without gender.

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

 

I do not believe your way is necessarily the right way or even the Way at all. For all I know, the Way could be the Tao or it could be the 8 Fold Path and the 4 Noble Truths. As you can see, I can cover a lot of different things in this line of questioning, even if I have ask my Buddhist son the right number in the 8 Fold Path, because the number always slips my mind. Somehow I have a feeling you don't have a handle on the whole even, just like the blind men and the elephant, because you haven't studied anything but your own religion and probably haven't gotten very far into science to know much about it either.

 

I understand your misgivings about Christainity & me - and I do not claim any expertise in thoroughly understanding other religions. I have studied Islam - took a course and read several books, and I've read many portions of the Qur'an. And I lived in northern Iraq for 6 months ministering to and conversing with the Kurdish people. The Eastern religions - I have read only a little in Comparative Religion books and I've had several conversations with faithful adherents. I do have an MS in Biochemistry, and I've worked as a chemist (analytical & environmental radiation chemistry) at 2 public universities.

 

But I know that Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges that we cannot be righteous before God, in and of ourselves, by keeping God's moral laws. The other religions teach a works-righteousness of some sort, while Christianity alone teaches that God saves us only by His grace, through humble faith in Him. Note the following;

Job 4:17 'Can mortal man be in the right before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?

Job 4:18 Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error;

Job 9:2 "Truly I know that it is so: But how can a man be in the right before God?

Job 25:4 How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

 

But God grants us salvation by His grace through our humble faith in the Person & work of Jesus Christ - and the righteousness of Christ is given to us - so that we can now be righteous before God;

Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Rom 5:11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Php 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ

Php 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--

 

So our salvation is the work of God in us - dependent upon His character, His power, His promises - not my inconsistent performance.

1Co 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,

1Co 1:31 so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

 

Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,

Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

[Antlerman]

No, I don't say that enjoyment of nature requires belief in God - I state that the existence of complexity/diversity/harmony/balance/vastness/intracacy that we see in all of Creation points to an intelligent, conscious Designer/Creator. When you see a beautiful garden - you think as well of the gardener, do you not?

Those are actually two separate questions. The first, the existence of complexity, diversity, etc, is understandable without some intelligent being as the architect. Self organizing systems are seen in nature all the time without the need of miracles. They are repeatable, observable phenomena. Therefore, it could just point to nature as a natural system.

 

The second question, when I see a beautiful garden, do I think of the gardener? I'm thinking of my garden I've built, and when I sit in it and experience life through it, it makes me think of how beautiful the world is. Not how good I am at landscaping and the choices in and placement of the types of plants I've placed about in it. Hopefully good art, the best art is one that makes you think of the beauty of something beyond itself.

 

Now if I were to see a God in nature, it would not be about some particular named deity of some tribe. It would be about life itself, a living, breathing, vital essence that would not be anything about literal need for blood sacrifices, at any time past or present. It would be much more evolved than that. More beautiful. The Garden would be seeing beyond the cares of this world, which would include caring about how to appease a god. So no, the Garden would be about seeing beauty, not a creator.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

So no, the Garden would be about seeing beauty, not a creator.

 

I completely agree. What is Shakespeare without his plays? Or Michelangelo without his works of art? It is the Creation that lasts, the Creation that matters and the Creator itself fades in comparison. I am satisfied to know that my molecules will be returned to the environment from whence I came. (its assuring to know that everyone and everything goes to the same place and existence carries on. Every bit of me will continue to exist forever just in a different form). Things created often last much longer than their creators (see examples above) and they grow in power so long as there are those that can appreciate them. The Universe itself is of course hardly made for our appreciation, but even if there were a first cause of some intellegent design, there is still no evidence that said designer stuck around or in any way remains actively working with its creation.

 

Also, can someone explain to me the consistancy here:

We are only saved by God's grace because he loves us. But we are unworthy of his love, so we have to show that we love him. To show him we love him, we have to obey his commandments and do what he says. But we are not saved by doing what he says, we are saved by him saving us because he loves us.

 

Such a circle of 'logic'. It hurts my head and gives me terrible flashbacks of being a child, completely confused by this same concept. Am I saved or not? Do I have to do anything or don't I? Does God love me no matter what or do I have to prove myself to him? Is love really the most powerful force of God, or is it legalistic judgment based on following commands? I truly have never understood it and marvel at people who do (or say they do).

 

-Death is the road to Awe

[chefranden]

...But I know that Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges that we cannot be righteous before God, in and of ourselves, by keeping God's moral laws. The other religions teach a works-righteousness of some sort, while Christianity alone teaches that God saves us only by His grace, through humble faith in Him...

 

So what? This does not mean that the others don't have an equal chance of working. Just because Paul says you can't be righteous enough, doesn't mean you can't be righteous enough. Yahweh says you can be righteous enough through Ezekiel and Matthew's Jesus agrees in at least one speech. You take this grace thing as proof you have the "right religion", but it is meaningless to others not already indoctrinated.

 

If I had to choose a religion, I'd pick Ezekiel's. I would rather rely on my own flawed goodness then the capricious whims of ChristianGod who couldn't make his belief instructions clear enough to prevent the endless multiplying of churches.

[Antlerman]

Also, can someone explain to me the consistancy here:

We are only saved by God's grace because he loves us. But we are unworthy of his love, so we have to show that we love him. To show him we love him, we have to obey his commandments and do what he says. But we are not saved by doing what he says, we are saved by him saving us because he loves us.

 

Such a circle of 'logic'. It hurts my head and gives me terrible flashbacks of being a child, completely confused by this same concept. Am I saved or not? Do I have to do anything or don't I? Does God love me no matter what or do I have to prove myself to him? Is love really the most powerful force of God, or is it legalistic judgment based on following commands? I truly have never understood it and marvel at people who do (or say they do).

In thinking about the Garden concept more last night this realization occurred to me that you touch on in this theological quandary you present above. If God is to be seen and experienced as Beauty, Truth, Light, Love, etc and we are to open up to all these Aesthetic realities of the universe we inhabit and let it 'guide' us, refresh us, and we 'hear' this 'voice' of God, then how, when we are busy being concerned about what this "God" thinks, feels, desires, etc., can we possibly genuinely have this 'communion' with God? We would become focused on something other than this freedom of Life found inside Beauty, which 'renews our soul'. God then becomes diminished and less than Beauty, as religion places this theolgical hood over the head of this 'infinite'.

 

In some regards, the Christian religion in certain more mystical aspects of it tries to address this in the language of being freed from the Law. However since it as a religion is a collection of many different human faces focused on God as a symbol for their various social and human Ideas, and these points of view are gathered together and presented as a unified whole to be understood as a single truth, you have the quandary you presented above and consequently the diminishing result I mentioned.

 

This would pretty much describe my experience of approaching "God" (or that Existential essence of Being and Beauty) within the context of this religious and theological system. Parts worked, but the overall effect was that putting a hood on "God", as it were. The result of that was diminishing of love, life, and spirit. And in all this is why I now say that 'salvation is being saved from religion'. I left that system as it was, not because it didn't square with a scientific reality, but because it diminished a human reality of Beauty and Life in its putting "God" on a human level. It has some elements of this within it, but its concerns about God as a person, ultimately distracts from the experience of this.

 

Theology is the act of reworking art in defense of a religious system. Apologetics is the act of marketers obfuscating it and replacing it altogether.

[chefranden]

... I state that the existence of complexity/diversity/harmony/balance/vastness/intracacy that we see in all of Creation points to an intelligent, conscious Designer/Creator. When you see a beautiful garden - you think as well of the gardener, do you not?No, I don't say that enjoyment of nature requires belief in God - I state that the existence of complexity/diversity/harmony/balance/vastness/intracacy that we see in all of Creation points to an intelligent, conscious Designer/Creator. When you see a beautiful garden - you think as well of the gardener, do you not?...

 

I wonder why you don't include the dark side of nature when you wax all poetic about the garden? Dark side examples: birth defects; HIV; mosquitoes; ticks; parasitic worms; flesh eating bacteria; cancer; tsunamis; famine; flu...

 

Nature doesn't tell me about a loving god. Nature would tell me about a sadistic asshole god, if it didn't tell me about no god.

[Antlerman]

I wonder why you don't include the dark side of nature when you wax all poetic about the garden? Dark side examples: birth defects; HIV; mosquitoes; ticks; parasitic worms; flesh eating bacteria; cancer; tsunamis; famine; flu...

I know this was addressed to Ray but it provoked a thought for me.

 

Why is it in fact when we look at art we see beauty and not disease? An answer addressing that would be very telling on a number of levels. Why do our thoughts move towards the aesthetic and the inspirational, rather than dark and dank? What does this tell us about how our humanity works?

 

Should we instead feel disgust and dread at life because it's more 'logical'? And that the majority doesn't, what does this say about the nature of being human? That we don't indeed live through pure, rational logic? That we, humans, make 'leaps of faith' in choosing to embrace beauty instead of terror. And if someone instead 'naturally' sees darkness, then should we consider that a pathology that works against the whole, or as a benefit to the whole?

 

What Ray doesn't get is that "God" is a symbolic face for this, and that theology takes the poetry of it and makes it a matter of logic; a logic that fails in the face of reason.

[Vigile]

Great point AM. Thought provoking.

[Antlerman]

Great point AM. Thought provoking.

Wow. Thanks.

[RationalOkie]

I wonder why you don't include the dark side of nature when you wax all poetic about the garden? Dark side examples: birth defects; HIV; mosquitoes; ticks; parasitic worms; flesh eating bacteria; cancer; tsunamis; famine; flu...

I know this was addressed to Ray but it provoked a thought for me.

 

Why is it in fact when we look at art we see beauty and not disease? An answer addressing that would be very telling on a number of levels. Why do our thoughts move towards the aesthetic and the inspirational, rather than dark and dank? What does this tell us about how our humanity works?

 

Should we instead feel disgust and dread at life because it's more 'logical'? And that the majority doesn't, what does this say about the nature of being human? That we don't indeed live through pure, rational logic? That we, humans, make 'leaps of faith' in choosing to embrace beauty instead of terror. And if someone instead 'naturally' sees darkness, then should we consider that a pathology that works against the whole, or as a benefit to the whole?

 

What Ray doesn't get is that "God" is a symbolic face for this, and that theology takes the poetry of it and makes it a matter of logic; a logic that fails in the face of reason.

 

O.K., there's no way I can be as eloquent as you AntMan but I have a response to that question. Man is terrified of death. He avoids 'seeing' things that remind him of death. He makes up gods to comfort him in his plight through life because of death. We choose to see beauty in nature but subconsciously we also see the diseases and death. When we are confronted by that which we can’t explain, {insert god here}. When we are frightened by the knowledge that we are ALL going to die, {insert god here}. When science offers you no comfort from these fears, {insert god here}.

 

So, even the 'rational' atheists, like me, choose to see the good in life and nature. Even I avoid looking at death and disease. The difference is that when I am forced to look at death and disease I know that it is futile to pray to invisible people for help. I know that it is futile to blame an invisible bad guy for my shortcomings and faults. The bottom line, I have to deal with these things because there is NO GOD that will. It may sound depressing to a Christian, but I would rather deal with reality than continue to live a lie.

[Ouroboros]

So when you see the intricate complexity of nature, the vast diversity within the plant & animal kingdoms, the harmony and efficacy of the water, carbon, & nitrogen cycles - not to mention the delicate balance of forces within the atomic nucleus >> you see all of this as 'a ripple of order in a universe of chaos?'

I see the amazing Universe as "God" or the Creator. I'm struck by awe for how delicate, intricate, and active life, nature, all of it, is. The sublime feeling is not less because God as a being is taken out of the picture.

 

Not long after I lost my faith and realized I didn't believe in the Bible anymore or a supreme God who has some kind of infinitely sized brain, I was overwhelmed one night while I was walking; I was overwhelmed by a feeling of unity and participation of life and existence. I felt one with nature. I felt I was part of all this. And it was powerful. It felt just like the times when I was "moved" by the spirit. I realized that our mind, when it feels a connectivity with life, gets a high, a form of spiritual experience, and this comes not from a real external spirit, but from inside us, and the feeling of being part of all this that exists. So I have felt the true God, which is Nature, to my bone. It moved me, and I know for a fact, because of that experience, that being part of nature and experience it, is the highest form of worship to Nature. I know this now through revelation, so how can you deny this by inventing some external God who is not part of this beautiful world?

 

The Christian God isn't beautiful, since he isn't part of the wonderful Nature. You don't admire Nature for being so amazing, but you are admiring an invented external God instead. So who is really the one having the strongest feelings for nature? Me, who love Nature for what it is, or you who love someone/something else, outside of Nature?

[Ouroboros]

OK, now here is my questions for you Rayskidude. How do you know God is a he? Are you sure it is a he? Are you sure it even looks human?

Of course God is a man, he is an infinite dick-head. (And he got nipples too, and man-boobs.)

[Mriana]

OK, now here is my questions for you Rayskidude. How do you know God is a he? Are you sure it is a he? Are you sure it even looks human? What if god is an it, with no form or mass. What if it is purely fluidic like mercury or a gas like hydrogen? What if it is like the wind? What if it is non-matter or rather anti-matter?

 

I believe that God is not male, but is an immaterial Spirit; that is - God consists of a spiritual essence, being without gender.

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

 

I don't think we define "spiritual essence" in the same the manner. I am going to darn my former Episcopal robes for a moment and state it is like the wind- something that one can only see its affects and effects, but not anything else and one can only experience it, not describe it. We may or may not have the same definition.

 

I do not believe your way is necessarily the right way or even the Way at all. For all I know, the Way could be the Tao or it could be the 8 Fold Path and the 4 Noble Truths. As you can see, I can cover a lot of different things in this line of questioning, even if I have ask my Buddhist son the right number in the 8 Fold Path, because the number always slips my mind. Somehow I have a feeling you don't have a handle on the whole even, just like the blind men and the elephant, because you haven't studied anything but your own religion and probably haven't gotten very far into science to know much about it either.

 

I understand your misgivings about Christainity & me - and I do not claim any expertise in thoroughly understanding other religions. I have studied Islam - took a course and read several books, and I've read many portions of the Qur'an. And I lived in northern Iraq for 6 months ministering to and conversing with the Kurdish people. The Eastern religions - I have read only a little in Comparative Religion books and I've had several conversations with faithful adherents. I do have an MS in Biochemistry, and I've worked as a chemist (analytical & environmental radiation chemistry) at 2 public universities.

 

Ahem... Let us get one thing clear, I do not have misgiving about Christianity. That word covers a broad group of people and not all of them believe the same way nor do they practice Xianity the same way. I have issues, BIG issues, with Fundamental Evangelicalism. It is a corruption of Xianity. However, I do not have issues with those who think like the Sea of Faith, Spong, Cupitt, Harpur, and alike. I just do not agree with them on everything. I do agree with Bishop Spong that the Bible needs to be taken back from the Evangelicals though, because it is not the literal and inerrant word of God.

 

But I know that Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges that we cannot be righteous before God, in and of ourselves, by keeping God's moral laws. The other religions teach a works-righteousness of some sort, while Christianity alone teaches that God saves us only by His grace, through humble faith in Him.

 

Such mental gymnastics. Seems almost as bad as works. Actually, I would far prefer to do works, borrowing from Buddhism- right action: charity work/community service, something that makes this world a better place for at least one person, if not more. Right Speech: Seems far better not to pound others with my beliefs and try to impose and enforce those beliefs on others verbally or even via my actions. Such things only do more harm than good. Thus it is far better to show by example or work than by our words. One can preach and quote religious texts all day, but it is worthless until you put it into action. (Yes, I am going back and forth from various thoughts- including agnosticism from here on out, so it could be confusing as to which view I speak from at any given moment, but I'll try to make the liberal Episcopal view clear when I mention it)

 

But God grants us salvation by His grace through our humble faith in the Person & work of Jesus Christ - and the righteousness of Christ is given to us - so that we can now be righteous before God;

 

Why to you quote so much from the Bible? Don't you have any thought of your own? Do you truly believe it is the inerrant word of God? Even when I was in the the Episcopal Church, even as a lay minister at that, even they taught that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, but written by Man in adult Sunday School and in the Children's Sunday School, it was taught the stories are just stories. BTW, the adult Sunday School teacher was the prof. who taught "Parallels of the O.T." in which we learned the other myths that parallel O.T. stories. He taught the same thing in his Adult Sunday class. So what I learned in the Episcopal Church was not much different from what I learned in uni. religious courses.

 

However, this does not mean I don't know what the Bible says and I think even others here know what it says too. Such stories are worthless and meaningless in a modern setting for they were not written for us, but rather for a particular culture at the time. One cannot apply such tribal mentality to today's world, regardless of what you may believe. I will admit that we might be able to glean something from some of the stories, fables, and parables, but none of the book can be taken word for word literally. That is just plain silly. One can develop their own "spiritual" relationship with the world without any religious text to tell them how to do it. Such books are good to study and learn about past beliefs, but they should not be the only source of how to live life and relate to the universe.

 

Spong says, "This God is rather beyond every concept, beyond theism, beyond supernaturalism, beyond the God of the Church and the gods of men and women. I experience this God, I do not explain this God." (p xii-xiii of God in Us: A Case for Christian Humanism by Anthony Freeman. I agree in that respect, in that I experience god, via neurology- the external stimuli (such as nature, a hug from other person, pets/animals, music) that triggers neuro-chemicals in the brain causing feelings of transcendence. However, this is not God in a theistic god, but rather Pantheistic or as Spong says, "non-theistic". In fact, it is not a god at all, contrary to what Spong says, BUT the idea of a god IS a very human concept, so his definition is not invalid, regardless if we disagree on what to label it.

 

So, why did I leave the Episcopal Church? Because I could not believe in a god, not as proposed by Xianity, not even in the non-realism form of love, found in the Episcopal Church and the Sea of Faith. Love is a very human emotion that can cause feelings of transcendence, but it should not be pushed off to something external to us. Love is internal to the human being. Basically, I am more humanistic than those such as Spong and Cupitt. Does this mean I am beyond reading their works? No, it does not, but it does mean I have no use or even need for Evangelical works. I have not had a need for them long before I left home 24 years ago. If one speaks of "God" in the manner of Spong, Cupitt, Freeman, or Harpur, I'll listen and gladly have an intellectual discussion with such people, even debate and question them without ill feelings, but I could care less than nothing for Evangelical Fundamentalist ideology because it is so imposing, anti-intellectual, corrupt, and so deluded, which is what you have been showing very well in these threads. One has to shut down their brain in order to spew out what they have been told to believe when it comes to Evangelicalism, because no religious text can be taken literally or even as the inerrant word of any deity.

 

Simply put, your spewing out Biblical quotes are meaningless and pointless because they provide very little intellectual stimulation. Such things are a means of telling people how to think, something any Episcopalian- apostate or otherwise- would be repelled by. I believe even Bishop Spong would take offense to it and agree it is a means to control people. Personally, I wish you would stop it.

 

Completely discarding the former robes now and going back to my agnostic/atheistic stance.