Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

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


Mriana

Recommended Posts

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.
I'm reminded of this quote by Douglas Adams
“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
I also love this other quote of his.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • rayskidude

    41

  • Mriana

    40

  • NotBlinded

    28

  • Antlerman

    23

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. :grin: (And he got nipples too, and man-boobs.)

 

:lol: I have a hard time picturing that one. Not sure I really want to get a mental view of Rush Lumbar (yes, I know, I misspelled his last name) without his shirt on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Oh, so when you eat food, you think of the chef, the sous-chef, the waiter, the delivery trucks, the drivers, the butcher, the farmers, the oil factory workers, and the owner, and the ... man, you can't just sit and eat a piece of good food without having to think about everyone who was involved in making that food, do you?

 

I just eat, and enjoy my food.

 

The gardener use tools which were made by machines and a bunch of people, and the seeds were sold in a store, and they were packaged in a paper bag which was manufactured by ... etc

 

Meaning: Whatever created the Universe must have been a multitude of beings and machines.

 

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?

But the Uncaused Cause Creator doesn't match the Bible God. Because Bible God is supposedly changing the causes while the world exists, so if that is true, then the assumption that everything lines up, backwards in time, to just one cause, must be a false assumption. In other words, for a premise of an unbroken chain of causal events to be a true premise, then miracles can't really be part of it, since miracles are sidetracks from the natural chain of cause-and-effects back in time.

 

It's like this: we have a premise that when we roll the dice we will get a random number. Then we say that Bob has the right to change the dice each time, and we don't know if he does, or when. And we still maintain that the dice are random. But it can't be both.

 

Besides, how do you know if the quantum fluctuations are not God's way of interacting with the universe? Perhaps God is the quarks? Perhaps God is the Universe? Basically, you're the one who denies God to have a nature which fits with physics, just because, and the only reason is, to fit your belief to an old book instead of what science discovers. Who is denying God his/her/its true place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

God created that because he loves us, and he is so pretty, like a pretty flower...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: I have a hard time picturing that one. Not sure I really want to get a mental view of Rush Lumbar (yes, I know, I misspelled his last name) without his shirt on.

:HaHa: I'm sure Rush Lame-baugh is in the perfect image of God. Ugly and full of himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...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.

This is inconsistent with the Bible.

The NT acknowledges that people can be righteous by keeping God's laws.

Luke 1:5-6

THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

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,

Even in Christianity, doing some good works is required for salvation.

If you would like those good works to be part of predestination, that's fine, but they're still required.

People can be "right" before God by repenting from sin and keeping the law.

Psa 103:17-18

But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

 

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;

Long before Paul came along with his replacement theology, God stated that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

Ezek 18:20-22,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I wanted to quote your whole post that this above is from, and state how beautifully put it all was, but I'll just say so instead and only quote this which I wish to discuss. I want to add too, that between what you, others, and myself are expressing here I can't help but wonder if this might be Ray's confrontation with truth greater than he imagined within the teachings of his doctrines. Perhaps an awakening to greater truth. There's heart and sincerity and truth being expressed by those who would otherwise be judged as blind and lost by the religious right. We are living contradictions to the idea that spirituality can only be gleaned through the religious system they have fashioned in their own image.

 

That said, I agree it would be a disservice to ourselves to make love something that only begins outside ourselves, to push it off to something external. But I do see the value in objectivating it, making it something greater than the individual, a truth for all. It's something we do psychologically and socially to instill value to a thing and make possible to communicate as a shared reality, or a means of focused meditation to open oneself to what is inside. If I look at the universe and filter it through a symbolic framework of Ideals, like Love, or Life, etc, the effect is to open up to the world what is inside, often blocked beneath the rubble of cares. The language of many forms of religious symbolism are in effect designed for this very thing. It came from somewhere, and that would be that aspiration and use of symbolic expression from within humans in response to a perception of the universe and themselves in relationship with it.

 

It is of course not the only means to this end, as there are many forms of symbols that people can use depending on their individual, social, and cultural contexts. They can be religious, artistic, humanisitic, or scientific in nature. But none of them are purely rational and apply a subjective abstraction of an inner-perception and experience of their humanity. It's reality subjectively interpreted, given form and essence, and experienced through language and symbols. And we seem drawn to the aesthetic of life. One can as easily call this God and one can Nature. But to diminish the human in this universe by calling it broken, separated, and sinful in themselves is itself a sin again this very thing. Love is inside of us, and in others, and surrounding us. It comes from us, and to us from outside. We participate in it. Its how we participate in life in any Idea.

 

... in how I'm seeing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

1. 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. 2. 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?

 

3. 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. 4. 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.

 

1. Art isn't always about beauty.

 

AlbertEinstein

 

Nevertheless beauty gets more press.

 

2. My thoughts don't. The US is a pretty nice country to live in, but it is largely spoiled for me via knowledge that as a collective we are evil doers. I just spent a week traveling around my home state and saw much beauty. But that beauty was tainted with knowledge of how cruelly we took this land from the natives.

 

3. I've thought so since I had my nose rubbed in the shit in Vietnam. It is the nature of humans to ignore the shit as much as possible. I find this to be a flaw, because it causes us to ignore the problems and even pretend the problems don't exist.

 

4. This is considered a pathology. Remember how the old Soviet Union used to put many of the people that couldn't see the goodness of the collective in mental institutions. In the US whistle blowers loose their jobs, their reputations, and even their freedom. Cassandra never did get any respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Sounds like someone needs a Manssiere ala >> Seinfield - Manssiere Episode

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. I've thought so since I had my nose rubbed in the shit in Vietnam. It is the nature of humans to ignore the shit as much as possible. I find this to be a flaw, because it causes us to ignore the problems and even pretend the problems don't exist.

 

That is correct....a lot of pretty Christians don't want to acknowledge somebody living in a house with only lighbulbs and no fixtures, torn screens on the windows or no screens, moldy sheetrock where the plumbing wasn't fixed......oh, how could they!

 

But then there is that side that once you go help them fix the house, they still sit on their arses.....that drives the apathy in the first place.

 

Which makes me think that "Christianity" is sometimes more of a socioeconomic belief than an belief in God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which makes me think that "Christianity" is sometimes more of a socioeconomic belief than an belief in God.

A very good observation. I would even go further by saying that it's most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K., there's no way I can be as eloquent as you AntMan

It's kind of funny actually. I've heard a lot of people say this to me here over the years, and it's always struck me as fascinating in a way. It's not like I try to come off like that; I just write like this. I value words and try to find ones to express the content of what I mean to say, but this isn't a lot different than how I talk face to face, other than I may have a little more luxury of time to scan my thoughts for a better word or phrase before saying it. But thanks. I'm flattered. :)

 

I have a response to that question. Man is terrified of death. He avoids 'seeing' things that remind him of death.

This is true, but I think our attraction to beauty is not simply a flight from death. It's a draw towards something, not just reaction against something.

 

He makes up gods to comfort him in his plight through life because of death.

I think that gods can play a part in that role of reality-creating that man does as part of his 'coping' with life, but I don't think that's the primary reason why there are created.

 

We choose to see beauty in nature but subconsciously we also see the diseases and death.

To be sure. The danger is when our awareness of disease and death moves into a state of denial, and pour sugar all over the top of it rather than find a balance within ourselves in dealing with issues of life and death both. That's where religious thought becomes escapism, rather than about a way to talk about the world in abstract and transcendent language. To me, the healthiest way is balance. It doesn't have to be "face reality", or "escape reality". It's not just those two choices.

 

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.

I agree with this. It is far healthier to accept responsibility, and to find a way to 'believe' and have "hope" that doesn't require one to ignore facts. I like the analogy of working with nature rather than against it. It's far easier to bend with it, then to resist it.

 

The key for me is acceptance and choosing to 'believe'. Not in some God to rescue, but in the beautiful in life. There's a reason we are drawn towards it, and philosophically I'd say its because it brings us towards order. We are drawn to beauty for life. Systems organize and become more than the sum of their parts, and our gods or our frameworks of language to support our desires for life are natural creations of our species. To deconstruct is important to allow the organism to root out a pathology, but to build our world is to live life.

 

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.

It's funny. Those were pretty much my words when I began this road. If there is a god that cares, I would think he would hope for people to become gods themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: I have a hard time picturing that one. Not sure I really want to get a mental view of Rush Lumbar (yes, I know, I misspelled his last name) without his shirt on.

:HaHa: I'm sure Rush Lame-baugh is in the perfect image of God. Ugly and full of himself.

 

:lol: You caught my joke loud and clear. I was hoping people would.

 

 

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.

I wanted to quote your whole post that this above is from, and state how beautifully put it all was, but I'll just say so instead and only quote this which I wish to discuss. I want to add too, that between what you, others, and myself are expressing here I can't help but wonder if this might be Ray's confrontation with truth greater than he imagined within the teachings of his doctrines. Perhaps an awakening to greater truth. There's heart and sincerity and truth being expressed by those who would otherwise be judged as blind and lost by the religious right. We are living contradictions to the idea that spirituality can only be gleaned through the religious system they have fashioned in their own image.

 

That said, I agree it would be a disservice to ourselves to make love something that only begins outside ourselves, to push it off to something external. But I do see the value in objectivating it, making it something greater than the individual, a truth for all. It's something we do psychologically and socially to instill value to a thing and make possible to communicate as a shared reality, or a means of focused meditation to open oneself to what is inside. If I look at the universe and filter it through a symbolic framework of Ideals, like Love, or Life, etc, the effect is to open up to the world what is inside, often blocked beneath the rubble of cares. The language of many forms of religious symbolism are in effect designed for this very thing. It came from somewhere, and that would be that aspiration and use of symbolic expression from within humans in response to a perception of the universe and themselves in relationship with it.

 

It is of course not the only means to this end, as there are many forms of symbols that people can use depending on their individual, social, and cultural contexts. They can be religious, artistic, humanisitic, or scientific in nature. But none of them are purely rational and apply a subjective abstraction of an inner-perception and experience of their humanity. It's reality subjectively interpreted, given form and essence, and experienced through language and symbols. And we seem drawn to the aesthetic of life. One can as easily call this God and one can Nature. But to diminish the human in this universe by calling it broken, separated, and sinful in themselves is itself a sin again this very thing. Love is inside of us, and in others, and surrounding us. It comes from us, and to us from outside. We participate in it. Its how we participate in life in any Idea.

 

... in how I'm seeing things.

 

Thanks and I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, and I always hate to clarify when I use the word, but definition #3 in Webster's Dictionary of "numinous" is "appealing to the higher emotions or to the aesthetic sense: spiritual". This does not have to be, IMO, something supernatural, but something very natural. The problem is, so many theists do not define their words in this manner and those that do, consider themselves "non-theists", such as Spong and Cupitt, thus there is a divide between "Christian humanists" and other types of humanists. I see a danger in placing very human emotions outside ourselves and calling that God. I can agree though, when defined as love, that it is within us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

 

Yes, it could. But then you presuppose that such characteristics such as self-organization is inherent in the nature of matter; i.e., 'just because.' On the other hand, I presuppose that such characteristics of matter which lead to a universe of wonder, harmony, beauty, balance, with symbiotic relationships and self-organization, etc is the work of an infinitely wise & loving Creator who designed matter to have such characteristics that would generate this universe we see. SO the question is which of these theories is more plausible; Just because or wise Creator?

 

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.

 

Yes, I agree. But beyond thinking about the beauty of the world which would generate such lovely living things, you would also think of the fact that someone (in this case, you) have arranged them in such a way as to improve the overall beauty. And you have probably made changes over time in your garden to improve its looks and/or performance. In this way, we show that we're created in the image & likeness of God, because we imitate and live out to some small degree God's own creativity.

 

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

This is what Jesus taught about God's nature;

Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.

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

Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

 

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...which would include (not) caring about how to appease a god.

 

I would say that this statement shows a lack of understanding re: the serious and grave nature of sin and the holiness of God. We are all prone to this - it's not easy to consider our true sinful estate, but we must because we know it's true. And we must see our sin as grievous and guilty as God reveals in His word - only then we can begin to understand the need for propitiation. And it's difficult to think on God's holiness and to understand it - as theologians have remarked, God's holiness is the attribute of God that is most different in us, it's the most 'other-ness' about God which we can meditate upon - and thus the most difficult thing about God to understand.

 

More beautiful. The Garden would be seeing beyond the cares of this world

 

God will one day restore the universe to its original pristine condition. Revelation chaps 21 & 22 are very encouraging, refreshing, and comforting.

 

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

 

This goes back to origins - where does beauty come from, and why do we define and admire beauty? Just because, or by design? Which is more plausible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we must see our sin as grievous

 

I've never done anything 'grievous' in my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we must see our sin as grievous

 

Well that's nice. I have yet to lose a kitten and I have 3 cats- 2 of which I have raised since they were kittens. The oldest is 10 years, next 8 years, and the youngest is 4 years. Not sure what I need to grieve over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all prone to this - it's not easy to consider our true sinful estate, but we must because we know it's true.And we must see our sin as grievous and guilty as God reveals in His word - only then we can begin to understand the need for propitiation.

 

So, a Jonathan Edwards fan eh?

 

So what did my infant son do the second he was born to be so grievous to God? I thought Protestant Christians didn't believe in original sin.

 

Let's take it a step further. Where have all the millions of stillborn babies gone throughout history, and all the infants who died before they developed cognitive abilities? And don't say God saves babies, because that is found nowhere in the bible, which generally agrees that everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell, although the message is far from unified in the New Testament.

 

At first it seems that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus will die in their sins, according to John 8:21-24:

 

21Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."

22This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"

23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins."

 

Jesus then goes on to contradict himself in John 15:22:

 

22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.

So which is it then? Damned if we don't believe, or only if we just don't listen to Jesus' words?

 

But wait, there's more! Holy fuck, Jesus passes the buck on to his disciples in John 20:21-22:

 

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

 

So now sins have to be forgiven through his disciples? Not just through believing in Jesus anymore? Jesus' cavalier attitude towards the responsibility of deciding who lives and dies really disturbs me, and this verse looks like a setup to justify why the disciples could tell the rest of the early Christians to do.

 

And look at this -- Acts 5:31 seems to suggest Jesus only forgives the sins of Israel:

 

29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

 

But hang on -- after Peter has his visions of eating octopi and sloths and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats, he tells a Roman officer something else, which takes us back to what Jesus said in John. Acts 10:43:

 

43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Thank goodness Paul comes along at the end of Acts to clarify things for us in Acts 13:38-39:

 

38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

 

Hmm, still no mention of babies though. Let's keep looking, this is fun!

 

Paul believes he is divinely appointed to forgive sins, just like the rest of the apostles, but he's special because he had a vision, Acts 26:16-18:

 

16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

 

But suddenly there's this little gem in Romans 2:12-16:

 

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

So... you don't even have to know Jesus or follow the law to be declared righteous, and therefore saved? I guess this is your loophole for babies, but it does not agree with what Jesus himself says in John. But what a copout after all that hell and damnation stuff. "God will judge men's secrets?" How do you know who's a sinner and who isn't? How do you know who to ostracize at church, or which Internet forum to practice all those new arguments you learned in apologetics 101 at prairie bible college?

 

Oh oh, found a tricky one! Romans 3:25-26:

 

25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

 

So God decided not to punish sins committed before Jesus because it wasn't fair because they hadn't heard of Jesus yet? Child molesters born before Jesus started preaching get to go to heaven? Notice it doesn't say anything about how the law or lack of it applies here as it does in Romans 2:12-16.

 

I could go on but I'm tired. Paul tortures ancient scriptures for a few more chapters to make them say what you no doubt are about to say -- that God will judge those who never heard of Christ based on their merits and lives, we can't know the outcome; that those who believe in Christ will be saved, and once they've heard the gospel and made their choice, they either live or die based on that; and that's why we must spread the good news.

 

Isn't it interesting how that all comes from Paul. Jesus didn't say this. Other Christian sects -- e.g. the Jerusalem church under Peter and James -- didn't say this. Does the Coptic church say this? What about all those people who didn't have access to scriptures or Paul's letters? Do they live or die?

 

One more scripture: 1 John 5:17:

 

All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

 

Aha! So even those who didn't know about Christ are still going to hell even if they lead good lives, only doing the occasional wrong thing. Doesn't jive with Paul. Different sects of Christianity, conflicting messages about sin and forgiveness and no mention about where babies go when they die in childbirth, or stillborn, or before they're old enough to learn about Jesus.

 

The confusion and contradiction enough to make a guy doubt any of it is valid at all :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO the question is which of these theories is more plausible; Just because or wise Creator?

 

"Just because" works better for me.

 

 

I would say that this statement shows a lack of understanding re: the serious and grave nature of sin and the holiness of God. We are all prone to this - it's not easy to consider our true sinful estate, but we must because we know it's true. And we must see our sin as grievous and guilty as God reveals in His word - only then we can begin to understand the need for propitiation. And it's difficult to think on God's holiness and to understand it - as theologians have remarked, God's holiness is the attribute of God that is most different in us, it's the most 'other-ness' about God which we can meditate upon - and thus the most difficult thing about God to understand.

 

We don't know our "sinful state" is true. Why should we believe it? A God which is defined as perfect and complete, would never need propitiation. The Christian conception of God doesn't make sense. It is not harmonious, it is contradictory.

 

God will one day restore the universe to its original pristine condition. Revelation chaps 21 & 22 are very encouraging, refreshing, and comforting.

 

Some of us are not persuaded by pie in the sky speculations without a scrap of evidence. I have asked before for evidence of this "original pristine condition" of the universe, outside of the Bible says so, and Christians can't seem to provide it.

 

Beauty is valuable in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you presuppose that such characteristics such as self-organization is inherent in the nature of matter; i.e., 'just because.' On the other hand, I presuppose that such characteristics of matter which lead to a universe of wonder, harmony, beauty, balance, with symbiotic relationships and self-organization, etc is the work of an infinitely wise & loving Creator who designed matter to have such characteristics that would generate this universe we see. SO the question is which of these theories is more plausible; Just because or wise Creator?

 

Where did the wise creator come from? Were did it get its wisdom? Just because?

 

We can see and investigate the self organization of matter and energy, but we can't see a god organizing anything. You give the non observable god intrinsic organizing properties without needing a source for them, but then you turn around and say that nothing can have self organizing principles.

 

When you extol the wonders of the universe as evidence of God why do you leave out the chaos, the intrinsic in-hospitality for humans of most of the universe, parasitic relationships, disease, birth defects, natural evils... I look at the universe and see no possibility for the existence of your benevolent god if only because the chaos outweighs our little niche by many orders of magnitude. Therefore the theory of intrinsic self-organization of uncaring matter is more plausible then the intrinsic self-organizing of a caring god.

 

There is room for a Deistic God back beyond the organization of matter, but it is not benevolent towards humans in particular. I would think that if it was capable of caring it would care a lot more about stars and dark matter for it made oodles more of those than humans. However, I doubt it would have any human characteristics at all. It certainly wouldn't have any human like social emotions (anger, love) because it is alone. This is also true of Christian God. It is also alone and the social emotions would not be of any use to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

But then you presuppose that such characteristics such as self-organization is inherent in the nature of matter; i.e., 'just because.'

 

"Just because" is a human thought in which we think everything has to have a reason to exist that satisfies our inquisitive, reasoning nature. The universe exists because it can. If humanity wipes itself out by abusing the earth or wars, the universe will continue on without reasons and without our consent.

 

 

I would say that this statement shows a lack of understanding re: the serious and grave nature of sin and the holiness of God. We are all prone to this - it's not easy to consider our true sinful estate, but we must because we know it's true.

 

"sin" is a christian term having nothing to do with ethics. Our actions and their ramifications determines our goodness/badness. "Evil" and "sin" only relate to the bible and your faith in it.

 

 

theologians have remarked, God's holiness is the attribute of God that is most different in us, it's the most 'other-ness' about God which we can meditate upon - and thus the most difficult thing about God to understand.

 

God will one day restore the universe to its original pristine condition.

 

You are ignoring reality and the previous posters who mentioned the universe is and has been far from total pristineness .

"Holiness" is just another christian term unrelated to "other-ness". Being set apart and perfect (i.e.holiness) is not the same. We feel "at oneness" with everything, and meditate upon our relationship WITH the universe/god. Nothing holy there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that this statement shows a lack of understanding re: the serious and grave nature of sin and the holiness of God. We are all prone to this - it's not easy to consider our true sinful estate, but we must because we know it's true. And we must see our sin as grievous and guilty as God reveals in His word - only then we can begin to understand the need for propitiation. And it's difficult to think on God's holiness and to understand it - as theologians have remarked, God's holiness is the attribute of God that is most different in us, it's the most 'other-ness' about God which we can meditate upon - and thus the most difficult thing about God to understand.

 

Ezekiel's God (18) doesn't think your sin is so grievous that it requires propitiation. All it requires you you changing your ways. What does the god of the last judgment require? (Mt.25:36-41) It requires your good behavior, not propitiation. What does the god of James require? Same thing.

 

On the one hand your god says you are fucked for the sins of your fathers at least 10 generations removed. On the other hand no one dies because of the sin of another. On the one hand you can make amends for your own sin, on the other hand no matter what you do you are fucked. Your god can't make up his mind for some reason. When he gets his act together, come and get me.

 

I can understand this holiness crap. It is the claptrap made up to keep you from examining the details too closely. You perhaps find it difficult to understand, because you are afraid to look into the ark and see what's there. You are afraid your face will melt off. I'm here to tell you it won't melt off and that the ark is just a box like any other. There is still time for you to think out of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Yes, it could. But then you presuppose that such characteristics such as self-organization is inherent in the nature of matter; i.e., 'just because.' On the other hand, I presuppose that such characteristics of matter which lead to a universe of wonder, harmony, beauty, balance, with symbiotic relationships and self-organization, etc is the work of an infinitely wise & loving Creator who designed matter to have such characteristics that would generate this universe we see. SO the question is which of these theories is more plausible; Just because or wise Creator?

I am presupposing nothing in regards to this. There is scientific data that informs us this is what happens in nature. It's our job to fit our thinking to the data. No need for any presupposing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

 

Which is more plausible then? A Creator that makes everything look like it occurred through natural processes, or processes that occur naturally and that created what we see - not "just because", but because of how it actually, really works - which we have the data for, with no need to presuppose.

 

Yes, I agree. But beyond thinking about the beauty of the world which would generate such lovely living things, you would also think of the fact that someone (in this case, you) have arranged them in such a way as to improve the overall beauty. And you have probably made changes over time in your garden to improve its looks and/or performance. In this way, we show that we're created in the image & likeness of God, because we imitate and live out to some small degree God's own creativity.

Or we reflect back how we see ourselves into how we imagine God? That's very probably, or more likely the case. At least it fits the diversity of views people have about God.

 

But the point I was trying to make about art is that it's a vehicle to experience beauty, not to worship the gardener, or even necessarily think about him. It seems if you're thinking about the gardener, then you're seeing that person as a conduit of beauty, and not beauty incarnate (or least you should). That's why in many regards I find the whole "worship Jesus" idea as mostly distracting to the idea of "God" as a symbol of Beauty, or to worship "God" in any way as some "person". To me "God", as a word sign, would be to give an abstract name to the experience of the aesthetic in life. But the minute you give "God" a name, you now are looking at the gardener, and not seeing or becoming immersed in the experience of Beauty - through the garden.

 

That I can design and 're-express' what I see in how I create the garden is about interpreting beauty and expressing it through me. It's not me, but beauty and my perception of it. If God created a beautiful world, then Beauty is something that God expresses through himself, and himself subject to its nature. Maybe its best to just say we are drawn to beauty for life, and seek to experience it and express it to promote it and value it. And God is part of a created language from us to express that as well. God is created in our image.

 

This is what Jesus taught about God's nature;

Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.

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

Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

That's actually what Gospel John's more Gnostic-leaning community taught, but my point is still there. This is an expression of not looking to the form, but the formless spirit. I mean really, what was the whole Logos of John all about anyway? To me, based upon the use of the word by Philo and other contemporaries, its about creative expression and experience of the unknowable, transcendent God. The language says that its not about religion, but a seeking spiritual enlightenment. The Christ of John's Gospel is a path to that, not the end point. I see no place in there where Jesus commands "Worship me." The point is always to see the "Father". I am the door, the way, the path, etc. Not the destination. That misses John's point.

 

Even as an aspiring young minister, I understood the principle in John was to have your thoughts and focus being on the nature of "God" (Beauty, as I might choose to call it with another word), that through this experience of the Beautiful, we are filled with it, stripping away the cares, worries, concerns, etc of daily life and it renews the life within us, brings us back into focus with ourselves through moving out of ourselves. This then moves outward to others, carrying an expression of this Life in actions that express it through us. It shapes our attitudes, actions, and behaviors, and promotes it as a human ideal expressive of our experience of life, or "God". If we act in love, expressing this, we will not seek to harm or injure others as it is inconsistent with that which is renewed in us. We wouldn't even think to act otherwise, as those thoughts don't exist within that and as being part of that.

 

I preached a sermon on this idea drawn from the story of the "Greatest Commandment" (Love God and love your neighbor as yourself). Understanding that for me at that time, pretty much informed me that there was really no other sermon that would ever need to be preached. That all the rest was superfluous, or worse, religious politics. In my experience, this is the dividing line between religion and human spirituality. I don't see that reshaping things to talk about right doctrines, or correct orthodoxy to be consistent with this at all. What I see in John, is not some instructions handed down from a God to be morphed into some sort of "orthodoxy", but the expressions of a community of humans using the figure of Jesus as an expression of these sorts of human "spiritual" principles as they came to understand them. These expressions are different than Matthew's, or Mark's, whose were written with other aspirations in mind.

 

Being more an artist at heart, an existentialist in many ways, the language of John always appealed to me as expressions of this vision and experience of life in this way. I see to worship Jesus as some god is to in effect derail the intended purpose of that symbol. In no way can I see these things being intended to be about orthodox doctrines. They are human expressions, through humans, about humans experience of the world.

 

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...which would include (not) caring about how to appease a god.

 

I would say that this statement shows a lack of understanding re: the serious and grave nature of sin and the holiness of God. We are all prone to this - it's not easy to consider our true sinful estate, but we must because we know it's true. And we must see our sin as grievous and guilty as God reveals in His word - only then we can begin to understand the need for propitiation. And it's difficult to think on God's holiness and to understand it - as theologians have remarked, God's holiness is the attribute of God that is most different in us, it's the most 'other-ness' about God which we can meditate upon - and thus the most difficult thing about God to understand.

Oh, there's no grave misunderstanding. I am fully aware of Augustine's theology made even worse through Calvin, and wholeheartedly reject it. It is inconsistent with the reality of human experience. It is a contradiction to all the good that is within man, by nature!

 

You know Augustine and his theology had a very strong and legitimate contender that was only later branded "Heresy" but convening Catholic church councils who saw potential political fallout from accepting the teaching of an enormously popular monk throughout Christianity named Pelagius? It's absurd to look back at these theological notions you have inherited and see them as a straight line understanding from Jesus, through the disciples, to you! Absurd.

 

I reject Augustinian theology as an insult to humanity and an affront to the idea of God. "Sin" did not mean what you understand it to mean as it was first used. It merely meant an infraction of keeping the Mosaic law. Paul's Christ figure was about freeing the Gentiles from this infraction of the law, "save them from sin" by making them righteous without having to barbarously slice off their foreskins in order to be Israel. All the rest of this theology you inherited is a distortion of these simple notions, turning it into this horrid picture of a God who predestines souls for eternal flames.

 

Beauty? Where the hell is it in this? My point? "God" becomes a millstone tied around the neck.

 

More beautiful. The Garden would be seeing beyond the cares of this world

 

God will one day restore the universe to its original pristine condition. Revelation chaps 21 & 22 are very encouraging, refreshing, and comforting.

Or it is perfect and beautiful now as we participate in it. The shame, the "sin" is to not see Beauty as perfect - NOW. Not when you die, or this is all gone. Like I said, Religion......

 

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

 

This goes back to origins - where does beauty come from, and why do we define and admire beauty? Just because, or by design? Which is more plausible?

Good question. Again, I don't see any "just because". And I see beauty as something innate to ourselves in nature. It's an emergent quality of the universe to us and has meaning, significance, value, and benefit. It's really the face of ourselves looking back at us through the universe. We are God. :)

 

So what's wrong with this? Does this lead to sin? Or just simply away from needing Religion to control us? What's served? Sin, or Life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you extol the wonders of the universe as evidence of God why do you leave out the chaos, the intrinsic in-hospitality for humans of most of the universe, parasitic relationships, disease, birth defects, natural evils... I look at the universe and see no possibility for the existence of your benevolent god if only because the chaos outweighs our little niche by many orders of magnitude. Therefore the theory of intrinsic self-organization of uncaring matter is more plausible then the intrinsic self-organizing of a caring god.

 

There is room for a Deistic God back beyond the organization of matter, but it is not benevolent towards humans in particular. I would think that if it was capable of caring it would care a lot more about stars and dark matter for it made oodles more of those than humans. However, I doubt it would have any human characteristics at all. It certainly wouldn't have any human like social emotions (anger, love) because it is alone. This is also true of Christian God. It is also alone and the social emotions would not be of any use to it.

 

It seems these two issues are ignored and/or never understood by conservative christians. They try and try to fit the biblical doctrines and "morals" to the facts, or totally ignore reality and construct irrational beliefs in spite of the facts. It amounts to making god a superhuman with magical powers and monstrous morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

rayskidude' post='463063' date='Jun 23 2009, 11:11 PM']...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.

This is inconsistent with the Bible. The NT acknowledges that people can be righteous by keeping God's laws.

Luke 1:5-6

THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

See, here's your same problem again - you lifted verses out of context, please read below what else is written in Luke chap 1;

 

Luk 1:8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty,

Luk 1:9 according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.

Luk 1:10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense.

Luk 1:11 And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

Luk 1:12 And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him.

Luk 1:13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.

Luk 1:14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth,

Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Luk 1:16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God,

Luk 1:17 and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

Luk 1:18 And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years."

Luk 1:19 And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.

Luk 1:20 And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."

 

Seems as though Zecharias had a lack of faith. Don't get me wrong - Zechariah & Elizabeth were excellent believers - but they were not sinless.

 

And Zechariah then goes on to prophecy and acknowledge our need of and God's provision of salvation.

 

Luk 1:63 And he asked for a writing tablet and wrote, "His name is John." And they all wondered.

Luk 1:64 And immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he spoke, blessing God.

Luk 1:65 And fear came on all their neighbors. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea,

Luk 1:66 and all who heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, "What then will this child be?" For the hand of the Lord was with him.

Luk 1:67 And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying,

Luk 1:68 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people

Luk 1:69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David,

Luk 1:70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,

Luk 1:71 that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us;

Luk 1:72 to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant,

Luk 1:73 the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us

Luk 1:74 that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear,

Luk 1:75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.

Luk 1:76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,

Luk 1:77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,

Luk 1:78 because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high

Luk 1:79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."

 

See, Scripture is easy to understand - you just need to remember >> CONTEXT IS KEY!

 

Even in Christianity, doing some good works is required for salvation.

If you would like those good works to be part of predestination, that's fine, but they're still required.

People can be "right" before God by repenting from sin and keeping the law.

Psa 103:17-18

But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;

To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

 

You are wrong again - this time on 2 accounts. Good works are not required for salvation - they are an evidence that salvation has come;

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

 

Luk 19:5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today."

Luk 19:6 So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully.

Luk 19:7 And when they saw it, they all grumbled, "He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner."

Luk 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold."

Luk 19:9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.

Luk 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

 

Zaccheua was lost, but upon his salvation he vowed make restitution in keeping with repentance.

 

You are also wrong about the nature of repentance - it is a turning from sin AND and turning to GOD - for some reason you want to eliminate this important aspect of repentance. Please note;

 

Act 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,

Act 14:15 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

1Th 1:8 For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything.

1Th 1:9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,

 

Long before Paul came along with his replacement theology, God stated that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and keeping the law.

Ezek 18:20-22,27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

And you actually think this repentance that Ezekiel is teaching about is done devoid of faith in God - in the absence of faith in God? From Where would you derive this theology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rayskidude says >> you presuppose that such characteristics such as self-organization is inherent in the nature of matter; i.e., 'just because.' On the other hand, I presuppose that such characteristics of matter which lead to a universe of wonder, harmony, beauty, balance, with symbiotic relationships and self-organization, etc is the work of an infinitely wise & loving Creator who designed matter to have such characteristics that would generate this universe we see. SO the question is which of these theories is more plausible; Just because or wise Creator?

I am presupposing nothing in regards to this. There is scientific data that informs us this is what happens in nature. It's our job to fit our thinking to the data. No need for any presupposing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

 

This article simply observes the world today - with all the complexity and intracacy, and with an atheistic, mechanistic, evolutionary worldview, the authors surmise that emergence of various systems naturally occurs. The article never addresses the question: WHY do singular complex things work together to form complex systems, it just acknowledges they do. Why are there quarks, charms, positrons, dark matter, etc. Scientifically, we don't know - but we can observe, define, systematize, etc.

 

But given the fact that there are no known or observable events where we can say; "Look, this jus came together to form a winderful convergence/emergence/whatever - it's all speculation. The article also discussed laws and rules by which nature operates - strange terminology for systems that are inherently operating without design. But the fact is we use such terms because they accurately depact what we observe - nature follows very strict physical laws that operate within very stringent parameters (if some if these physical parameters were off just minutely from what they are, then the whole system falls apart). Wow - almost as is they were... specifically designed!

 

The improbablility that such a complex & intricate amalgamation of living things and various weather cycles and symbioses and eco-systems have arisen on earth "just because" has always plagued science. So much so that scientists such as francis Crick and Fred Hoyle have jumped on the PANSPERMIA bandwagon to account for life on Earth.

 

Which is more plausible then? A Creator that makes everything look like it occurred through natural processes, or processes that occur naturally and that created what we see

 

Believers have always acknowledged that God works through secondary or intermediate causes.

 

It seems if you're thinking about the gardener, then you're seeing that person as a conduit of beauty, and not beauty incarnate.

 

No, God is by nature the epitome of beauty; and He creates a universe which reflects His glory - though there is now a temporary desicration.

 

That's why in many regards I find the whole "worship Jesus" idea as mostly distracting to the idea of "God" as a symbol of Beauty, or to worship "God" in any way as some "person". To me "God", as a word sign, would be to give an abstract name to the experience of the aesthetic in life. But the minute you give "God" a name, you now are looking at the gardener, and not seeing or becoming immersed in the experience of Beauty - through the garden.

 

So God is a principle? Or an aesthetic experience - which is purely subjective & provides nothing beyond our short existence on this planet?

 

That I can design and 're-express' what I see in how I create the garden is about interpreting beauty and expressing it through me. It's not me, but beauty and my perception of it. If God created a beautiful world, then Beauty is something that God expresses through himself, and himself subject to its nature. Maybe its best to just say we are drawn to beauty for life, and seek to experience it and express it to promote it and value it. And God is part of a created language from us to express that as well. God is created in our image.

 

But you've got it exactly backwards - God has established and defined beauty, which because we're made in His image we can appreciate and also do some level of creation ourselves. And we are drawn to beauty, because this reveals more closely our Creator God's nature, rather than the corruption we experience.

 

The Christ of John's Gospel is a path to that (spiritual enlightenment), not the end point. I see no place in there where Jesus commands "Worship me." The point is always to see the "Father". I am the door, the way, the path, etc. Not the destination. That misses John's point.

 

Then are we to ignore the following?

 

Joh 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."

Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you."

Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Joh 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

Even as an aspiring young minister, I understood that through this experience of the Beautiful, we are filled with it, stripping away the cares, worries, concerns, etc of daily life and it renews the life within us, brings us back into focus with ourselves through moving out of ourselves. This then moves outward to others, carrying an expression of this Life in actions that express it through us. It shapes our attitudes, actions, and behaviors, and promotes it as a human ideal expressive of our experience of life, or "God". If we act in love, expressing this, we will not seek to harm or injure others as it is inconsistent with that which is renewed in us. We wouldn't even think to act otherwise, as those thoughts don't exist within that and as being part of that.

 

This all minimizes God into a subjective religious experience of 'beauty' however you choose to define it. SO how did Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Chingus Khan, etc choose to define beauty? And what objective standard exists to condemn, or even disagree with them? Nothing you've stated would justify anyone interfering with anyones else'e definition and pursuit od ehat they consider beautiful - because God's just a subjective experience.

 

Oh, there's no grave misunderstanding. I am fully aware of Augustine's theology made even worse through Calvin, and wholeheartedly reject it. It is inconsistent with the reality of human experience. It is a contradiction to all the good that is within man, by nature!

 

There is a grave misunderstanding - how do you account for all we know about all the despicable human history and then say, "Calvinism in inconsistent with all that is good in Man." What is good?

 

It's absurd to look back at these theological notions you have inherited and see them as a straight line understanding from Jesus, through the disciples, to you! Absurd.

 

When did I ever say that there's been a striaght line - read my other posts, orthodox theology has been and will always be a struggle against false prophets and megalomaniacs, a rough-and-tumble world not for the faint-hearted. People have died in the cause to preserve truth. Thankfully, God's providence keeps us from the false doctrine of Pelagius, Nestorius, Arians, etc.

 

I reject Augustinian theology as an insult to humanity and an affront to the idea of God. "Sin" did not mean what you understand it to mean as it was first used. It merely meant an infraction of keeping the Mosaic law.

As John says;

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

1Jn 4:4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

1Jn 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.

1Jn 4:6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

1Jn 4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

1Jn 4:13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

1Jn 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1Jn 4:17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.

1Jn 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

1Jn 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

AND

1Jn 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

 

Or it is perfect and beautiful now as we participate in it. The shame, the "sin" is to not see Beauty as perfect - NOW. Not when you die, or this is all gone. Like I said, Religion......

 

I acknowledge the beauty that exists today, but if the modicum of beauty you see in this world - or that can even be generated in this world today - if that is your hope - you're welcome to it. But you will only be disappointed by its continually being marred. Only God can (and will, thankfully) restore the Earth to Absolute Beauty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.