The Love Of Jesus

[Pastorl5]

Pastor Larry and End,

 

Throughout this discussion you imply that there is something that is completely inaccessible to the non-Christian. Some concrete "thing" that sets the Christian apart, and perhaps elevates the Christian above the rest of humanity.

 

So let's turn the tables a bit from this talk of mysticism and symbols. Can either of you point directly to this thing that is inaccessible to the non-Christian without resorting to the use of Christian language or doctrine?

 

Rev R,

 

Good Question, yet it is difficult to address outside of Christian language being a Pastor whose been taught how to explain things through a Christian doctrine, but I'll give it a go:

 

The thing that is inaccessible to the Non-Christian is a deep relationship with God. I believe, personally, that we all can experience God and probably do on a daily basis. But what separates a Christian from a Non-Christian is that deep relationship with God. That intimacy that comes from a direct interaction with The one and only Higher Being of this Universe. To me there is nothing more gratifying or pleasurable in this world.

 

The reason I became a Christian in the first place was because of a spiritual experience I had as a Teenager. It was at that moment when I first experienced God that I gained a hint of what that relationship could be if I wanted it. Ever since that moment I have studied and experienced God in such a way that my love for Him and His for me has grown to where it is today.

 

It is these experiences that I believe can only happen through a trust in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is only accessible to those who are Christians and inaccessible to anyone else.

 

I hope that helps, and sorry if there is some Christian doctrine sprinkled throughout. Getting me to not include that stuff is like telling the weather what to do.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

 

Larry

[zandurian]

Look at the history. Christianity tries to put a patent on it and and sell it (think Ian Malcolm) "your selling it, you want to sell it, well..."

 

How has that gone? Not too well. So yes, What you describe may well be "What Christianity is" so hence the label "Ex-Christian".

 

OUTSIDE of the creeds, the conditions, the orthodoxy, there is a universal truth and it has to do with all mankind.

 

I just realized my answer to my own question ("Not too well") is confusing in the immediate context of 'selling'. Obviously the selling has gone very very very well, I was referring to history showing us that Christianity has not done too well at representing the love of Jesus.

[oddbird1963]

Larry,

 

Once again, I am glad that you find your faith fulfilling. I wish that all seekers could gain an experience of joy, fulfillment and a grasp of the Divine.

 

I would never take that away from anyone.

 

But I think rather than focus on the "love of Jesus" as an exclusive distinctive of Christianity, you should just enjoy that symbol concept for what it does for you. Because whether you would like to admit it or not, there are those who feel as great a sense of communion with the Divine in the universe as Christians do even though the symbolic systems they use to achieve that communion are "non-Christian."

 

The thing that is inaccessible to the Non-Christian is a deep relationship with God. I believe, personally, that we all can experience God and probably do on a daily basis. But what separates a Christian from a Non-Christian is that deep relationship with God. That intimacy that comes from a direct interaction with The one and only Higher Being of this Universe. To me there is nothing more gratifying or pleasurable in this world.

 

I can say the same thing about my experiencing Oneness or being grasped by the Ultimate. It is deep. It is gratifying, pleasurable, and inspiring. My attitude towards people improves and I am filled with a greater depth of love in all things.

 

I don't see the distinction. And, frankly, to say that you have to accept on faith that the Christian experience is deeper/better/more/greater than a non-Christians experience is absurd.

 

I just see this as Christians' circling the wagons and desperately trying to preserve an illusion that they offer something better than others can experience. You might as well brag about your yellow unicorn being more magical than my blue unicorn.

 

The reason I became a Christian in the first place was because of a spiritual experience I had as a Teenager. It was at that moment when I first experienced God that I gained a hint of what that relationship could be if I wanted it. Ever since that moment I have studied and experienced God in such a way that my love for Him and His for me has grown to where it is today.

It is these experiences that I believe can only happen through a trust in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is only accessible to those who are Christians and inaccessible to anyone else.

 

Do you think that people of other faiths don't have "spiritual" experiences that lead to conversion and then subsequent growth and times of joy and love within the context of their religious systems?

 

Once again. Where's the real difference? Yes. There are specific concepts and doctrines between faith groups that are different. But in the realm of the sense of loving others and being gripped by Divine Love, have you really proven that there is a "love of Jesus" that cannot be equaled or exceeded in other faiths?

[zandurian]

 

OUTSIDE of the creeds, the conditions, the orthodoxy, there is a universal truth and it has to do with all mankind.

 

What I am trying to say Z....the Outside for me, is Jesus.

 

Understood. What I'm saying is that (AISI) the Creator did not write the bible and did not found a belief system called "Christianity".

 

Any spiritual leader worth his/her salt will seek to take themselves out of the equation and will focus on helping the human come into direct contact with the eternal.

 

The name Jesus simply means "The eternal one has liberated (ie: made free/whole/complete)". So instead of the religious figure worshiped as an external God I see the universal aspect of what was taught.

[Guest mary]

As many Christians mistakenly argue (which only fuels the non-believer's debate), the love of Jesus is NOT something that can only be experienced by Christians. And Real Christians remember that they too used to be sinners and therefore don't think that they're better than everyone else. However, we do set ourselves apart from what the world does. If you're on the football team you're not going to go practice with the basketball team, right?

 

The love of Jesus is especially for sinners. For example, Mary Magdalene was about to be stoned to death by a group of ignorant and hypocritical men, who had probably lusted after women other than their own wives on more than one occasion, when suddenly Jesus comes to the rescue and saves her from her accusers. Of course, Mary wasn't a Christian-hater. She was simply a good person who made a bad choice and was about to unjustly pay for it. So maybe she was one of the few exceptions to the rule, right? Wrong. The apostle Paul (a well-know and feared persecutor of Christian Jews) was confronted and slapped in the face by the love of Jesus on his way to Damascus, and that confrontation subsequently led to his becoming one of the greatest apostles. So no, the love of Jesus IS NOT only reserved for those who believe in him, cause if it was never demonstrated to, felt or seen by non-believers, then how would they ever come to believe and trust in Him in the first place? We've all experienced His love.

 

However, the difference between a believer's experience knowing the love of Jesus and the non-believer's experience, is that the non-believer has never let that experience ignite the belief in Him, which is the seed for a real relationship with God.

 

Christianity cannot be equaled or exceeded in other faiths because most other faiths don't have a savior who actively helps and communicates with His people. I'm speaking of the relationship part which Pastor was talking about. This is the next ongoing level of His love which grows day by day once you belong to Him. And this is the part that is only exclusive to Christians. When's the last time you called on Mother Nature or Baal or whoever you're down with and they did something remarkable for you? Religions that merely focus on rituals, doctrine or "feelings of oneness" or finding God within ourselves are 100% dead. There's no one to come home to at the end of the day. It's like marrying a mannequin instead of a real person. It looks like the real deal but it's not. Call it putting God in a box or whatever you like, but I personally would rather have a house that looks the same everyday and stays put than a place that can be an apartment, a condo, a bi-level or whatever else my fickle mind wants it to be. Why do people dumb themselves down and refuse to accept that God is not a feeling or a vibe or even nature. He is an intellectual being just like you and I with thoughts and emotions, except He is incomprehensibly smarter, full of love and unbearably holy.

 

Non-Christians are baffled by this concept of the love of Jesus" because in their eyes, He has NEVER done ANYTHING for them or MADE HIMSELF KNOWN to them. Believe me, I've been there. If God really was Just and Holy then how could he see all the evil stuff going on and not fix it? And that's the trap that people fall into continually. It's the blame-God & no-proof deceptions. But people who don't believe fail to see that it is His love that's in their faces everyday and not anyone else's. Remember that spiritual "oneness" you're speaking of and how you're filled with an immense feeling of love for all things? Well, God is spirit and love. He gave us spirits and when we die that spirit goes back to him (father into your hands I commend my spirit). Humans also have the knowledge of good and evil. When you feel love for all things it is because that's what your spirit naturally wants to do cause it came from God. So knowing good from evil, your soul(you) decides to listen to its spirit cause that's the right thing to do. You've made a conscious decision to love all things. You don't know why but it just feels right. It's natural.

 

This is why good people exist. This is the reason why Noah and his family weren't drowned in the flood. But even though Noah and Moses and King David were all good people and all loved by God, they went to paradise instead of God's heaven when they died. This is because although they were good, they were not holy. It's like letting your dog sleep in your clean sheets with you after it was running around in dirt. You love you dog, but before it can sleep in the same bed with you it needs to get cleaned. After Jesus died, then these people were made holy through his blood and now dwell in heaven with God. But now that everything has been washed and done, there's no excuse for still being unholy. And if you want to call that a controlling doctrine then go ahead.

 

Science has proven that love is extremely good for the human body. Well duh, of course it is. That's what is in our God-given spirit, to be loving and kind, but it's not enough. Let me ask you all this: I'm not wishing bad on anyone, but what if your most loved ones were all murdered tomorrow? What if you lost everything and became homeless and poor? What if everything that could go wrong in this world did and you had absolutely no reason to live? Would you forgive the people who ruined your life? Would your soul still have immense love for everything and everyone…without the help of drugs? If your answer is yes then you might as well go back to Jesus cause you clearly have nothing to lose. If your answer is no then that is why we are Christians. Even if WW3 broke out tomorrow we'd still have something to live for.

 

 

Also, the love that He's showing you is made evident by the fact that each day your spirit has remained with your body so that you can have another day to stop worshiping yourself and the universe and instead accept and believe in the one who created both. This is called Grace, and it is evidence of His love.

[Rev R]

Thank you Pastor Larry and End. Hopefully I won't suffer from a case of noble silence while preparing my response.

 

 

Mary,

 

Religions that merely focus on rituals, doctrine or "feelings of oneness" or finding God within ourselves are 100% dead.

An unwise statement and a poor showing of love toward your neighbors.

[Antlerman]

Forgive the diversion, but we need to clarify some meaning. So this might be a bit tedious of a post, but I hope to get back to the more salient points afterward. So, "Put on your scuba gear Jacques, we're about to go deep!" (well maybe not that deep. I just more liked the way how that sounded)

 

It doesn't matter if its "a" symbol or "the" symbol. It's function to us is the same as any symbol. I think there's confusion of what we mean when we speak of symbols. Here's a quick Wiki blurb on Symbols:

"<snip>

 

The psychologist, Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term "sign". In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise. An example of a symbol in this sense is Christ as a symbol of the archetype called "self".[2]

 

<snip>"

 

 

AM, we're thinking on the same wavelengths because I was just about to offer up a discussion as to what is meant by symbol in reference to this discussion. So, let me offer up a response to this article that you quoted:

 

What I find interesting is the definition Dr. Jung uses the term symbol. If I understood it correctly a symbol is defined as something that better helps us understand a thing that cannot be understood or clearly defined. Then he does what I think you've been trying to say as well: Dr. Jung claims that Christ is a symbol of the actualization of self. That somehow Chirst is a symbol of what we as humans try to obtain through ourselves. Okay, I get it. I just don't agree with it.

 

 

OK, we're going to need to dig a little deeper into what we really mean. And believe me, but no means do I consider myself any expert on Jung, or a

semiotician

for that matter. I'm going to post a quick synopsis of Jung's archetypes, and then discuss it in this context, along with some discussion about how we process information and why it is unavoidable to need to refer to Christ as a symbol in how most Christians approach him. Then to my point.

 

Jung's archetypes

:

 

Psychologist Carl Gustav Jung described several archetypes that are based in the observation of differing but repeating patterns of thought and action that re-appear time and again across people, countries and continents.

 

Jung's main archetypes are not 'types' in the way that each person may be classified as one or the other. Rather, we each have all basic archetypes within us. He listed four main forms of archetypes:

 

* The Shadow

* The Anima

* The Animus

* The Self

 

The Shadow

 

The Shadow is a very common archetype that reflects deeper elements of our psyche, where 'latent dispositions' which are common to us all arise. It also reflects something that was once split from us in early management of the objects in our lives.

 

It is, by its name, dark, shadowy, unknown and potentially troubling. It embodies chaos and wildness of character. The shadow thus tends not to obey rules, and in doing so may discover new lands or plunge things into chaos and battle. It has a sense of the exotic and can be disturbingly fascinating. In myth, it appears as the wild man, spider-people, mysterious fighters and dark enemies.

 

We may see the shadow in others and, if we dare, know it in ourselves. Mostly, however, we deny it in ourselves and project it onto others. It can also have a life of its own, as the Other. A powerful goal that some undertake is to re-integrate the shadow, the dark side, and the light of the 'real' self. If this can be done effectively, then we can become 'whole' once again, bringing together that which was once split from us.

 

Our shadow may appear in dreams, hallucinations and musings, often as something or someone who is bad, fearsome or despicable in some way. It may seduce through false friendship or threaten with callous disregard. Encounters with it, as an aspect of the subconscious, may reveal deeper thoughts and fears. It may also take over direct physical action when the person is confused, dazed or drugged.

 

 

The Anima and Animus

 

The second most prevalent pattern is that of the Anima (male), Animus (female), or, more simply, the Soul, and is the route to communication with the collective unconscious. The anima/animus represents our true self, as opposed to the masks we wear every day and is the source of our creativity.

 

The anima/animus may appear as someone exotic or unusual in some way, perhaps with amazing skills and powers. In fiction, heroes, super-heroes and gods may represent these powerful beings and awaken in us the sense of omnipotence that we knew in that very early neonatal phase.

 

Anima and animus are male and female principles that represent this deep difference. Whilst men have an fundamental anima and women an animus, each may also have the other, just as men have a feminine side and women a masculine. Jung saw men as having one dominant anima, contributed to by female members of his family, whilst women have a more complex, variable animus, perhaps made of several parts.

 

Jung theorized the development of the anima/animus as beginning with infant projection onto the mother, then projecting onto prospective partners until a lasting relationship can be found.

The Syzygy (the divine couple)

 

In combination, the anima and animus are known as syzygy (a word also used to denote alignment of planets), representing wholeness and completion. This combining brings great power and can be found in religious combinations such as the Christian Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy ghost).

 

A perfect partnership between man and woman can occur when not only are our physical forms compatible but also the anima and animus. Thus you might find your soul-mate. Finding our matching other half is a lifetime of search for many of us, and few of us succeed in this quest. Love of another indicates an actual, perceived or hoped-for close match.

 

The Self

 

For Jung, the self is not just 'me' but God. It is the spirit that connects and is part of the universe. It is the coherent whole that unifies both consciousness and unconsciousness. It may be found elsewhere in such principles as nirvana and ecstatic harmony. It is perhaps what Jaques Lacan called 'the real'.

 

Jung described creation of the self as a process of individuation, where all aspects are brought together as one. Thus 're-birth' is returning to the wholeness of birth, before we start to split our selves into many parts.

Other archetypes

 

Jung said that there are a large number of archetypes. These are often linked to the main archetypes and may represent aspects of them. They also overlap and many can appear in the same person. For example:

 

* Family archetypes

o The father: Stern, powerful, controlling

o The mother: Feeding, nurturing, soothing

o The child: Birth, beginnings, salvation

* Story archetypes

o The hero: Rescuer, champion

o The maiden: Purity, desire

o The wise old man: Knowledge, guidance

o The magician: Mysterious, powerful

o The earth mother: Nature

o The witch or sorceress: Dangerous

o The trickster: Deceiving, hidden

* Animal archetypes

o The faithful dog: Unquestioning loyalty

o The enduring horse: Never giving up

o The devious cat: Self-serving

 

Deep origins

 

A notable characteristic of Jung's archetypes is that we recognize them in image and emotion. This gives a profound effects on us and implies that they have deep and primitive origins. They thus have a particular potential for significance and may be feared or revered as mysterious signifiers of things beyond our complete understanding.

 

In earlier work, Jung linked the archetypes to heredity and considered them as instinctual. Yet wherever he looked across cultures, he found the same archetypes and thus came to conceptualize them as fundamental forces that somehow exist beyond us. They have existed in ancient myths as elemental spirits and Jung sought to link with this deep and old experience.

See also

 

Jung, C.G. (1964). Man and His Symbols, New York; Doubleday and Company, Inc.

 

Joseph Campbell of "The Power of Myth" fame draws heavily from Jung's archetypes. I'll get into this more in a minute:

 

You see Christ is more than "a" symbol or even more than "the" symbol. As End puts it, Jesus is the Source. To put Jesus at the level of a symbol is making Him no better than a statue of a false god or some other thing that is worshipped for all the wrong reasons. If Dr. Jung's definition is correct, then in the view of Christianity, The Bible is the symbol of Jesus.

As human beings the way we think is based on the use of symbols. As we navigate our physical worldspace in daily living, our brains cannot process information directly - taking in and comprehending everything we perceive visually, audibly, tactilely, etc. The information would overwhelm the brain. Instead we come up with symbolic representations of an interpretation of what we perceive.

 

If I looked at you and actually processed everything there was to perceive about you through my senses I would be overwhelmed with information - every single hair, every pore, every sound, every smell, etc. would be in there demanding to be translated into thought. Instead we dumb it down to representative models - archetypes. You are now "a man", "a minister", "a middle-class American", “tall”, “non-threat”, etc. That would apply to those who we encounter throughout the day, that are not within our "

monkeysphere

", so to speak (the human brain can only hold approximately 150 people with any detail). Even those we know in more detail, we still nonetheless think of them, process information about them, in relatively general terms compared to actually

being them

. And even ourselves, we have to interpret. And we interpret this using the signs and symbols that our languages offer, shaped and defined through our cultural contexts.

 

Now to Christ as symbol and Source. So long as we are attempting to understand, talk about, or relate to something or someone, we will use symbols as an interface to our minds. No symbol in itself is that things' reality, but only represents it. However, our experience of it through the symbol becomes reality to us. It defines 'truth' to us. It becomes what is "real". Anyone using the symbols of a religion, such as Jesus, Bible, Temple, Dove, Mary, Ark, Cross, Crowns, etc, are attempting to relate to something that transcends the mundane, something outside the physical world to the world, something in the non-rational sphere. They give it a name, a face, a symbol to represent something intangible, something experiential.

 

But beyond that symbol – lies what it represents. Behind the rose, is Love. Behind the Expression is the experience. Behind the manifestation, is the Source.

 

You say, “To put Jesus at the level of a symbol is making Him no better than a statue of a false god or some other thing that is worshipped for all the wrong reasons.” But what you should really say is that to worship the manifestation of God as God Himself is idolatry. Jesus, according to scripture is the manifestation of God, as End3 quoted:

 

Col 1:15,19 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation… For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” The image of the invisible God.

 

I’ll add Heb 1:3: “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being”

 

I’ll add Jn. 1:4,5 “In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood”.

 

All these speak of the Christ as a Representation. A Manifestation. A Mask. A Face. A Symbol. But behind the Face, is what?? But back to saying what I’ve been trying to get at, the real heart of this. Any time you are using your mind to talk about God, to try to relate to Him rationally, it is necessary to put a face on it, to symbolize it. Jesus is in fact a symbol of God. It’s the face you put on God. But what is behind the face?

 

Now you said that whether or not Jesus is "the" symbol or not is irrelevant, that Jesus functions as a symbol to you and others on this website. You know just as much as I do that making an assertion doesn't automatically make it true. As the saying goes, "I can take a crap and a box, wrap it up, and put a bow on it, but at the end of the day it's still crap."

I think I’ve established it’s not crap. If you wish to counter how language does not work this way in our psychology, by all means explain.

 

The Bible certainly does not infer that Jesus considered Himself "a" or "the" symbol.

The representation of Jesus in the bible most certainly portrays him as a symbol of God. “He that has seen me has seen the Father”. He that has seen the President has seen the United States. Obama represents the United States. Jesus represents God. “I come in my Father’s name and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive.”

 

But what is more than that, more essential is how it is used. It is used symbolically in everything that I explained above. It is not possible to describe the Unknowable without the use of symbols. But those symbols are not the thing in itself.

[Antlerman]

continuing...

 

Yes, Jesus says that no one gets to the Father except through the Son. Correct. As a matter of fact, Jesus tells us that He is the way, the truth, and the life (still refers to Himself as the Source). Yet, as you also know, this is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. As a person who has studied the Bible you must realize of all the claims that Jesus made of Himself that, in the context of First-Century Judaism, declared Him to be not only equal to God, but God Himself.

 

Which brings me to the infamous "Logo" Text you keep referring to (and I keep avoiding). In the beginning was the Word(Logo) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. later on John tells us that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us, obviously referring to Jesus as that Word(Logo). Now if Jesus is the Word and the Word is God, isn't the Bible then suggesting that Jesus is God? Of course.

I think you should add the word Logos to your spell checker. It looks like it lobbed the S off all of them. Although in a sense, you could say you’ve just shown where in the Bible it directly says Jesus is a symbol, since a Logo is a symbol.

 

Seriously though, I gather from this response to my describing the function of Logos that you didn’t get what I was saying. I very specifically addressed the Logos being “God” in that post. Referring back to it:

 

 

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and

the essence of the Logos was Divine Nature (a clearer translation of the anarthrous form presented in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος to avoid confusion with it denoting a reference to "personage"

)... All things that were made were made

through

Him. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. The light

shines

in the darkness... The Logos

became

flesh and dwelt among us..." Jn. 1:1-14

 

The idea of the Logos was as the Agent of the Unknowable God that Reveals, that Manifests Godhead. So Jesus then, is the Agent of Manifestation, Manifesting itself in human form. Just as Creation, the natural world, the Universe is a Manifestion of Godhead through the Logos. If this vision of Jesus like this in John is so Universal, then couldn't, "

No one comes to the Father but through me

", be taken to mean that

though

the Manifestion of the Divine in the World, we can see and access the Sprirt of God, and be "Reconciled to God"?

You still have addressed what I have been saying about this the entire time.

 

Now to the conclusion: We talk of symbols here, but we must remember that Jesus never claimed to be anything but God. Even if you don't agree with the statement you cannot deny that the authors of this religion called Christianity certainly did not believe anything else about Jesus.

I do deny that the authors of the religion of Christian only believed one thing about Jesus. Again, quoting back again from the Christian scholar Burton Mack from earlier in this thread:

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

 

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)

 

Here's the thing, what did Jesus say?

 

"Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

 

This negates the use of symbols. The only way to God is through Spirit, even though a sign can point you there. But the symbol is not the end.

[oddbird1963]

Lot's of reading material, A-Man!!

 

I shall have to change my morning plans to accommodate the reading!

 

But I'm glad you posted it!

[Neon Genesis]

Call it putting God in a box or whatever you like, but I personally would rather have a house that looks the same everyday and stays put than a place that can be an apartment, a condo, a bi-level or whatever else my fickle mind wants it to be.

Aren't you the one who's putting God in a box by claiming only you and people who agree with your version of God are alive and truly understand God? On the one hand, you say that non-believers can experience the love of Jesus, but then you immediately turn around and contradict yourself by saying everyone who doesn't agree with you is not truly alive. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

Why do people dumb themselves down and refuse to accept that God is not a feeling or a vibe or even nature. He is an intellectual being just like you and I with thoughts and emotions, except He is incomprehensibly smarter, full of love and unbearably holy.

Are you saying that everyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid? Is this what the love of Jesus is?

 

Non-Christians are baffled by this concept of the love of Jesus" because in their eyes, He has NEVER done ANYTHING for them or MADE HIMSELF KNOWN to them. Believe me, I've been there. If God really was Just and Holy then how could he see all the evil stuff going on and not fix it? And that's the trap that people fall into continually. It's the blame-God & no-proof deceptions.

I thought you said non-believers can experience the love of Jesus but now you turn around and say we're too stupid to understand it? Which one is it? Can we experience it or not or are we too stupid to understand how great and wonderful your love is? And are you saying non-believers do nothing but blame others?

 

This is why good people exist. This is the reason why Noah and his family weren't drowned in the flood. But even though Noah and Moses and King David were all good people and all loved by God, they went to paradise instead of God's heaven when they died. This is because although they were good, they were not holy.

Was Noah a good person when he cursed his son Ham just for seeing him naked? What about all the children who God murdered in the flood? Are you saying those babies were evil?

 

If your answer is yes then you might as well go back to Jesus cause you clearly have nothing to lose. If your answer is no then that is why we are Christians.

Are you saying only Christians can forgive other people? Again, aren't you contradicting yourself when you claimed that non-believers can experience the love of Jesus?

[Guest end3]

continuing...

 

Yes, Jesus says that no one gets to the Father except through the Son. Correct. As a matter of fact, Jesus tells us that He is the way, the truth, and the life (still refers to Himself as the Source). Yet, as you also know, this is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. As a person who has studied the Bible you must realize of all the claims that Jesus made of Himself that, in the context of First-Century Judaism, declared Him to be not only equal to God, but God Himself.

 

Which brings me to the infamous "Logo" Text you keep referring to (and I keep avoiding). In the beginning was the Word(Logo) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. later on John tells us that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us, obviously referring to Jesus as that Word(Logo). Now if Jesus is the Word and the Word is God, isn't the Bible then suggesting that Jesus is God? Of course.

I think you should add the word Logos to your spell checker. It looks like it lobbed the S off all of them. Although in a sense, you could say you’ve just shown where in the Bible it directly says Jesus is a symbol, since a Logo is a symbol.

 

Seriously though, I gather from this response to my describing the function of Logos that you didn’t get what I was saying. I very specifically addressed the Logos being “God” in that post. Referring back to it:

 

 

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and

the essence of the Logos was Divine Nature (a clearer translation of the anarthrous form presented in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος to avoid confusion with it denoting a reference to "personage"

)... All things that were made were made

through

Him. In Him was life and the life was the light of men. The light

shines

in the darkness... The Logos

became

flesh and dwelt among us..." Jn. 1:1-14

 

The idea of the Logos was as the Agent of the Unknowable God that Reveals, that Manifests Godhead. So Jesus then, is the Agent of Manifestation, Manifesting itself in human form. Just as Creation, the natural world, the Universe is a Manifestion of Godhead through the Logos. If this vision of Jesus like this in John is so Universal, then couldn't, "

No one comes to the Father but through me

", be taken to mean that

though

the Manifestion of the Divine in the World, we can see and access the Sprirt of God, and be "Reconciled to God"?

You still have addressed what I have been saying about this the entire time.

 

Now to the conclusion: We talk of symbols here, but we must remember that Jesus never claimed to be anything but God. Even if you don't agree with the statement you cannot deny that the authors of this religion called Christianity certainly did not believe anything else about Jesus.

I do deny that the authors of the religion of Christian only believed one thing about Jesus. Again, quoting back again from the Christian scholar Burton Mack from earlier in this thread:

“A second criticism is that none of the profiles proposed for the historical Jesus can account for all of the movements, ideologies, and mythic figures of Jesus that dot the early Christian social-scape. We now have the Jesuses of Q1 (a Cynic-like sage), Q2 (a prophet of apocalyptic judgment), Thomas (a gnostic spirit), the parables (a spinner of tales), the pre-Markan sets of pronouncement stories (an exorcist and healer), Paul (a martyred messiah and cosmic lord), Mark (the son of God who appeared as messiah, was crucified, and will return as the son of man), John (the reflection of God in creation and history), Matthew (a legislator of divine law), Hebrews (a cosmic high priest presiding over his own death as a sacrifice for sins), Luke (a perfect example of the righteous man), and many more. Not only are these ways of imagining Jesus incompatible with one another, they cannot be accounted for as the embellishments of the memories of a single historical person no matter how influential.”

 

(the Christian Myth, pgs 35, 36)

 

Here's the thing, what did Jesus say?

 

"Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

 

This negates the use of symbols. The only way to God is through Spirit, even though a sign can point you there. But the symbol is not the end.

 

Wow, I thought the yolk was supposed to be light.....no words, remember.

[Shyone]

You wrote a lot, so I'll need to snip it a bit to comment meaningfully. I'll try not to detract from what you intended to say.

 

As many Christians mistakenly argue (which only fuels the non-believer's debate), the love of Jesus is NOT something that can only be experienced by Christians. And Real Christians remember that they too used to be sinners and therefore don't think that they're better than everyone else.

 

However, the difference between a believer's experience knowing the love of Jesus and the non-believer's experience, is that the non-believer has never let that experience ignite the belief in Him, which is the seed for a real relationship with God.

 

Here you are forgetting that this is Ex-Christian.net. We were Christians, filled with the spirit, loving Jesus, devoting our lives and property to that cause - only to find that there really never was a Santa. People were on fire for an imaginary concept, but reality has a way of vacating the non-existent.

 

Non-Christians are baffled by this concept of the love of Jesus" because in their eyes, He has NEVER done ANYTHING for them or MADE HIMSELF KNOWN to them. Believe me, I've been there. If God really was Just and Holy then how could he see all the evil stuff going on and not fix it? And that's the trap that people fall into continually. It's the blame-God & no-proof deceptions.

 

Well, when you walk into a wall repeatedly, you start to experience the solid wall trap. Maybe it's real. I suspect that you have chosen to ignore what is before your eyes, and you are of course free to continue to walk right into that wall. You're "no-proof" is not necessarily the entire picture either. With a little more effort, you can even find proof that there is no god. You have already dismissed hundreds of other gods yourself (I assume) and you probably don't have a relationship with Vishnu or complete submission to Allah. When is the last time you made an offering to Zeus?

 

You've made a conscious decision to love all things. You don't know why but it just feels right. It's natural.

Natural -not supernatural. Now you're talking.

 

This is why good people exist. This is the reason why Noah and his family weren't drowned in the flood.

 

Like I said, you need to do a little more research. Try picking up a science book instead of some ancient mythology and learn about Nature. Ignorance may be bliss, but you won't find it sells very well here.

 

But even though Noah and Moses and King David were all good people and all loved by God, they went to paradise instead of God's heaven when they died. This is because although they were good, they were not holy.

 

Are you aware that other Christians don't agree? Maybe there isn't another paradise besides heaven as most argue, maybe they are in hell because one can only reach god through Jesus who hadn't been born as others argue, maybe they are in heaven, or maybe they won't get to heaven until after the Judgement, or... Well, you get the idea. Hundreds of different ideas of who goes, where others go, why they go, etc.

 

Science has proven that love is extremely good for the human body. Well duh, of course it is. That's what is in our God-given spirit, to be loving and kind,

 

Then we don't have to believe to be loving and kind. But, you argue, it's not enough to be loving and kind. We have to believe something unprovable (or actually disprovable), or we will be tortured for all eternity (according to some Christians).

 

I'm not wishing bad on anyone, but what if your most loved ones were all murdered tomorrow? What if you lost everything and became homeless and poor? What if everything that could go wrong in this world did and you had absolutely no reason to live?

 

First, no matter what we think or how we feel, it does not change the fact that there is no god, Jesus died and isn't coming back, and your beliefs are founded on nothing substantial.

 

Do you think that wishing for something to be true makes it true? Even if you hope real hard? Reality does not conform to our desires and wishes. It simply is what it is. You can choose to live in a dream world, but one day your sleep walking will lead you right into that wall I wrote of earlier. Dreams do not change reality.

 

Also, the love that He's showing you is made evident by the fact that each day your spirit has remained with your body so that you can have another day to stop worshiping yourself and the universe and instead accept and believe in the one who created both. This is called Grace, and it is evidence of His love.

My sister-in-law is dead. So he didn't love her? Do you think that perhaps wearing seatbelts might make god love us more? Maybe if we take up sky-diving he will love us less?

 

That we are alive is evidence that we are alive. Atheists are just as alive as Christians. Muslims and Hindus are alive. Murderers and child molesters are alive, and you say that is evidence of his love.

 

Also, I think you might want to research that word "Grace." Calvinists have a unique meaning for it, and it might mean that you are destined for Hell - no matter what you do.

 

But take comfort in the fact that there is no hell "below us." Above us only sky.

 

I hope some day you'll join us, and the world can live as one.

[Antlerman]

Wow, I thought the yolk was supposed to be light.....no words, remember.

Funny man.

[oddbird1963]

However, the difference between a believer's experience knowing the love of Jesus and the non-believer's experience, is that the non-believer has never let that experience ignite the belief in Him, which is the seed for a real relationship with God.

Mary,

 

Thanks for posting here and welcome to this website and the Colosseum.

 

You depiction of non-believers is highly simplistic because the majority of people on this website were believers for some time who then subsequently realized that the claims of Christianity were not true.

 

So you might say that the non-believer HAS let the experience of the "love of Jesus" ignite faith in Him, but later realized that faith was misplaced.

 

I think your view of the world needs to be adjusted for this reality. Of course, I am sure you are too insightful to drag out the old, "Never a true Christian in the first place" explanation of our experiences. Because, as has already been pointed out by Shyone (or Neon Genesis), many of us were highly faithful, highly involved believers who certainly knew that the focus of the Christian faith is on Jesus Christ.

 

Now, are not Christians anymore.

 

As you peruse this thread and this website in general, you will realize that many ex-Christians report a deeper sense of "spirituality" or an experience of Oneness with all things that is far more gratifying than the highest of highs and the deepest of depths that a practice of faith in "Christ" ever gave within the Christian faith.

 

Assuming that you take the report of our experiences seriously, how would you then account for this?

 

Sincerely,

 

OB '63

[Antlerman]

Greetings Mary. I’m going to try something that may prove to be enlightening. Rev R had suggested to Pastor before trying explaining this without using the Christian language to describe it. I’m going to take some of the things you say and restate them and address my response to that.

 

You say: “However, we do set ourselves apart from what the world does. If you're on the football team you're not going to go practice with the basketball team, right?”

 

Translated: ‘Those who choose to pursue the development of a spiritual life need to practice what is conducive to that, and avoid things which don’t support that.’

 

Response: Yes. Just as any athlete who wishes to develop muscle tone should avoid behaviors that work against that, such as eaten the jumbo bucket of French Fries at each meal. This has nothing to do with Christians versus Non-Christians, but advise to those who want to develop their spiritual life, regardless of which “team” they are on.

 

 

You say: ” However, the difference between a believer's experience knowing the love of Jesus and the non-believer's experience, is that the non-believer has never let that experience ignite the belief in Him, which is the seed for a real relationship with God.”

 

Translated: ‘I don’t see that those who don’t believe as I do can possibly have experienced what I do with God, because how I believe results in this for me. Therefore because they don’t believe this that means that can’t experience this. Either the switch is on, or it’s off.

 

Response: This is not the reality of life for others who don’t use the same system of belief. They do experience what you experience. And in cases, far deeper experiences of the Divine.

 

Examples:

 

1. Ralph Woodrow Emerson.

 

“Beauty in nature is not ultimate. It is the herald of inward and eternal beauty, and is not alone a solid and satisfactory good…

 

Nature is a symbol of spirit… Before the revelations of the Soul, time, space and nature shrink away… In the hour of vision there is nothing that can be called gratitude, nor properly joy. The soul raised over passion beholds identity and eternal causation, perceives the self-existence of Truth and Right, and calms itself with knowing that all things go well. Vast spaces of nature, the Atlantic Ocean, the South Seas, long intervals of time, years, centuries, are of no account…

 

Let us stun and astonish the intruding rabble of men and books and institutions by a simple declaration of the divine fact. Bid the intruders take the shoes from off their feet, for God is here within. Let our simplicity judge them, and our docility to our own law demonstrate the poverty of Nature beside our native riches.”

 

These are the words of a man who rejected Christianity.

 

2. Now the words of a Christian, however she would be considered as “not knowing God” by most Evangelical Christians because she was Catholic, a “non-Christian” according to many. The words of Mother Teresa:

 

“ And now let us see what becomes of this silkworm. When it is in this state of cessation, and quite dead to the world, it comes out little white butterfly, Oh, greatness of God, that a soul should come out like this after being closely united for so short a time – never, I think, for as long as half an hour. For think of the difference between an ugly worm and a white butterfly; it is just the same here. The soul cannot think how it can have merited such a blessing – whence such blessing could have come to it, I meant to say, for it knows quite well that it has not merited it at all.

 

….

 

But here it is like rain falling from the heavens into a river or spring; there is nothing but water there and it is impossible to divide or separate the water belongs to the river from that which fell from the heavens. Or it is as if a tiny streamlet enters the sea, from which it will find no way of separating itself, or as if in a room there were two large windows which the light streamed in: it enters in different places but it all becomes one.”

These all are, by the way, expressions of direct experience. Not a theoretical speculation. I know this for myself.

 

3. Sri Auribindo, Eastern Indian mystic/philosopher:

 

“Its first effect has been the liberation of life and mind out of Matter; its last effect has been to assist the emergence of a spiritual consciousness, a spiritual will and spiritual sense of existence in the terrestrial being so that he is no longer solely preoccupied with his outermost life or with mental pursuits and interests, but has learned to look within, to discover his inner being, his spiritual self, to aspire to overpass earth and her limitations. As he grows more and more inward, his boundaries mental, vital, and spiritual begin to broaden, the bonds that held life, mind, soul to their first limitations loosen or snap, and man the mental being begins to have a glimpse of a larger kingdom of self and world closed to the first earth-life.”

4. Sri Ramana Maharshi:

 

“The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. The Being is the Self. “I am” is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement I AM THAT I AM. The Absolute Being is what is – It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact, God is none other than the Self.”

 

Again, these are expressions of humans who have experienced something that Transcendent Love, and is found regardless of religion. The effects of this are life transforming, by the way, not just for a moment like you suggested.

 

Will you continue to say that they can’t or don’t experience God the way a Christian can? One more example:

 

5. Meister Eckhart:

 

“For in this break-through I discover that I and God are one. There I am what I was, and I grow neither smaller nor bigger, for I am an immovable cause that moves all things.

 

Therefore also I am unborn, and following the way of my unborn being I can never die. Following the way of my unborn being I have always been, I am now, and shall remain eternally.”

 

I’m sitting here shaking my head at statements such as “Non-Christians are baffled by this concept of the love of Jesus" because in their eyes, He has NEVER done ANYTHING for them or MADE HIMSELF KNOWN to them.”

 

Seriously? Don't you think you're judging ignorantly in God's stead???

[Guest end3]

But beyond that symbol – lies what it represents. Behind the rose, is Love. Behind the Expression is the experience. Behind the manifestation, is the Source.

 

You say, “To put Jesus at the level of a symbol is making Him no better than a statue of a false god or some other thing that is worshipped for all the wrong reasons.” But what you should really say is that to worship the manifestation of God as God Himself is idolatry. Jesus, according to scripture is the manifestation of God, as End3 quoted:

 

Col 1:15,19 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation… For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” The image of the invisible God.

 

I’ll add Heb 1:3: “The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being”

 

I’ll add Jn. 1:4,5 “In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood”.

 

All these speak of the Christ as a Representation. A Manifestation. A Mask. A Face. A Symbol. But behind the Face, is what?? But back to saying what I’ve been trying to get at, the real heart of this. Any time you are using your mind to talk about God, to try to relate to Him rationally, it is necessary to put a face on it, to symbolize it. Jesus is in fact a symbol of God. It’s the face you put on God. But what is behind the face?

 

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

 

 

Jhn 1:2 this one was in the beginning with God;

 

 

Jhn 1:3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.

 

 

Jhn 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men,

 

 

Jhn 1:5 and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.

 

 

Jhn 1:6 There came a man -- having been sent from God -- whose name [is] John,

 

 

Jhn 1:7 this one came for testimony, that he might testify about the Light, that all might believe through him;

 

 

Jhn 1:8 that one was not the Light, but -- that he might testify about the Light.

 

 

Jhn 1:9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world;

 

 

Jhn 1:10 in the world he was, and the world through him was made, and the world did not know him:

 

 

Jhn 1:11 to his own things he came, and his own people did not receive him;

 

 

Jhn 1:12 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God -- to those believing in his name,

 

 

Jhn 1:13 who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten.

 

 

Jhn 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

 

If you are taking the stance you are taking, even if Christ were a symbol, then you are saying that manifestation of the Spirit of God doesn't come exclusively through Christ.

 

I guess this is your option, I don't really know what else to say K. I don't subscribe to it for my own reasons as I am sure you have yours. What makes you so Adamant? ( did you get the pun?)

[MultifariousBirdLady]

When's the last time you called on Mother Nature or Baal or whoever you're down with and they did something remarkable for you?

 

You know, it seems to me that they have. That's one of the reasons I remain Pagan. And I hear many reports from people in Pagan circles of things the Gods have done for them.

 

Christianity does not have a monopoly on Gods which form relationships with those who honor them. Or which appear to do so (there's lots of debate on how one might interpret this phenomena).

[Neon Genesis]

Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement I AM THAT I AM.

Or as the great philosopher Popeye the sailor man once said

I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam / And I got a lotta muscle and I only gots one eye / And I'll never hurt nobodys and I'll never tell a lie / Top to me bottom and me bottom to me top / That's the way it is 'til the day that I drop, what am I? / I yam what I yam.

[zandurian]

BTW Larry,

Christianity's Holy book (which I assume you take to be infallible) says "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay his life down for his friends".

 

Do you accept that as true, with no religious strings attached?

 

Okay, I'll bite: Yes I accept that statement as true, no religious strings attached.

 

Then I would say 'case closed' since people of many non-Christian cultures and belief systems have been guilty of committing this proof of greatest love. I'll have to suggest now that any who attempt to prove a greater love than this exists have purely heretical motivations.

[Antlerman]

If you are taking the stance you are taking, even if Christ were a symbol, then you are saying that manifestation of the Spirit of God doesn't come exclusively through Christ.

Ah words. What is the Christ? What is Jesus? What is Logos? I think the problem we have in communication is that you make it all one thing. Using the Christian system of language about God, as someone who does know and understand the Bible quite well, Jesus is the human who was born of a woman. Christ is the Divine Redeemer. Logos is the Eternal Agent of Manifestation.

 

So... manifestation. Again, using the language of Christianity (for those Christians who don't know it too well due to their particular unfortunate exposures), Logos as the Agent of Manifestation reveals God's Nature through creation. "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament showeth his handiwork, day unto day showeth knowledge, night unto night uttereth speach." "The hidden thing of him through creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and Godhead," etc. So the Agent of manifestation makes God known through outward forms. "All things were made through him, and nothing that was made was made without him".

 

Here's what I would say. The Christian calls this aspect of the Divine the Christ, Jesus, Logos. Call it what you will. What I will say that your understanding, your language, the system of faith you follow to it is what is not exclusive. Not at all. All you need do is listen. Hear.

 

It's not that I disagree with certain aspects of how the Christian speaks about it, but what I do disagree with is that how they talk about it defines it as the only way to talk about, approach it, or apprehend it. That is utter, pure, carnal arrogance. It does violence to Spirit, and I should suspect you well know that.

[Antlerman]

To put Jesus at the level of a symbol is making Him no better than a statue of a false god or some other thing that is worshipped for all the wrong reasons. If Dr. Jung's definition is correct, then in the view of Christianity, The Bible is the symbol of Jesus.

Speaking of symbols and Jesus and the Bible... here's all three at once! A picture speaks louder than a thousand words.

 

 

Now tell me that when a Christian prays, that he does not have some mental images like this, that they are not imagining God in some form like this, a form they can approach. If so, then this makes my point.

[Shyone]

 

Now tell me that when a Christian prays, that he does not have some mental images like this, that they are not imagining God in some form like this, a form they can approach.

As an aside, "approachability" is a major issue in many religions. Jesus is "standing" between the petitioner and God. Mary stands between the Petitioner and Jesus (Catholic), and some saints can convey messges to the divine (also mostly catholic).

 

I have never understood why Jesus (God) has to stand between the Petitioner and God (Jesus). I accepted it, but it never made sense if the trinity were true. Both would be spirits, of one insubstance, and presumably omnipresent. What if God heard a prayer that was being addressed to Jesus? What would be wrong with praying directly to God (like the Jews)?

[bdp]

God, Xtians are depressing.

[Antlerman]

I want to come back to some points in this I didn't get to yesterday...

 

However, the difference between a believer's experience knowing the love of Jesus and the non-believer's experience, is that the non-believer has never let that experience ignite the belief in Him, which is the seed for a real relationship with God.

I'm not sure how you qualify this. If you're saying that the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the experience of the Divine for the non-Christ hasn't led to them to be a Christian, that is kind of stating the obvious. But you cannot say that it has not inspire any belief in something Transcendent to them, or that that results in changing them.

 

The only thing you have to point to is whether or not they have adopted the language and symbols of the Christian religion as the judge of that inner work in them. And that is what it also appears Pastor Larry is doing as well. You are making the criteria of measuring the effect of Divine Love in the individual their acceptance and adoption of your religion.

 

1. "By their religious affiliations shall you know them", or

 

2. "By their fruits you shall know them."

 

Pick one.

 

Christianity cannot be equaled or exceeded in other faiths because most other faiths don't have a savior who actively helps and communicates with His people.

What do you mean by "actively helps"? You mean:

 

1. Specifically manipulating individual circumstances in order to exact specific results in each and every persons daily lives? Or,

 

2. "Actively helps" in the sense that there is a draw on everyone and everything towards the Divine (whether expressed mythologically or otherwise), in the way it is 'built into' a plant to reach for the sun, or biological life to seek continued existence; or even in matter itself to self-organize into higher and more complex forms, that that 'active' aspect is a 'living' dynamic essence in all things to "reach up"?

 

If the latter, then I'll accept that. If the former, I see that as more an understanding of God as more like Santa Clause. It's may serve as a self-comforting pillow to hold onto on cold and blizzardy night, but it doesn't offer a lot of growth spiritually, IMO. Ultimately we need to mature and stand in the Light of Day. To me if there is Will in the universe, its to that end and that beginning. Not self-comfort.

 

I'm speaking of the relationship part which Pastor was talking about. This is the next ongoing level of His love which grows day by day once you belong to Him. And this is the part that is only exclusive to Christians.

My spiritual 'relationship', if you will, that between me, my existence, my sense of being with myself the universe, the world, and all others in every day, in every moment has only grown since not being a Christian. I feel deeply more connected to what you would call "God" in every way. Using your Christian language for that sake of you recognizing the meaning, I could easily say in ways I never could as a Christian that, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," "He that believes in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," "In that day will my law be written on the tablets of the heart," "Let your light so shine," etc. Those only make sense now that I'm not a Christian as the words transcend that religion, and are understood by humans the world over.

 

Go figure! Why? This defies your theory in every imaginable way. I would say it literally obliterates it. To use the Creationist's favorite phrase, "It's only a theory." You only have a theory, I have experience. It isn't just something you 'feel' like going to a fun party and wake up the next morning the same person. It's transformative, and its greater than Christianity. It is not exclusive.

 

 

When's the last time you called on Mother Nature or Baal or whoever you're down with and they did something remarkable for you? Religions that merely focus on rituals, doctrine or "feelings of oneness" or finding God within ourselves are 100% dead.

"Feelings of Oneness" are dead??????!!!!!! What??? Have you ever experienced "God" as you claim, or is this just all theoretical, metaphysical application of bible interpretations to Reality without the benefit of actual experience? Is that why you set you on this side and us on the other? Because you have never actually experienced it and understand how ALL is ONE? It changes your perspectives forever, even if you may not 'feel' it every single day. You are still acutely aware of it, and would never see anyone as existing outside of it.

 

There's no one to come home to at the end of the day. It's like marrying a mannequin instead of a real person. It looks like the real deal but it's not.

That's pretty much what everyone here on this site says about their experience with Christianity.

 

Why do people dumb themselves down and refuse to accept that God is not a feeling or a vibe or even nature. He is an intellectual being just like you and I with thoughts and emotions, except He is incomprehensibly smarter, full of love and unbearably holy.

Maybe the problem is you just don't know what other people are talking about, because of not being able to place in neatly into how you understand God? Maybe they're using of "feeling" is confusing to you. But then, Christians express it the same way, so I don't understand how it could be. I prefer the word "intuit". It goes beyond 'feelings' (emotions), to a sense of knowing without knowing through reason. It really can't be expressed with reason.

 

As far as being an intellectual being just like you and I, with thoughts and emotions, well, again that is a highly anthropomorphized imagination of "God". It's putting a human face on the Unknowable. It is called creating God in our own image. We do this to help us try to relate to It, but like that cozy pillow I mentioned before, this is about self-comfort and a tool to try to understand and relate to something such as Infinity.

 

It's what we do as kids seeing mom and dad as these god-like mythological figures bridging the gap between the Unknown vastness of the World and ourselves. They are symbols of connection to it for us, to protect us, to make sense of it to us, to guide us into it. This is what mythologies are all about. It's developmental stages of reasoning ourselves in the world. But as adults, we interface much more directly with the world as actualized individuals. So it is with our Spiritual lives, moving beyond these mythological faces of the Divine we created in our youth.

 

This BTW Pastor Larry, is what I'm talking about with symbols.

 

 

Non-Christians are baffled by this concept of the love of Jesus" because in their eyes, He has NEVER done ANYTHING for them or MADE HIMSELF KNOWN to them. Believe me, I've been there. If God really was Just and Holy then how could he see all the evil stuff going on and not fix it? And that's the trap that people fall into continually. It's the blame-God & no-proof deceptions.

Everything you described is the inevitable result of believing in God as this mythological extension of ourselves as Human. If God is just like us, as you say, then this is what will result. You expect God to be responsive just like you would any moral human you have a relationship with. Really believing God is this mythological extension of ourselves is ultimately you setting yourself up for a crisis of faith.

 

But, that's not all bad. It's like when you learn mom and dad are not gods, and you need to face the world in your own individuality that you grow up. So in a sense, we are setting ourselves up by viewing God this way to of necessity of growth, leave behind those idols of our childhood in order to apprehend what they were representing the whole time. Our own sense of Being.

[Shyone]

1. "By their religious affiliations shall you know them", or

 

2. "By their fruits you shall know them."

 

Pick one.

I like that. It cuts to the heart of the matter.