I Shall Have To Say Goodbye My Friends.

[Creepy Doll]

Meh, you'll be back. Just wait until reality sets in that the bullshit is still bullshit and Christians you know, while they may be acting differently toward you right now in an attempt to win you back, are going to pull the same old bullshit once they think you're back in with them.

[Guest I Love Dog]

"He audibly said, "Jonathan, I will not lose even one of my lambs."

 

I interpret that to mean that every one of the 6.7 billion people on planet Earth will go to Christian heaven. Interesting, because only about 2.1 billion believe in the Christian heaven, so they'll go there whether they want to or not? That doesn't seem fair, to have to spend eternity with one of the nastiest gods ever invented, when you don't even want to be there.

 

I for one wouldn't want to be there because my dog isn't allowed into the Christian heaven, because god didn't give animals souls(!!!!!) and I want to be where my dog is, thank you very much

 

Sure it wasn't the farmer next door speaking?

[agnosticator]

I for one wouldn't want to be there because my dog isn't allowed into the Christian heaven, because god didn't give animals souls(!!!!!) and I want to be where my dog is, thank you very much

 

You'd rather be with your dog also because dogs love unconditionally (exception being extreme abuse, when they see their human as the asshole he/she is) whereas the christian god "loves" selectively. Besides, DOG backwards is GOD!

[Guest I Love Dog]

I for one wouldn't want to be there because my dog isn't allowed into the Christian heaven, because god didn't give animals souls(!!!!!) and I want to be where my dog is, thank you very much

 

You'd rather be with your dog also because dogs love unconditionally (exception being extreme abuse, when they see their human as the asshole he/she is) whereas the christian god "loves" selectively. Besides, DOG backwards is GOD!

 

Doh! I KNOW dog backwards is god, that's why I love Dog! At least my dog exists! As for unconditional love, yes he has that, more than I can say for Yahweh!

 

I have unconditional love for my children. I would love them whatever. If they stuff up, become mass murderers, serial rapists, druggies, whatever, then I would take responsibility, unlike Yahweh. It would be my fault.

 

If my children were not beautiful, wonderful, loving, law-abiding, respectful people then it would be my fault. I was responsible for their upbringing.

 

My daughters were brought up without religion or god or heaven or hell. They are beautiful human beings, as are their children.

 

I would rate my children and grandchildren against ANY person of religion and they would come out on top. Whereas I was baptized into Christianity and I will never be half the person that my daughters are or my grandchildren, all atheists and all perfect. I, having been a Christian, have committed so many aberrations in my life that if I believed in hell, I would go there, for sure!

 

My daughters and grandchildren are THE most honest, charitable, warm and loving people you could ever wish to know. All without god/gods and religions.

 

Go figure!

[agnosticator]

I would rate my children and grandchildren against ANY person of religion and they would come out on top. Whereas I was baptized into Christianity and I will never be half the person that my daughters are or my grandchildren, all atheists and all perfect. I, having been a Christian, have committed so many aberrations in my life that if I believed in hell, I would go there, for sure!

 

My daughters and grandchildren are THE most honest, charitable, warm and loving people you could ever wish to know. All without god/gods and religions.

 

Go figure!

 

Here in the USA, very few understand this. Christian propaganda abounds and church people can do no wrong, even though they commit most of the crimes. I think god belief gives humans the excuse to do wrong, since they can be forgiven by the god of their choosing no matter how bad their behavior is.

 

I have often wondered what it would be like to be brought up god-free. I would think that the absence of christian guilt and divisiveness would free me to see others as fellow humans. I remember fearing other religions and atheism, because they didn't know Truth and Salvation. Now I fear religious believers because THEY are a potential danger to us all.

 

Your family is proof of the atheist's moral superiority! Just kidding! I thought I would turn the tables on that subject for the christian's sake. It is always good to hear about god-free loving families.

[Major Tom]

Fair enough. I don't think there's any point in trying to pick apart and debunk your 1973 experience; it seems to be a bit of an anchor for you to fall back on in your decision to accept Christian belief again....

 

I should clarify. I am not falling back into accepting my old Christian beliefs again. Mine are not the fundamentalist beliefs that I once held. I believe the megalomaniacal God of the Old Testament does not exist. I believe the Bible is full of mistakes but has many truths, most of which are in the New Testament. There is no hell. There is no heaven per ce. My beliefs are closer to those held by Jefferson, a Deist or perhaps closet Atheist, who printed his own version of the Bible, the Jefferson Bible, because the atrocities of the old testament were so abhorrent to him. He believed in the Golden Rule as do I. Buddha, before Christ, espoused the Silver Rule which is equally appealing.

[oddbird1963]

The "Silver Rule" seems to be a way of hierarchicalizing the various versions of the "Golden Rule" in religions and ethical systems throughout the world.

 

The Confucianist version reads "Do not do to others, what you do not want them to do to you. ..."

 

Describing the New Testament rendition as the "Golden Rule" seems to imply that the version attributed to Jesus in the Bible is the highest and best version. The implication is that Christianity brings forth the superior ethical system while other systems are nice tries, just not quite as good.

 

I think this is false. I think each ethical system restates the same grand idea of empathizing with others before making decisions about how to behave towards them.

 

There may be some value at looking at this principle from a proactive vs. passive point of view. But I think Christians try to stack the deck a bit by wording their phrase as the "Golden Rule" and the others as a "Silver Rule."

 

By the way, one source I looked at on the internet seemed to think the Silver Rule was, "If you don't have anything good to say about someone, don't say anything." That's probably a good application of the Confusionist version.

[hereticzero]

Fair enough. I don't think there's any point in trying to pick apart and debunk your 1973 experience; it seems to be a bit of an anchor for you to fall back on in your decision to accept Christian belief again....

 

I should clarify. I am not falling back into accepting my old Christian beliefs again. Mine are not the fundamentalist beliefs that I once held. I believe the megalomaniacal God of the Old Testament does not exist. I believe the Bible is full of mistakes but has many truths, most of which are in the New Testament. There is no hell. There is no heaven per ce. My beliefs are closer to those held by Jefferson, a Deist or perhaps closet Atheist, who printed his own version of the Bible, the Jefferson Bible, because the atrocities of the old testament were so abhorrent to him. He believed in the Golden Rule as do I. Buddha, before Christ, espoused the Silver Rule which is equally appealing.

You don't have to leave to believe that.

[hereticzero]

Christianity does not accept Deism as doctrine. At one time Deism was the radical brothers of Christianity and any more the hierarchy of Christianity just doesn't consider Deism a legitimate expression of faith. I found it too absurd to be a True Christian™.

[agnosticator]

I, myself follow the Confucian version of the "golden" rule. When we do unto others what we would desire, we can end up valuing things like sadism and masochism. By NOT doing unto others, we avoid things like this. Here is an article by Edward Babinski on the subject that is interesting.

[Franko47]

Fair enough. I don't think there's any point in trying to pick apart and debunk your 1973 experience; it seems to be a bit of an anchor for you to fall back on in your decision to accept Christian belief again....

 

I should clarify. I am not falling back into accepting my old Christian beliefs again. Mine are not the fundamentalist beliefs that I once held. I believe the megalomaniacal God of the Old Testament does not exist. I believe the Bible is full of mistakes but has many truths, most of which are in the New Testament. There is no hell. There is no heaven per ce. My beliefs are closer to those held by Jefferson, a Deist or perhaps closet Atheist, who printed his own version of the Bible, the Jefferson Bible, because the atrocities of the old testament were so abhorrent to him. He believed in the Golden Rule as do I. Buddha, before Christ, espoused the Silver Rule which is equally appealing.

 

 

 

 

Sounds good to me. Why are you going ? There are many here who still are interested in progressive theistic thought and experience. At least stop by from time to time. Peace.

[Major Tom]

Why thank you, Franko47 and HereticZero. That's very kind of you. I believe I will remain as at least a lurker. I do enjoy reading the many well reasoned posts here.

 

P.S.: agnosticator is right. It was Confucius not Buddha who taught the Silver Rule.

[agnosticator]

Thanks for clarifying your position, Major Tom. Actually, you didn't have to start this thread, but the fact that you did tells us you are a thoughtful and caring person. Take care and have fun lurking!

[oddbird1963]

I, myself follow the Confucian version of the "golden" rule. When we do unto others what we would desire, we can end up valuing things like sadism and masochism. By NOT doing unto others, we avoid things like this. Here is an article by Edward Babinski on the subject that is interesting.

 

 

That is a great article, agnosticator.

 

I bookmarked it for later reference.

 

Thanks!

 

OB '63

[agnosticator]

You're welcome, oddbird1963 and Phanta! Here's another that tears all the versions apart. I take this article with a grain of salt, since ethics require much more than one-sentence rules. The author didn't provide any helpful conclusions. I think reciprocity and "do no harm" still are useful when coupled with empathy and reason, of course.

[Major Tom]

"He audibly said, "Jonathan, I will not lose even one of my lambs."

 

I interpret that to mean that every one of the 6.7 billion people on planet Earth will go to Christian heaven. Interesting, because only about 2.1 billion believe in the Christian heaven, so they'll go there whether they want to or not? That doesn't seem fair, to have to spend eternity with one of the nastiest gods ever invented, when you don't even want to be there.

 

I for one wouldn't want to be there because my dog isn't allowed into the Christian heaven, because god didn't give animals souls(!!!!!) and I want to be where my dog is, thank you very much

 

Sure it wasn't the farmer next door speaking?

 

I'm not so sure that dogs don't go to heaven. When I have looked into my dogs' and horse's eyes I have seen that they are sentient beings having emotions and feeling pain as we do. I also believe we are not alone in the universe. These other beings, if they exist, are perhaps inhuman, but still sentient. My thinking is that all of life is part of a oneness, only separated right now by time and space in order that we/it/God have the opportunity to experience all possibilities. An all experiencing, all knowing universe is my definition of God and would have to include our pets in the oneness or else would be incomplete.

 

BTW, I Love Dog, the "nastiest god ever invented" is just as you say, an invention. Since he/she/it doesn't exist, then anger directed toward the inventors would seem more reasonable than directed toward the god who isn't and never was there.

[Shyone]

that dogs don't go to heaven. When I have looked into my dogs' and horse's eyes I have seen that they are sentient beings having emotions and feeling pain as we do. I also believe we are not alone in the universe. These other beings, if they exist, are perhaps inhuman, but still sentient. My thinking is that all of life is part of a oneness, only separated right now by time and space in order that we/it/God have the opportunity to experience all possibilities. An all experiencing, all knowing universe is my definition of God and would have to include our pets in the oneness or else would be incomplete.

 

BTW, I Love Dog, the "nastiest god ever invented" is just as you say, an invention. Since he/she/it doesn't exist, then anger directed toward the inventors would seem more reasonable than directed toward the god who isn't and never was there.

How about pet spiders, ant farms, frogs and bacteria?

 

Oh, you meant sentient beings - but where, exactly, is that line drawn? Ferrets? Birds? Racoons? Possums? Snakes?

 

Or maybe this oneness thing has to do with the fact that we are all protons, electrons, quarks and energy, and it's all recycled. In fact, the calcium in your bones was manufactured in another star that exploded. Maybe even belonged to someone - or something - else at one time or another.

 

Sentience is a property of the organization of matter, not an independent thing. If the universe is somehow "intelligent" I have yet to see evidence of that, and even if it were, I don't think that kind of intelligence has much concern for the "carbon pollution" on this planet (to borrow a Star Trek: The Movie theme).

[Shyone]

 

Or maybe this oneness thing has to do with the fact that we are all protons, electrons, quarks and energy, and it's all recycled. In fact, the calcium in your bones was manufactured in another star that exploded. Maybe even belonged to someone - or something - else at one time or another.

 

Really? I could have the building blocks of other people in me?

 

Phanta

I don't mean to gross you out, but someone calculated that there is a mollecule of water that passed through Oliver Cromwell's bladder in every glass of water in England.

 

Yes, we recycle minerals. Absolutely. Water is only one of many, but if it can be incorporated into living things, it will be recycled.

[Shyone]

 

Or maybe this oneness thing has to do with the fact that we are all protons, electrons, quarks and energy, and it's all recycled. In fact, the calcium in your bones was manufactured in another star that exploded. Maybe even belonged to someone - or something - else at one time or another.

 

Really? I could have the building blocks of other people in me?

 

Phanta

I don't mean to gross you out, but someone calculated that there is a mollecule of water that passed through Oliver Cromwell's bladder in every glass of water in England.

 

Yes, we recycle minerals. Absolutely. Water is only one of many, but if it can be incorporated into living things, it will be recycled.

 

The calcium in my bones could be from other people?

 

This is really cool.

 

Phanta

It is almost certain.

 

I haven't done the calculations, but if we go back 4 million years, count the generations, and determine how much calcium is in our bones now, new sources of calcium, etc. I'm pretty sure you not only have one person's calcium, but possibly thousands. And millions of animals.

 

Some things are necessary to life, and metabolically available only via life. We have problems metabolising calcium carbonate, but smaller life forms can, and then we get a useful form of calcium through them, or from animals. The food chain is not a long unending chain; it's a circle.

[hereticzero]

I don't mean to gross you out, but someone calculated that there is a mollecule of water that passed through Oliver Cromwell's bladder in every glass of water in England.

Wow! Could they determine if any holy piss from Jesus is in the water supply of Jerusalem?

[Major Tom]

When I have looked into my dogs' and horse's eyes I have seen that they are sentient beings having emotions and feeling pain as we do. I also believe we are not alone in the universe. These other beings, if they exist, are perhaps inhuman, but still sentient. My thinking is that all of life is part of a oneness, only separated right now by time and space in order that we/it/God have the opportunity to experience all possibilities. An all experiencing, all knowing universe is my definition of God and would have to include our pets in the oneness or else would be incomplete.

 

This reminds me of a zen koan, "Has a dog Buddha nature, or not?" One of the most famous answers is Chou-Chou's "mu". There is an interesting article at Beliefnet in which the author suggests, "Master Chao-chou affirms that all sentient beings do in fact have Buddha-nature, dogs included, but they need to wake up to the fact if it is to do them any good."

 

Phanta

 

Or maybe this oneness thing has to do with the fact that we are all protons, electrons, quarks and energy, and it's all recycled. In fact, the calcium in your bones was manufactured in another star that exploded. Maybe even belonged to someone - or something - else at one time or another.

 

Really? I could have the building blocks of other people in me?

 

Phanta

 

Thanks Phanta for the article on Beliefnet. Very interesting.

 

Now I am having a problem redefining myself... Perhaps I am not a Christian strictly speaking after all, but rather a Buddhist/Pantheist/Christian? Where will I ever find such a church? (lol)

[Major Tom]

...Of course, each group is different, but in my area, you'd fit in well with the Unitarian Universalists or the Liberal Quakers.

 

Phanta <-- also a spiritual mutt

 

Thanks Phanta. I went over and looked at the Beliefnet site. I tool their quiz to see what religion I might be. Turns out that I am 99 % of a good fit for the Universalists just as you said. I am also 99 % Neo-Pagan, 98 % New Age, and 55 % Christian. For any who want to take the quiz, it is at http://www.beliefnet...liefOMatic.aspx .

[Mriana]

I don't know why anyone would go back after they have left religion. Oh well. That's humans for you, I guess.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I have always wanted a spiritual experience. I was once accused of allowing myself to become demon possessed in black magic rituals and my first thought was, 'Damn I wish!'

 

Shyone, I have always LOVED thinking about how we are not only made of 'star-stuff', we are the culmination of earth's history re-organized matter from thousands of people, plants, animals and minerals. Physical re-incarnation is fact and its beautiful. I don't worry about having a soul or an afterlife of consciousness because we really do know what happens to our bodies.

 

Being pregnant right now I think about this a lot lately. Everything I eat becomes a part of my body which then is used to form the basis for what will be a new person. The exact configuration of whom has never existed before nor will ever exist again. The air I breathe, the chicken I had for lunch, the potatoes that made up my french fries are all a part of that. Its plenty amazing enough on its own.

 

When I took the test it gave me UU as well, with New Age and Neo-paganism coming up behind. If you have the need to attend church, Major Tom, I'd give UU a try. I may give them a try myself sometime.

[Mriana]

I've had numinous (Webster definition #3) feelings with animals and some humans. It is a wonderful feeling, which I consider spiritual. I took the test awhile back and came out Secular Humanist as #1. I don't remember what #2 was.