Question For The Christians

[Guest end3]

One of the things that comes to mind when you say "resolve that nature" within our awareness seems very much related to the dualistic nature of the Source Nature (as much as we are able to discern), and our own experience paralleling the Source...i.e. life and death.

None of this makes sense to me. "Paralleling the Source"? What does that mean?

 

Again, I don't see how the Source of all would be dualistic. Imagine everything is one without division. Where is two in "one"?

 

One step forward and two back. We will get there. I don't know how we can tend to relate to GB if it has no form. What I envisioned you describing was essentially nature and the natural unfolding of life and death, but all contained as one entity. To me, the fact that it seems mostly like a coming and going, life and death thing, then that is why I described our natures paralleling the GB nature. Frankly, I don't see a need for knowing a blank infinity that spews forth a system. I see and relate to the system, knowing the GB from my relationship(s) to it. It may be formless....I have form.

 

Duality of Source Nature? Huh? I've never jammed the two words together like that. Not sure what you mean. And "joined in unity with that", is very not what I've ever said. If you are talking about the Source, then we were fused with that, like an infant with its mother. There is no sense of self anywhere in that. Undifferentiated. That is not "Unity with", as that require two becoming one. There was not two to begin with. Fused, not united.

 

No, you said earlier that our awareness is a product of the GB. Again, what I am saying is our awareness can be defined by ourselves independently of the role of the GB or perhaps by some purpose of the GB. I hesitate to think that we are stuck by default with our awareness by the shear unveiling of the GB. And specifically, our awareness of ourself has the ability to define our experience as good and bad. It's undeniable. I was speculating that the higher self is MORE than stuck in some unveiling of the GB and walking in harmony with that. Listen carefully....if you define "harmony" by ANY means of our experience, then you have taken away the GB as some infinite force and symbolized it. So in order to discuss the process, we either have to make it symbolic or quit the discussion. Now, I was stating that the GB oneness appears to characterize a duality within the greater oneness......which we can easily recognize in our lives. And within this recongnition of life and death, good and bad.....life good, death sucks. I just don't agree that if we have such a distinct drive towards duality, that you can dismiss that with the notion that the higher self is encompassing a oneness with both aspects.

 

It sounds to me like you're trying to take all these ways of talking about it and making it fit a way of looking at you that you have. I have no problem in saying that what the Christian mystic (not your average Orthodoxy fair, or course) says, that seeing a dualistic, theistic face, has value on level. I just think at any point we make it that face, that theistic notion and as the end understanding, it reduces it. Have you ever wondered why the mystic traditions of the world all say the same thing? A theistic view is understandable (for a lot of reasons), but the vast confusion is when the mindset of say, your Orthodox believer, such as Ray, is that that idea is it! It's not a way to process and embrace what is beyond it, but it itself! "My god is right! Yours is wrong!" Phooey. Ignorance. Child mind.

 

I believe I can invision what you are describing.....but I fail to separate the oneness from the forms and the observations that the forms are all basically doing the same thing......being born, growing, maturing, dying. My own experience allows for recognition of this....my awareness....and in that, the ability to conceive that possibly God is more than just the milk that holds the born, growing, maturing, and dying together in the bowl, but is actually incorporated in those aspects as well.....the lessons....the experience.....the lower...the higher. How can it not K?

 

I realize this may take some processing to get what I'm saying, so forgive me if it isn't clear. It's not easy to just lay it all out in these sorts of posts. We'll keep trying.

 

No one's fault....it's just frustrating when you come to the board and expect unity and find disunity.

[Guest end3]

It really comes down to whether we want to be basically pessimistic or basically optimistic about human nature. The latter stance is pretty much anathema to standard Christian doctrine as it flies in the face of the doctrine of the "total depravity of man". At some point I realized that this extreme view was, at the least, in need of some balance.

 

I really agree with that in that what we witness is a balance.

 

In all frankness, my personality is such that I have generally tended to be pessimistic. But at some point I realized I was working really hard to position myself as above and beyond it all, and also to portray myself as a victim ("I'm surrounded by idiots!!"). I had much ego invested in being "right". That's just me, of course. For me it was just a healthy bit of progress to see myself as part of, rather than apart from, my fellow humans. Once that happened I could see their foibles in a more balanced and perhaps ironic light -- certainly a more compassionate light.

 

Yes, I think that is what keeps us from a better balance is not admitting that we belong to the same circumstances or experiences and that we won't admit that to each other.....idiots or otherwise. Yeah, it's wonderfully refreshing.

 

 

I think it's helpful to see even that guy out in the parking lot performing vandalism as something other than a willful idiot. At a certain level, that's what he is, and he may actually need some kind of wake up call in the form of justice meted out. At another level, though, he's you and me -- a lost, confused, acting-out version thereof. We could have been even worse, saddled with his particular baggage, for all we know. He could end up ultimately outshining us, for all we know. We can never imagine ourselves better. We can't afford the smugness.

 

That's right....we were at a high school football game this evening. The little town we played was obviously a school district that had less money and the town was not socioeconomically equal to ours. There were people who laughed at their little band struggling through the national athem. I actually had compassion for them moreso than anything, as I was proud for them as humans in their effort....even if it most likely was driven by some questionable activity like football.....anyway, I agree and see that often.....sometimes I just don't have the guts to stand up for the other guy nor choose to be the other guy. It's something I struggle with.

 

What I'm trying to do these days is to see what's laudable and praiseworthy in more mundane things. I don't need someone to happen to be cute and sing a song that I find moving in order for me to see the goodness in them. They can even be a little bit annoying

 

No, that's right, but our experience is very much so that things move us. I was only trying to make the counterpoint. It can certainly be abused to the point of anguish by both the audience and the participant....take the child that their parent forces them to be "x" for 8 hours a day.

 

There's that Indian dude at the Drunken Donuts drive-thru who greets me every morning with a rapid-fire "HowAreYouMyFriendWhatCanIDoForYouToday?" I know his boss probably puts him up to it but the fact that he's game enough to comply and his boss is, while arguably misguided, trying to provide his customers with some respect and caring, is a lovely thing to me. At one time, my reaction would have been more along the lines of, "you are NOT my friend and a fake sales patter won't convince me that you're losing any sleep tonight over how I, your friend, am getting along and how you can serve me even better tomorrow." I just don't have room for that many pet peeves anymore. I prefer to like the silly little twit and admire him for putting himself out there, day after day, embracing hundreds of total strangers as "my friend" for no more incentive than keeping his minimum wage job. There is something beautiful about that, if you choose to see it ... and if you extend that frame of mind to enough things you start to see your fellow man as a bit less ignoble.

 

Truthfully Bob, that frame of mind is when I think I am most connected with God. I think you have the right idea and I wouldn't move from where you are if you can force your mind to stay and participate. I see it very much like "obedience" that turns into who you are. Thanks for the honesty.

[Th☼mas]

Firstly, I'd make a lousy deity. I'm selfish, and enjoy eating, drinking, sleeping, and sex.

 

In response to the question and reflecting on some of the early replies, I thought about that if Jesus says, "forgive them; they don't know what they're doing," then isn't his authority to request forgiveness valid? Anyway, if I had to think like a seminarian again, I would talk about how god reserves the right to exercise grace, etc. At least in the more liberal Ev. Christian camp, there is not a focus on who would ever be sent to hell—though there are many who do not believe in it; but instead would capitalize on god's ability to operate on as much grace and compassion as possible. Like it was said above, it's a question that can't be answered, but is the type that ferrets out theological problem areas.

 

[edited for typos]

 

If you were God would you send Anne Frank to Hell where she would suffer forever for being Jewish?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes or No

[Guest Valk0010]

So how is calling "minimal facts" appeal to consensus an assertion?

[bornagainathiest]

'rayskidude' timestamp='1289222194' post='620361']

 

Prove me wrong.

 

You took this challenge out of context.

 

Yes Ray. (Or should I now call you Ananias?)

 

Exactly so. Just as you took my earlier challenge out of context, remember?

 

The one where you substituted the Chasma Boreal for the Noctis Labyrinthus Trough, completely changing the context of my challenge.

 

Nice illustration of hypocrisy at work!

 

When you take something out of context, it's ok - when I do it, it's wrong.

 

Hypocrite!

I won't stoop so low as to ask you if you've got the 'nads to respond. Nor will I insult your intelligence by suggesting that you're clueless about these matters. No. You'll reply to the above questions when you're ready. If 'ready' is never, then so be it.

BAA.

 

I have provide more than one response, but until you put your Martian canyon theory on the table - how can we possibly dialogue?

 

**************************************************************************************

Removed eleventy-bazillion useless sentences quoted. This is a royal WTF-O posting moment.

 

Pull this stunt again, POOF, yer outa here.

kevinFuckin'L

**************************************************************************************

 

Let me help you out, Ray.

Since it's obvious that you're now in this too deep to get out, let me copy your lying and denying mantra many, many times, to save you the bother of have to type it out all over again, the next time you choose to dig yourself in deeper.

Now, when you want to keep up the pretense of having acted truthfully, you can just copy the block of lies below with a few clicks of the mouse.

 

I have provide more than one response, but until you put your Martian canyon theory on the table - how can we possibly dialogue?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Ray, you have provided more than one response. But these responses are (as much as you deny the recorded facts) pre-dated by the as-yet-unfulfilled challenge I put to you - to compare the Noctis Labyrinthus Trough on Mars with the Grand Canyon on Earth, using the parameters I set down for you in June.

 

So this issue cannot move forward to a proper conclusion, because your responses fail to meet the spec.

 

Just for the record, the proper conclusion is for you to make the above comparison. Period. Nothing less than this is the proper conclusion. The recorded fact that you have not done this, will not do this and will do anything (like substituting a different canyon, to nullify the conditions set down for you in June) to avoid doing this, speaks volumes about your moral condition- or should I more accurately say, your immoral condition. Your continued and strident litany of lying and denying fools nobody. Instead, it just draws attention to your status of being spiritually dead, it undermines every argument you make and it taints the book you claim to revere, every time you have the gall to quote from it.

 

Here is how you responses fail to meet the spec.

 

1. Your responses are pre-dated by the above challenge, which is still unanswered by you, months down the road.

2. Your responses, since the time of that deception, have been consistent in their stubborn denial of deceit, even though I've posted the evidence of your duplicity in this thread, for all to see.

3. Your responses, since the time of that deception, have been consistent in their barefaced lies about this issue, even though I've posted the evidence of your repeated duplicity in this thread, for all to see.

 

 

Since you will not, I am trying to determine your reticence to engage in this dialogue.

 

My reticence, as you craftily call it, is entirely due to your total failure to resolve this outstanding issue in the proper manner, as described above.

But, please don't try to insinuate that I am the guilty party here. That won't work. The recorded and posted facts speak against you 100% and support me 100%. I don't expect anything but more denial and more lies from you Ray, but should there be a tiny spark of decency in your otherwise dark, scheming and corrupt soul, please don't let it die. Even if there is no God, I would still welcome a little decency and honesty from you. Having to type out my replies carefully, so that I leave no loopholes or loose ends for you to exploit, is somewhat tedious.

 

However, please note Ray, that I will keep up my guard against you and your devious ways, tedious though the exercise is. That's because I value the truth, even if you don't. (No. By the truth, I am not referring to the Bible. I am talking about our dialog and actions, here in this forum. Remember Ananias? He lied and denied about his actions, not about anything else.)

 

See how your deceitful nature forces me to qualify what I mean by the word. 'truth'? Shame on you for making me have to do this!

 

Un-respectfully yours,

 

BAA.

[Guest]

"Jews deserved the holocaust for disowning Christ." So they also deserve to burn in hell.

"Sins of the Father" sort of thing?

Something like that. But the church was hardcore Lutheran too and generally anti-semetic. We even sung hymns in German sometimes.

 

I don't think singing hymns in german are necessarily anti-semetic. Didn't Martin Luther write a bunch of hymns?

 

Luther also wrote a book called "On the Jews and Their Lies".

[Ouroboros]

I guess there never were any "simple yes or no" in this thread.

 

Here's the summary, to my understanding, to the original question:

 

Anne Frank is not going to Hell because she's Jewish, she's going to Hell because she's not a Christian.

 

Does that sum it up correctly? If so, then perhaps we should start to consider to take all these different discussions in some new threads. This one has become a beast, the size short of being infinitely long, and it's impossible for one human being to catch on to all that's was discussed while discussing what is on the plate presently.

 

Consider it folks, if new ideas pop up in your heads, try to take it to a new thread instead of feeding this mastodon.

[centauri]

The “facts” for “Jesus of Nazareth” come exclusively from cult writers who were writing for the purpose of establishing their character as a bona-fide messiah.

The existence of mass stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion was not a debatable fact either.

The vast majority of weapons scholars agreed on these "facts" and Colin Powell sold these facts in front of the world.

 

 

The use of the term "cult writers" is a pejorative that doesn't help you make your case, which is a red herring anyway.

No, it’s not a red herring because it indicates that the so-called facts come from sources that had a vested interest in promoting the tale.

 

Even if they were writing to establish his bonafides as Messiah, that doesn't mean that he was not, in fact Messiah anymore than a historian writing about Abraham Lincoln being a great president would negate the fact that he was a great president.

The “history” is not validated outside of cult writings.

 

Your WMD example is a non-sequitur to this discussion.

No, it’s quite apt considering your constant appeals to popular opinion.

 

LNC:

You have a high degree of reliability that there were stories about a resurrection.

 

Your reliability comes from cult writers with an obvious agenda to sell “Jesus” as a bona-fide messiah.

The Gospels themselves have glaring inconsistencies regarding events surrounding the god-man.

This is not established history except in the minds of those that want it to be.

 

 

No, we have a high degree of reliability about the facts of Jesus' life. I mean, if your way of thinking follows, then we have to say the same about all of history, especially, ancient history; but really, all of history. Again, you throw out a pejorative thinking it will make your case stronger, but it does not, it only colors your analysis as being biased.

No, we do not have a high degree of reliability about the so-called facts.

The fact that stories exist doesn't make the stories true or factual.

You constantly extrapolate these tales into facts and throw out wishful thinking, hoping that it establishes your case, but it only colors your analysis as being biased.

 

If you would like to discuss what you call "glaring inconsistencies," I would be glad to discuss them. These cases have been addressed repeatedly, so one more time won't be any more difficult.

Discuss them with you?

What for, you’re just here to endlessly pump your talking points.

But go ahead and see if you can drag this thread out for another 68 pages.

Birth narratives of Jesus, genealogy of Jesus, resurrection of the saints, day Jesus was crucified, resurrection appearances, sinless Jesus, Jesus divinity.

 

However, your final statement shows that you are not as familiar with the field of study that you purport to be. You are in the extreme minority position on this one, but, if you would like to try to make your case, you are welcome to try.

The majority that promote this as history are Christians.

You're trying to promote New Testament tales as established history.

Your “facts” come from cult writings that were designed to promote the religion and its hero.

Make your case for the “facts” about Jesus of Nazareth from something other than cult writings written by unnamed authors.

Produce the facts without resorting to adding qualifiers to explain away the internal inconsistencies within the tales themselves.

[Ouroboros]

I started to watch the video, and I had this thought. I haven't watched the whole video yet, so I could be wrong, but from what Habermas said in the beginning this is how I understand his method: he looked at the conclusions different scholars had come to about these "facts" and he assumes that they must have some valid reason to why they came to these conclusions. And if the conclusions are overwhelmingly to one side or another, it would mean that the underlying research each scholar had done would be more likely valid. If this is how he argues it, then I find there is a missing argument. What says that people (scholars) have a conclusion based on valid research? How about culture, bias, lacking information, political bias, etc? We are, as a society, more likely to look favorable at our own history, background, religion, culture, etc. We are more likely, by social programming, to come to certain conclusions that are not necessarily reasonable, logical, or even well funded in research.

 

If we would make the same survey in Iran. Asking every scholar in Islam how reliable the minimal facts are for Mohammad going to Heaven and meeting Abraham, or that God spoke through him in visions, or whatever. Would there be a huge number of scholars, who had researched and had a valid reason to believe, that the "minimal facts of Islam" is true? Most likely we would.

 

And how about going to India and asking the scholars in Hinduism?

 

It's obvious that something else is making the numbers be 70% and 90% in our culture in favor of a historical Jesus and minimal facts than valid research or reasonable arguments. And it's more likely the framework from which everyone works from, and in our case, it's Christianity's influence in our society.

[rayskidude]

Actually, what we cannot do is envision God as smaller than us. That's the real problem here Ray. That's why we reject a notion of God that has it being something we are repulsed by in our moral hearts, rather than being drawn toward as higher truth. Ergo, we have a higher evolved morality that that notion of God from the past which you struggle to fit into your higher sensibilities.

 

The problem is that men set themselves up as their own gods - they worship and treasure their own concocted belief-systems above any others - and the basis for this is human pride. And we pride ourselves on the self-delusion that our ways are higher than God's ways - who is said to be wicked. BTW - have you read in the OT, where certain Jews accused God of evil and unrighteousness; this charge against God is "old news." So in this pride, we fancy ourselves as more loving, more imitate, with higher morals and sensibilities.

 

Say - where's the evidence of Man's higher ways in history? Hasn't the last 100 years been as bloody and cruel as any other preceding 100 years - if not moreso? So where is all this higher morality and sensitivity? Even the humanists admitted that WWII dashed their hopes re: man's inherent morality. So many of the moral intelligentsia had called WWI "the war to end all wars." >> How many wars and revolution have we had since 1918? How many millions have perished in the name of "social progress?" What good has 6 millennia of Man's self-made religiosity and philosophizing gotten us a race?

 

We only imitate Lucifer, who was not content with being #2 in the universe, but he rebelled to establish his alternate kingdom where he could reign. So now Satan exercises his cruel and heartless rule over many millions, whom he has blinded. Evidence? - answer the above questions.

 

All the rest of what you say in response to Bob is a clear example of the degree of rationalizing away this fact, making up excuses for it. The true key out of this dilemma for you is to recognize you are beholden to an external belief, suppressing your internal truth. Ergo, you are placing your beliefs above God. You should take a lesson from End3, who seems more concerned with that truth, than his ideas from Sunday School classes. I applaud that in every human. Would that you could do this as well, rather than all these irrational gymnastics and denials you must do in order to preserve your external beliefs.

 

What internal truth are you referring to? What denials have you seen?

[Antlerman]

Actually, what we cannot do is envision God as smaller than us. That's the real problem here Ray. That's why we reject a notion of God that has it being something we are repulsed by in our moral hearts, rather than being drawn toward as higher truth. Ergo, we have a higher evolved morality that that notion of God from the past which you struggle to fit into your higher sensibilities.

 

The problem is that men set themselves up as their own gods - they worship and treasure their own concocted belief-systems above any others

Bingo. That's just what I said about what you do.

 

But in typical fashion, you see only ugly in the world, whereas I see we have both. What you represent is a neurotic response to the world, hating and rejecting it, latching onto some religious belief as God in order to avoid being part of it and having "your own light" in it (a Biblical injunction, which I'm sure escapes you).

 

- and the basis for this is human pride.

Well, I'd say pride is more symptomatic of fear, but that's a discussion you wouldn't be able to go far with since it goes outside the bounds of your Theologyland bubble. Unless of course I'm wrong?

 

And we pride ourselves on the self-delusion that our ways are higher than God's ways - who is said to be wicked.

I would never say God is wicked. I would however say that to what we know today, to our higher state of evolved sensibilities, such as eschewing ethnic cleansing and genocide, for instance, that those of the past who attributing them to God were merely creating God in their own social image. Now to hear you justifying that, says to me you are at war within yourself over what you likely believe as immoral, or you actually believe genocide is moral. I tend to believe the former is the case about you.

 

To suggest that my revulsion of genocide is because I'm sinful, is absurd. Do you believe this? Seriously? That if I overcome my sinful nature I will take up the sword and slay the infidels? Seriously?

 

BTW - have you read in the OT, where certain Jews accused God of evil and unrighteousness; this charge against God is "old news."

Have you read the new testament where Jesus takes True Believers™ and condemns them as hypocrites?

 

So in this pride, we fancy ourselves as more loving, more imitate, with higher morals and sensibilities.

We fancy ourselves this way because we don't slay other people at the end of a sword for not worshiping our tribal deity. Yes, I do consider that higher morals and sensibilities. Don't you?

 

What do you consider higher morals? Answer that.

 

Say - where's the evidence of Man's higher ways in history? Hasn't the last 100 years been as bloody and cruel as any other preceding 100 years - if not moreso?

Ummm... the fact that we have greater respect of other cultures now than in the past when we would go kill them? That's a start. How about all the billions of people who do show love and compassion, as opposed to the few with big weapons who don't.

 

You've never answered this problem. If we are so bent on death as the majority of what defines us as humans, why are we still alive?? How could we survive if our nature is death, and not life? Our species would have eliminated itself in the first generation and we would not be having this discussion!

 

You are so black and white in your mind. We are either good, or we are bad. No, we are capable of both, and we show and exhibt both. Hopefully, our higher nature will prevail. So far, we seem to in fact be doing that. The actual problem though is that that destructive nature is only amplified by the power of the tools we now have.

 

It's not that our nature is "worse", but we are simply now more capable of inflicting damage on global scales, instead of more regional and localized. That's the genuinely scarey bit, but it's not because of how you fantasize about the world though your mythologies.

 

I know that's hard to fit those facts into your theology, but do try please.

 

So where is all this higher morality and sensitivity? Even the humanists admitted that WWII dashed their hopes re: man's inherent morality. So many of the moral intelligentsia had called WWI "the war to end all wars." >> How many wars and revolution have we had since 1918? How many millions have perished in the name of "social progress?" What good has 6 millennia of Man's self-made religiosity and philosophizing gotten us a race?

Mr. Lemon Juice. Please read what I said in the previous paragraph about our nature vs. our technology.

 

We only imitate Lucifer, who was not content with being #2 in the universe, but he rebelled to establish his alternate kingdom where he could reign.

"We only", yes that's right. And we're now 7 billion strong as a species, our numbers shrinking by the day because we follow death instead of life.

[Antlerman]

So now Satan exercises his cruel and heartless rule over many millions, whom he has blinded. Evidence? - answer the above questions.

*yawn*. I say we're doing exactly everything we always have, but we have in fact progressed. Attributing these things to a dark magic elf is only a symbol hook for children, Ray. I have no need to envision the world controlled by elf-spirits. We are responsible.

 

All the rest of what you say in response to Bob is a clear example of the degree of rationalizing away this fact, making up excuses for it. The true key out of this dilemma for you is to recognize you are beholden to an external belief, suppressing your internal truth. Ergo, you are placing your beliefs above God. You should take a lesson from End3, who seems more concerned with that truth, than his ideas from Sunday School classes. I applaud that in every human. Would that you could do this as well, rather than all these irrational gymnastics and denials you must do in order to preserve your external beliefs.

 

What internal truth are you referring to? What denials have you seen?

The denials I was referring to was your trying to justify immorality as a higher ideal, because it challenges your beliefs which you esteem above all else, including God. However based on what I'm hearing that's probably not necessarily true, since God is just some object out there in some book you devote yourself to, nothing real inside you.

 

What internal truth am I referring to? You have no idea, do you? This just goes to prove it is all External to you. If you had a sense within yourself, you would know the answer to this. (Check out this reference, you are R6 definition. In fact you should read that thread, you hopefully might learn something. If you practiced R7, you would not only not need to ask that question, none of anything you are arguing for would even come up. You would know better).

[rayskidude]

But in typical fashion, you see only ugly in the world, whereas I see we have both. What you represent is a neurotic response to the world, hating and rejecting it, latching onto some religious belief as God in order to avoid being part of it and having "your own light" in it (a Biblical injunction, which I'm sure escapes you).

 

Please allow me to remind you that I have often posted about the beauty, harmony, love, symbioses, reconciliation, empathy, art, music, dance, etc in our world, all attributed to God's gracious Creation. These things remain and we enjoy them, because of God's continued grace towards us and our great appreciation and protection of them. We are higher beings - by design. We're not products of the mindless, directionless neo-Darwinian materialism. God has called us to gracious, loving, purposeful living. That ember burns in every human soul.

 

Well, I'd say pride is more symptomatic of fear, but that's a discussion you wouldn't be able to go far with since it goes outside the bounds of your Theologyland bubble. Unless of course I'm wrong?

 

I'll bite - howso?

 

I would however say that to what we know today, to our higher state of evolved sensibilities, such as eschewing ethnic cleansing and genocide, for instance, that those of the past who attributing them to God were merely creating God in their own social image. Now to hear you justifying that, says to me you are at war within yourself over what you likely believe as immoral, or you actually believe genocide is moral. I tend to believe the former is the case about you.

 

We all recoil from slaughter, nobody wants that - except the psychopaths. SO why would anyone attribute such actions to their God - unless they knew this to be a true account of what God has done. And why would God slaughter? Knowing that God is gracious, that His laws promote social welfare & justice, that He provides for our needs, that He calls us into fellowship with Him - despite our sin >> could it ever be true that such actions were actually warranted? That those peoples themselves had consciously degenerated to the point where the gracious thing for the rest of humanity was for God to wipe them out? And that this action serves as both a just punishment for the extremely wicked and a strong deterrent to any future cruel & degenerate behavior?

 

Are you absolutely convinced that such action would never be warranted? For the Nazis, or Bolsheviks, those who prosecuted Mao's cultural revolution, Pol Pot and his myriad followers, Chingis Khan's legions? Now, you might say - well, these are not genocide. Yes, but the elimination of truly unrepentant wicked people who war against others would oftentimes require a slaughter. And opposition to such military action condemns future generations to their cruelty.

 

The Bible nowhere advocates killing unbelievers, simply for unbelief.

 

Have you read the new testament where Jesus takes True Believers and condemns them as hypocrites?

 

No - what would be the passage(s)?

 

What do you consider higher morals? Answer that.

 

Obviously, I would say, with the Apostle Paul, that God's laws are holy, righteous, and good.

 

Ummm... the fact that we have greater respect of other cultures now than in the past when we would go kill them? That's a start. How about all the billions of people who do show love and compassion, as opposed to the few with big weapons who don't.

 

Really? Where do you see this greater respect, outside of genteel conversations? I don't believe there's any more love & respect for others than in the past. True, many people act with love and grace - but this has always been true. We are created in God's image, God's common grace is poured out on us, God has implanted in our souls the notion of right/wrong >> and we see evidence of this in many lives. But moreso now? And how many of these billions are Christians?

 

You've never answered this problem. If we are so bent on death as the majority of what defines us as humans, why are we still alive?? How could we survive if our nature is death, and not life? Our species would have eliminated itself in the first generation and we would not be having this discussion!

 

Sure I have - all the reasons above for beauty, etc; and based on the fact that we're made in God's image and He gives His common grace liberally.

 

You are so black and white in your mind. We are either good, or we are bad. No, we are capable of both, and we show and exhibt both. Hopefully, our higher nature will prevail. So far, we seem to in fact be doing that. The actual problem though is that that destructive nature is only amplified by the power of the tools we now have. It's not that our nature is "worse", but we are simply now more capable of inflicting damage on global scales, instead of more regional and localized. That's the genuinely scarey bit, but it's not because of how you fantasize about the world though your mythologies.

 

No, I'm not black-and-white, as you can see. But I do deal in reality. We cannot just brush away reality with platitudes, in fact we must not - or we may wipe each other out. It's only when we see ourselves as selfish sinners, humbly repent and turn to God - ask Him to make us like Christ in love, forgiveness, grace, service to others, etc that we can make any appreciable progress as a race.

 

Mr. Lemon Juice. Please read what I said in the previous paragraph about our nature vs. our technology

Our technology only reveals what's in our hearts. And I don't say we're worse than before - I say we've never improved from our past.

[agnosticator]

Say - where's the evidence of Man's higher ways in history? Hasn't the last 100 years been as bloody and cruel as any other preceding 100 years - if not moreso? So where is all this higher morality and sensitivity? Even the humanists admitted that WWII dashed their hopes re: man's inherent morality. So many of the moral intelligentsia had called WWI "the war to end all wars." >> How many wars and revolution have we had since 1918? How many millions have perished in the name of "social progress?" What good has 6 millennia of Man's self-made religiosity and philosophizing gotten us a race?

 

What have all the "true christians" done to promote peace, compassion, and love? Why did almost all (sure a tiny amount have refused to kill, but no more than nonbelievers) those "true christians" go off to war to kill, rather than surrender and give their possessions and selves away to their enemies? Where were/are all those christian pacifists?

[agnosticator]

It's only when we see ourselves as selfish sinners, humbly repent and turn to God - ask Him to make us like Christ in love, forgiveness, grace, service to others, etc that we can make any appreciable progress as a race.

 

It hasn't worked for all the christians that believed and asked, so it is an utter failure.

[rayskidude]

So we are made to miniature versions of God. But we have a sinful nature and a bad side.

Does this mean that one of those faults we have is that we consider God's infinite justice through eternal torture to be evil? The pure, true, and infinite love is the one where God tortures people for sin?

 

Man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden - remember? In a place where all was "veery good" - and yet Man chose to disobey the single restriction placed on them.

 

A God of perfect justice punishes true sin - God's justice does not "wink at" sin (as does allah when he forgives, so the Muslims say), real crime deserves real punishment.

 

A God of perfect love places Himself in the place of the sinner - to save them from the punishment they deserve.

 

God Is Love

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 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. 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. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 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. 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. 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.

 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Jn 4:7–18). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[agnosticator]

A God of perfect love places Himself in the place of the sinner - to save them from the punishment they deserve.

 

So that's why the biblegod isn't perfect. He doesn't send himself to hell!

[Ouroboros]

So we are made to miniature versions of God. But we have a sinful nature and a bad side.

Does this mean that one of those faults we have is that we consider God's infinite justice through eternal torture to be evil? The pure, true, and infinite love is the one where God tortures people for sin?

 

Man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden - remember? In a place where all was "veery good" - and yet Man chose to disobey the single restriction placed on them.

And? God put the tree there. God put the man there. He also knew the future. He made the decision to sacrifice the masses of future humans to an infinite torture to just get a handful of obedient mindless zombies who obeys his less-than-moral codes.

 

A God of perfect justice punishes true sin - God's justice does not "wink at" sin (as does allah when he forgives, so the Muslims say), real crime deserves real punishment.

Real crimes deserves real punishment, agree.

 

Exaggerated penalties for a crime are not the signs of a balanced and justice judge.

 

The penalty has to fit the crime.

 

And as humans, we have a higher moral standard than your God. But you have sunk yourself down to the low moral levels of your stone-age God. Your moral, and your God image, does not fit modern values of human lives or justice.

 

A God of perfect love places Himself in the place of the sinner - to save them from the punishment they deserve.

Good. Then we are all saved. Oh, wait, you meant to say that he only does it if we also believes that he does it?

 

God Is Love

Your God is not. Your God is an ancient and very outdated image of God. You confuse vengeance with love. You believe hurting someone benefits the whole.

 

What will a person learn from being in Hell for an eternity? Nothing. Because they can never leave.

 

The crime: x

 

The penalty: ∞

 

And besides, what is this "sin" that deserves such punishment? Born into this world as a human and it's all Adam's fault?

 

How about you would be condemned to a pit of torture the rest of your life because your grandparents pissed on the White House lawn? Is that justice? Nope. It's not. It's vindictive, old fashioned, and evil.

 

Even if I ever would go back to religion, I could never make myself believe God to be such a psychopathic jerk.

[Ouroboros]

A God of perfect love places Himself in the place of the sinner - to save them from the punishment they deserve.

 

So that's why the biblegod isn't perfect. He doesn't send himself to hell!

And not for eternity either.

 

Jesus supposedly died to take on the punishment.

 

The punishment is eternal torture.

 

Where is Jesus now?

 

We're supposed to believe he is in Heaven now.

 

Jesus took on the eternal punishment by checking in to the eternal luxury hotel! Yeah. Right. Very much that would do for us!

 

Oh, I get it. Jesus got "saved" from Hell because he decided to believe in himself as the savior of his undeserving sins.

 

It's all so fabricated to fit the minuscule and evil minds of the apologists.

[agnosticator]

Jesus took on the eternal punishment by checking in to the eternal luxury hotel! Yeah. Right. Very much that would do for us!

 

Ya' can't keep a good man down! So he's on god's right hand biding his time before he takes his flame thrower and torches the earth with fire. He's going to preheat us so we'll be hot enough for hell. Oh, feel the love!

 

 

It's all so fabricated to fit the minuscule and evil minds of the apologists.

 

I used to be afraid of the tribulation to come, when those evil unbelievers would torture us christians. Now I'm afraid of christians who believe this sick nastiness. With the biblegod, anything goes!

[Antlerman]

But in typical fashion, you see only ugly in the world, whereas I see we have both. What you represent is a neurotic response to the world, hating and rejecting it, latching onto some religious belief as God in order to avoid being part of it and having "your own light" in it (a Biblical injunction, which I'm sure escapes you).

 

Please allow me to remind you that I have often posted about the beauty, harmony, love, symbioses, reconciliation, empathy, art, music, dance, etc in our world, all attributed to God's gracious Creation. These things remain and we enjoy them, because of God's continued grace towards us and our great appreciation and protection of them. We are higher beings - by design. We're not products of the mindless, directionless neo-Darwinian materialism. God has called us to gracious, loving, purposeful living. That ember burns in every human soul.

This response essentially agrees with what I just said. I said "I see we have both," you then response saying we do not. We are ugliness in our nature. What beauty exists is because of God. This is what I was saying you say.

 

Maybe I should try to clarify. You are saying that in man there is nothing beautiful, nothing good, and only death. And whatever life and beauty and love there is is of God. Correct? Let's go with that for a minute and say that all Life, Light, and Love comes from God. Humans are created by God? Then humans have that Nature. So even though in their imaginations they may become darkened, not seeing that Light, that Light is in them because they are created by God. In other words they have both the Spark of Light, and a loss of sight of that due to the fact that they are finite creatures. Would you agree with that?

 

Let's go with your Adam and Eve myth for a minute. What is that myth talking about? A science project of God in how Terra Firma and Homo Sapiens came about, or is it about man's sense of this very duality I'm describing above? When you compare the two Genesis creation myths with other cultures origin (or creation) myths, the theme is the same: Full connection with the Divine, the loss of that unity, a story separation. The sense of duality is always in tension because of our sense of unity. "Man's struggle" is to "find God" or be united with that Nature.

 

It is precisely that which I refer to when I say "the truth inside you". Mythologies symbolize this duality as God there, Man here. But the struggle is an internal one, coming up from within. I know that may be difficult to see, considering every language you use speaks of it externally. I think if you were to spend some time looking down into that within you it will become apparent.

 

Why do you think it is the greatest commandment is to "love God, and love your neighbor as yourself" being the 2nd half of that single commandment? I say, it is because we find that "Divine nature in us and through us it moves out to the world". "You are the light of the world". You see, it's language Ray. Myth is a way to talk about the human condition, the acute awareness of his dual-nature. It is you.

 

So, if man is created in God's image, then he possess the Divine in his very Nature. All that "salvation" is, is our awareness opening to it unfolding into a full apprehension of that. Yes, there is "sin", what I would call dysfunction, but that is part of the process of growth, fighting against as there is movement towards.

 

Spend some time with this. See if you can see "above" your theologies to what some of it may be trying to express. These are human struggles, and humans have had many ways to talk about themselves, mythology being one such vehicle. It's the truth of what the language is speaking about, not the system of language itself. That's something I hope End3 hears in this as well, to help clarify some points with him.

 

Well, I'd say pride is more symptomatic of fear, but that's a discussion you wouldn't be able to go far with since it goes outside the bounds of your Theologyland bubble. Unless of course I'm wrong?

 

I'll bite - howso?

Death-denial projects. We try to be God without death to self. Pride is a false sense of Self. "I am God", because they posses a sense of power, substituted for true Power which is God.

 

Whenever you hear me say the words "I am God", it is the absolute opposite of that. But I won't burden this post with that. No, wait, briefly, it is an expression of the fully Realized Union with the Divine. If you are united truly with God, then you are God. God's nature is your nature. It's an expression of non-duality.

 

Knowing that God is gracious, that His laws promote social welfare & justice, that He provides for our needs, that He calls us into fellowship with Him - despite our sin >> could it ever be true that such actions were actually warranted?

There is absolutely nothing in my experience of the Divine that allows for that. No, it is never warranted. It is contrary to the nature of the Divine.

 

It is however an expression of human evolution, moving from tribalism, to ethnocentrism, to globalcentricsm. The book of Joshua's fiction about Cannan, aside from being a tale of ethnic conquest, it is an expression of exactly the sort of thing you see at that time of the world, with ethnocentric thought. Strangely it was actually an improvement in the world from it's early tribalism. There was in fact greater unity than tribalism through the use of mythologies! Instead of being of this tribe or that tribe and claims of kinship, being a "people of a god, the "chosen people of the god Jehovah", is greater unity!

 

But... that unity was not yet global. It was greater in the sense that it included more people, but their mythic structures would not allow for others outside them. And so they talked about others in their myths (the Joshua myth in this case), as "Enemies of God!" (Exactly the same line you are using - see, it was there). Now you move up to Christianity, and for a time at least, it moved beyond the lines of "The chosen people of the god YHWH", to "there is neither Greek nor Jew, but all are one in Christ". That is moving out further, moving out to be more inclusive. That was in fact, progress.

 

Humans create these myths to support their evolving consciousness. We were, and have been, becoming more inclusive. And the Christian mythologies were expressions of this. Now, we have moved more that just ethnocentric, more than just religiocentric, to a more worldcentric mind - at least that is where we are in fact heading. So you ask, where is their positive change? There. Right there.

 

Now you can say that it is because of God if you wish. I would understand that to be the whole of creation in a move towards that state of non-duality, towards Absolute Unity. More inclusive and more inclusive. Is death and destruction part of this? Yes. Does it define the direction of it? I don't believe so.

 

The Bible nowhere advocates killing unbelievers, simply for unbelief.

That is precisely what the myth of the Canaanite slaughter is, and the opening of the ground and swallowing the worshipers of the golden calf, etc. You can cite justifications and all, but the bottom line is because they weren't following that god, killed for not believing.

 

Have you read the new testament where Jesus takes True Believers™ and condemns them as hypocrites?

 

No - what would be the passage(s)?

"White washed sepulchers full of dead man's bones"? By True Believers ™, of course I am referring to those whose religion is a set of doctrinal theologies and no spiritual life.

 

What do you consider higher morals? Answer that.

 

Obviously, I would say, with the Apostle Paul, that God's laws are holy, righteous, and good.

What specific actions and qualities express that. That's what I was asking. (And please, use your words from your heart, and not just quote chapter and verse at me. I'd like to hear it from you).

 

 

I'll leave it at that for now. Hopefully you will spend some thought on all this.

[Guest end3]

It is also incredibly painful. It was the philosopher Plotinus who said so well, "Mankind is poised midway between the gods and the beasts." It is that anxiety, that sense of self, of our mortality, in the face of conscious thought and apprehension that propels us in all our projects to resolve our nature; some looking up, others look back. We are a marvelous manifestation of this Nature, but all is. That we can look upon it, understand it, recognize it, move towards it, become it, is an incredible, and terrifying thing. "We are poised midway between the gods and the beasts."

 

Ok.....you have a lot of explaining to do. So reconsidering, as you think I have not, I sit here in my awareness staring back at my body pondering some resoltion of my awareness, considering that I have had an experience that was nearly fulfilled, yet meandering back towards morbidly aware.

 

So I can choose to extend my awareness to the observant level as I walk, striving towards a resolution. And?

 

Are we no more than beasts with a mind.....poised....between life and death? Poised seems so inadequate to describe incredible heartache or incredible joy....don't you think? And do you think that this is all that is held for humanity?

 

Even from my westernized upbringing.....it doesn't feel spritually right. No doubt I have missed your intent again...

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

Are we no more than beasts with a mind.....poised....between life and death? Poised seems so inadequate to describe incredible heartache or incredible joy....don't you think? And do you think that this is all that is held for humanity?

 

Even from my westernized upbringing.....it doesn't feel spritually right. No doubt I have missed your intent again...

 

Spot on! We are no more than beasts poised between life and death. No different to any other life form on this planet except we are able to communicate on a higher level, given our brain development. Yes, life and death is all that is held for humanity. Why should humanity be any different, to have something "more", just because gods have "spoken"?

 

"Spiritually right"? Stuff and nonsense! If you have any shred of evidence that humans aren't plain and simple animals then please share it.

[Guest end3]

 

Are we no more than beasts with a mind.....poised....between life and death? Poised seems so inadequate to describe incredible heartache or incredible joy....don't you think? And do you think that this is all that is held for humanity?

 

Even from my westernized upbringing.....it doesn't feel spritually right. No doubt I have missed your intent again...

 

Spot on! We are no more than beasts poised between life and death. No different to any other life form on this planet except we are able to communicate on a higher level, given our brain development. Yes, life and death is all that is held for humanity. Why should humanity be any different, to have something "more", just because gods have "spoken"?

 

"Spiritually right"? Stuff and nonsense! If you have any shred of evidence that humans aren't plain and simple animals then please share it.

 

Well, you raise valid points ILD....I don't knwo what else there is to say except we shall know one day perhaps.

[DesertBob]

Are we no more than beasts with a mind.....poised....between life and death?

Do we need to be anything more? Being anything more is a mere conceit, anyway. You can flatter yourself all you want in that regard but it doesn't change the simplest possible explanation, which is that you are a being (I think "beast" is a revealing choice of words in framing your understanding -- trying to distance yourself as much as possible from the rest of the animal world) burdened and blessed with self-awareness and the ability to empathize and anticipate and imagine. I think that's inherently pretty cool, actually, but it's also pretty humbling to realize that it's of no significance to the universe at large and on even a galactic scale is probably not terribly unique -- at most, it's somewhat rare.

 

What is the basic driver behind this need for specialness, to be superior and favored and the object of special plans and the recipient of all sorts of promises and regard from no less than the supreme Creator? We can't accept our place relative to the rest of our environment. We actually need to think that we are the point of it all, that we're central characters in a drama of redemption. Or even outside the world of Christianity, the idea that we are immortal and that the rest of existence hangs with bated breath waiting to see what will happen next in the human experience, seems to be an idea that dies hard.

 

To be perfectly honest it was a tremendous relief to me, to not have to carry that burden anymore. The need to know it all, to be right, to be special, to be groomed to sit at the right hand of god for eternity -- it seemed like way too much to live up to, seeing as I'm little more than a particular organization of molecules on an unremarkable flyspeck orbiting an unremarkable dust mote of a star in an ordinary spiral galaxy at some random location in the soup of existence.

 

Get over it, I say. Once you let go of the dream (and that's all it is, a dream) of specialness you can get on with the business of dealing in reality.