Question For The Christians

[Guest end3]

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.

 

So what I am gathering from AM, ILD, and you is that religion is somewhat of an attempt to resolve our own nature to the point of vast organizational efforts......and that the take home message is that awareness is not much more than a chance that has saddled humanity....our unique feelings of spirituality are real, but yield a false creation....God.

 

And that our morality is basically a function of evolution.

 

Well, it is Monday.

 

On the counterpoint side....the Bible makes an attempt to persuade the reader of their specialness. Do you think this is just a coincedence?

[Guest end3]

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.

 

A couple of things here.....the expression of non-duality via forms that constantly manifests a dual nature in their form???? If you are saying ONENESS as in inclusive, then you have to define the non-dual nature as a new definition OR deny part of the dual nature. Maybe death doesn't bother you, but even from an intellectual standpoint alone, the nature of something would be aspect, quality, etc......the nature of God being creating forms that are in relationship with each other.....And you currently describe this creative, sustaining nature as "infinite" nothingness?

 

I am starting to see mouse poop in the cookie jar.

 

Edit: You would also have to take away words like "nature" as this defines alludes to definition. And for what, another attempt at awareness resolution?

[DesertBob]

So what I am gathering from AM, ILD, and you is that religion is somewhat of an attempt to resolve our own nature to the point of vast organizational efforts......and that the take home message is that awareness is not much more than a chance that has saddled humanity....our unique feelings of spirituality are real, but yield a false creation....God.

 

And that our morality is basically a function of evolution.

I won't speak for AM and ILD but for me, yes, pretty much, "bingo".

On the counterpoint side....the Bible makes an attempt to persuade the reader of their specialness. Do you think this is just a coincidence?

No, it's not just a coincidence, it's the way it is because it got that way. As humans evolved religions thought, they did it in ways that accommodated specific needs that people felt, otherwise religion would never get traction.

 

I think most religion makes some sort of appeal to specialness, usually more than one actually -- the chance to be special / important in a vast, impersonal universe at a point in your development where you can't handle the essential aloneness of the human condition; the chance to be special in the sense of belonging to a club that has the role of being the carriers and preservers and teachers of Truth; the chance to have access to special social benefits (approval, emotional and sometimes practical support systems); the chance to have desired certitude (e.g., eternal destiny) and meaning (e.g., why some beloved family member died tragically). Some brands of religion cast this in a more negative light (e.g., I fear being inadequate or wrong or "bad" and religion offers the chance to escape punishment), some in a more positive light (I yearn to live meaningfully and at peace and religion offers me ways to do that).

[Antlerman]

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.

 

A couple of things here.....the expression of non-duality via forms that constantly manifests a dual nature in their form???? If you are saying ONENESS as in inclusive, then you have to define the non-dual nature as a new definition OR deny part of the dual nature.

The non-duality is what is. The duality is what we perceive.

 

Maybe death doesn't bother you, but even from an intellectual standpoint alone, the nature of something would be aspect, quality, etc......the nature of God being creating forms that are in relationship with each other.....And you currently describe this creative, sustaining nature as "infinite" nothingness?

I don't use the word nothingness very often. Formless, or beyond form is better. It is "no-thing", meaning no separation exists. It is ALL, and as such no-things exist outside it. Enlightenment, or salvation if you will, is that awareness of that nature, our nature, what IS.

 

I am starting to see mouse poop in the cookie jar.

Just as you see the dual as the ultimate reality.

 

Edit: You would also have to take away words like "nature" as this defines alludes to definition. And for what, another attempt at awareness resolution?

Again, duality is perception.

 

 

I'm heading out of town so I might have time the hotel later tonight to spend time on this....

[DesertBob]

A couple of things here.....the expression of non-duality via forms that constantly manifests a dual nature in their form???? If you are saying ONENESS as in inclusive, then you have to define the non-dual nature as a new definition OR deny part of the dual nature. Maybe death doesn't bother you, but even from an intellectual standpoint alone, the nature of something would be aspect, quality, etc......the nature of God being creating forms that are in relationship with each other.....And you currently describe this creative, sustaining nature as "infinite" nothingness?

 

I am starting to see mouse poop in the cookie jar.

And yet you have no problem with other seeming paradoxes such as god being one yet three. Christianity has its own mouse poop.

 

AM does a much better job of explaining this than I ever will and I don't know that I find it necessary to buy 100% of his thinking but I don't find any cognitive dissonance in the idea that as my awareness evolves I will have or need a different perspective, which might include for example the ability to see that everything has an essential unity even though also expressed in (seemingly) dualistic ways. That one could move between dual and nondual perspectives just as one can move between optimism and pessimism, between subjective and objective thinking, or any other polarity you care to think about. It is not that they are mutually exclusive, they are just different ways of approaching the same things.

 

I see nondual thought as a potential method of backing my way into understanding aspects of reality that are at or just beyond the bleeding edge of my evolving awareness, perception and comprehension.

 

As an infant, you did not make a distinction in what passed for thinking at that time, between yourself and your parents or other entities in your field of awareness. It was a huge (and scary) revelation that they and their will were distinct from you and did not necessarily or perfectly serve you. That some of your needs and desires could not be instantly met or be the responsibility always of others. Indeed, the concept that everything did not have to pass into your mouth and out your rectum was almost beyond you.

 

The adult reality you now inhabit was essentially incomprehensible to your mind back at the age of, say, nine months. But as the evidence accumulated over time that your model of reality was incomplete (or at least not meeting your needs), you made the transition to being a separate being and began to relate to the world in new ways, through language and higher concepts, through forms, through becoming skillful at tactical issues like delayed gratification.

 

Now AM comes along and says you've gone too far, that though it was necessary to gain a command of the symbols of language and commonly accepted forms in order to function in society, you have lost touch with the essential fact of your unity with all that is and become as a result overly attached to forms and outcomes and special relationships and overly detached from that which is behind and beyond all that. I don't know that I buy that this is so or, if true, that it actually matters in practice -- but I can see how it could be so. And how it could seem completely ridiculous to me, just as the idea of Mommy not being me or, later, of Mommy not being my personal slave, seemed completely ridiculous once upon a time.

 

You are right not to be uncritical or completely credulous about all this. How do you know that it's not all another load of well intentioned BS, some new time consuming rabbit trail that will produce more pain than pleasure? I think you discern what you need to pursue further the same way you did at earlier developmental levels. You figure out the limitations of your current model of reality, and you're sort of forced out of it because it's not working anyway. You find a new model that works, at least for the present, much better, and you go with that. Rinse and repeat. I seem to be getting more mileage right now out of just living simply and with minimal expectations, in sampling the possibilities that life presents to me and discarding things that don't seem to add value. I don't know that I will go the route of meditation, peak experiences, and the like ... at least not just yet, but who knows.

[Guest end3]

AM does a much better job of explaining this than I ever will and I don't know that I find it necessary to buy 100% of his thinking but I don't find any cognitive dissonance in the idea that as my awareness evolves I will have or need a different perspective, which might include for example the ability to see that everything has an essential unity even though also expressed in (seemingly) dualistic ways. That one could move between dual and nondual perspectives just as one can move between optimism and pessimism, between subjective and objective thinking, or any other polarity you care to think about. It is not that they are mutually exclusive, they are just different ways of approaching the same things.

 

I see nondual thought as a potential method of backing my way into understanding aspects of reality that are at or just beyond the bleeding edge of my evolving awareness, perception and comprehension.

 

As an infant, you did not make a distinction in what passed for thinking at that time, between yourself and your parents or other entities in your field of awareness. It was a huge (and scary) revelation that they and their will were distinct from you and did not necessarily or perfectly serve you. That some of your needs and desires could not be instantly met or be the responsibility always of others. Indeed, the concept that everything did not have to pass into your mouth and out your rectum was almost beyond you.

 

The adult reality you now inhabit was essentially incomprehensible to your mind back at the age of, say, nine months. But as the evidence accumulated over time that your model of reality was incomplete (or at least not meeting your needs), you made the transition to being a separate being and began to relate to the world in new ways, through language and higher concepts, through forms, through becoming skillful at tactical issues like delayed gratification.

 

Now AM comes along and says you've gone too far, that though it was necessary to gain a command of the symbols of language and commonly accepted forms in order to function in society, you have lost touch with the essential fact of your unity with all that is and become as a result overly attached to forms and outcomes and special relationships and overly detached from that which is behind and beyond all that. I don't know that I buy that this is so or, if true, that it actually matters in practice -- but I can see how it could be so. And how it could seem completely ridiculous to me, just as the idea of Mommy not being me or, later, of Mommy not being my personal slave, seemed completely ridiculous once upon a time.

 

You are right not to be uncritical or completely credulous about all this. How do you know that it's not all another load of well intentioned BS, some new time consuming rabbit trail that will produce more pain than pleasure? I think you discern what you need to pursue further the same way you did at earlier developmental levels. You figure out the limitations of your current model of reality, and you're sort of forced out of it because it's not working anyway. You find a new model that works, at least for the present, much better, and you go with that. Rinse and repeat. I seem to be getting more mileage right now out of just living simply and with minimal expectations, in sampling the possibilities that life presents to me and discarding things that don't seem to add value. I don't know that I will go the route of meditation, peak experiences, and the like ... at least not just yet, but who knows.

 

I'll have to think on it.

[rayskidude]

 

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?

 

Remember - that people in hell remain eternally unrepentant, they will forever refuse to acknowledge God as God, eternally blaming God for their own sin and it's consequences. Eternally refusing to accept personal responsibility - as you have shown >> "It's all God's fault."

[rayskidude]

rayskidude- Do we sit around and condemn them for conducting some 'unlawful' sacrifice? Or do we laud them for their selfless service to us?

 

Isn't human sacrifice against USA law? Why do we allow the best & brightest of our citizens to die for us, sacrificing themselves?

 

This is more irrelevancy on your part.

You discard God’s law when it doesn’t conform to your subjective desires.

You mock God's rules and make special exemptions for things that please your senses.

USA law is not the HOLY LAW of God, which is quite specific on what is and isn’t allowed.

The issue is if God’s law allows humans to be used as sin sacrifices.

The issue is if Jesus could fulfill a law by breaking it.

The issue is if God was serious when he said not to add or subtract from his holy law.

You cannot claim that Jesus fulfilled the law or was a valid sacrifice while ignoring the very HOLY LAW that the Bible God set down as binding and eternal.

 

Here's the deal - you built yourself a nice little straw man and called it "God's Holy Law" - now you've painted yourself into a corner, and you can't get out. So you lash out.

 

You're simply wrong about the sacrifice of God the Son on behalf of sinners - it's perfectly good & righteous. And it secures salvation for all who believe.

[Antlerman]

I see nondual thought as a potential method of backing my way into understanding aspects of reality that are at or just beyond the bleeding edge of my evolving awareness, perception and comprehension.

 

As an infant, you did not make a distinction in what passed for thinking at that time, between yourself and your parents or other entities in your field of awareness. It was a huge (and scary) revelation that they and their will were distinct from you and did not necessarily or perfectly serve you. That some of your needs and desires could not be instantly met or be the responsibility always of others. Indeed, the concept that everything did not have to pass into your mouth and out your rectum was almost beyond you.

 

The adult reality you now inhabit was essentially incomprehensible to your mind back at the age of, say, nine months. But as the evidence accumulated over time that your model of reality was incomplete (or at least not meeting your needs), you made the transition to being a separate being and began to relate to the world in new ways, through language and higher concepts, through forms, through becoming skillful at tactical issues like delayed gratification.

Damn Bob. There's a reason I love ya'. You get this...

 

Now AM comes along and says you've gone too far, that though it was necessary to gain a command of the symbols of language and commonly accepted forms in order to function in society, you have lost touch with the essential fact of your unity with all that is and become as a result overly attached to forms and outcomes and special relationships and overly detached from that which is behind and beyond all that.

Yes and no. I think it's important to bear in mind that "loosing touch with the past", can suggest that it is important to turn back the clock, to become that infant sucking at the breast of Mother again, to be "one" with her. I don't believe so. The point I would make is that it was absolutely essential we leave the womb and become self-aware, become an individual. And as part of that process, we become fully self-actualized. Once that occurs, then we find a point of integration with that Source, so to speak - as a fully, self-realized individual. That is quite different than being an undifferentiated infant, fused and indistinct from Mommy.

 

There is no other way to posses "God consciousness", if we don't yet exist. One with, becoming ONE itself. Nonduality being the Ground and Goal, the Source and Summit indistinguishable. Being and Becoming in ONE. How does our language express that?

 

You are right not to be uncritical or completely credulous about all this. How do you know that it's not all another load of well intentioned BS, some new time consuming rabbit trail that will produce more pain than pleasure?

Absolutely. If it doesn't speak to our rational minds, then we should not abandon that in favor of some new "way". It would create what isn't ready to emerge, if at all. If it doesn't resonate, then there are other ways that may. For me personally, it's about hearing your own voice and pursuing it. We build on understandings to find what we look for, our own self in the greater whole. That to me, is the real truth.

 

I think you discern what you need to pursue further the same way you did at earlier developmental levels.

I'm going to inject some interesting thoughts into this that I have found myself pondering. I mentioned before about not 'regressing" to earlier level, to thinking that if we go back to the primitive past we will "find ourselves". Though I will say I believe it is not the way to find where I believe we are going, there may in fact be something to be said for the exercise. In some regards, getting in touch with our somatic self, or our "magic" self, may be opening up a channel to something which has in fact become dissociated. This would be much in line with Freud in talking about past sexual regressions, except on the 'spiritual plane'.

 

If we were never allowed to explore developmentally those primitive, magical, and mythical aspects of our psyches, we would never have learned to grow beyond and incorporate them into our higher developmental stages! So.... here it comes, a new thought just now.... if, we were to raise our children from the earliest stages of growth to be hard-core rationalists... would they ever actually, really learn the stages to get there? It would be like depriving a child of their childhood to fit some adult ideal of responsibility. So, those who find in our culture the attraction to go into the woods, dance naked under the moon, beating the drums around the bonfire, engaging with their somatic, sensual, earth self in magic realities... what is this symptomatic of in our culture?

 

Is it important, therapeutic? I'd surmise very well so, yes! Because we are needing to go back and rediscover what we never were allowed to know, develop, and grow into our new level of conscious mind... all the way up to, and then surpassing rationality. Now there's some food for mind consumption.

 

 

Bob, thanks for your feedback in these discussions. You inspire thoughts for me.

[agnosticator]

 

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?

 

Remember - that people in hell remain eternally unrepentant, they will forever refuse to acknowledge God as God, eternally blaming God for their own sin and it's consequences. Eternally refusing to accept personal responsibility - as you have shown >> "It's all God's fault."

 

So, answer the question, Ray. What "sin" causes the biblegod to condemn us to eternal torture? If you answer "rebellion", state what specifically is considered "rebellion". All that you said is after the fact, or post-condemnation.

 

You really have earned the title "most annoying christian".

[rayskidude]

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?

 

Though men are sinners and capable of grievous sin; yet we are made in God's image & likeness - and thus possess many good qualities. And yes, God is the source of Life, Light, and Love. We are like God in that we are persons with intellect, emotions, and will. So yes, I agree.

 

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.

 

I agree that Man's struggle is to find God, and that not all men pursue this search - but that Man cannot find God on his own. God must initiate this relationship by revealing Himself to Man. As has been said - there is a void, a 'God-shaped hole' in every human heart. Men seek for many things to fill this void - God reveals Himself as the only One who can righteously do so.

 

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.

 

To have the imprint of God's nature is different than having some level of divine nature. Human nature has that imprint, that attribute of 'personality.' Sin occurs because we reject, ignore, etc God's will for us, and we set out to accomplish "My Will." Because of our sin nature and finiteness - My Will ends in My Destruction, My Ruin. Yet God can and will deliver Me from my path and pursuit toward self-destruction. What's called for is that I abandon "My Will" and return to seeking God's Will.

 

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.

 

For any human or angel to say "I am God" is delusional. When humans are fully realized in their God-given humanity, we become glorious beings fulfilling what God has designed and what we willfully and joyfully pursue. We are completely and utterly satiated and fulfilled. And yet, all the while acknowledging God as God, and ourselves as His loving children.

 

No, it is never warranted. It is contrary to the nature of the Divine.

 

Are you saying that from your finite position and imperfect nature - that you for absolutely sure that such action is NEVER warranted? How can you be so sure?

 

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.

 

This is conjecture.

 

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.

 

I wouls say that all of Creation is moving towards; "And I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Everything as it should be for maximum glory and joy.

 

"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.

 

The Pharisees considered themselves true believers, but their attitudes and actions proved otherwise. This is not to say that true believing Christians do not on occasion act hypocritically. We're all guilty of sin - we're all progressing in Christlikeness.

 

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 believe Love to be the greatest quality/action >> and I say love is 'a personal commitment to the welfare of another.' Ergo, I love God by living for His glory, seeking to advance His Kingdom, His righteousness, His ways. I worship Him, as He is worthy of my adoration as He is both creator and Redeemer. And I further love God by loving all His Creation, esp those created in His image, that share His imprint. So I love people - not just dutifully, but with full affection for them, seeking the best for them.

[rayskidude]

How many NT scholars are christian, or have been at least christian in one time of there lives. Guess what all of them, and a vast majority at least that I am aware of, are still believers. I dunno something doesn't sit well with me on that.

 

Help me here - exactly what doesn't sit well here? Why is it surprising that people who study God's word actually believe it to be God's word - as attested by their research; as well as what it accomplishes for good in their lives, their families, their church, missions in the world, etc?

 

If you believe there is multiple attestation to the resurrection appearances(really this in the context of my question is kind of irrelevant but I put in here anyway), what stops you from believing in Marian Apparitions or alien abductions or say any appearances of any other religion, or appearances of the dead to loved ones. Remember use an explanation without theology or dogma, I would really like to know.

 

Why would the firm belief in the virgin birth, miracles, transfiguration, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah necessitate a belief in other "miracles" from other sources - especially given the fact that miracles have a very specific purpose >> God is revealing Himself to Man in remarkable ways, so that Man will turn from false pursuits to follow after the one & only valid pursuit - to know the only true God, the Triune God of the Bible.

[Guest I Love Dog]

On the counterpoint side....the Bible makes an attempt to persuade the reader of their specialness. Do you think this is just a coincedence?

 

 

I don't think the bible attempts that at all. The OT bible was directed at the Israelites/Hebrews, written by them for them. They were god's "special" people, no one before and none after those times. God told them that many times. The NT, was a Roman construct to try and incorporate people in the 4th century CE into the thoughts and mind of "god" to make others feel "special", too, but there's no getting away from it, the Israelites were Yahweh's favorites. Even the Romans chose a Jew for their godman.

 

When I read the bible I don't feel special at all, I actually feel guilty that I am reading such unbelievable nonsense. If you approach the reading of the bible with the mind of a non-believer it takes on a whole different meaning and as a "manual" for the advancement and survival of humanity it falls well short.

[Guest I Love Dog]

So I love people - not just dutifully, but with full affection for them, seeking the best for them.

 

There are billions of people on this planet that do just that, without a belief in the Christian god. I happen to be one of them.

[centauri]

rayskidude- Do we sit around and condemn them for conducting some 'unlawful' sacrifice? Or do we laud them for their selfless service to us?

 

Isn't human sacrifice against USA law? Why do we allow the best & brightest of our citizens to die for us, sacrificing themselves?

 

This is more irrelevancy on your part.

You discard God’s law when it doesn’t conform to your subjective desires.

You mock God's rules and make special exemptions for things that please your senses.

USA law is not the HOLY LAW of God, which is quite specific on what is and isn’t allowed.

The issue is if God’s law allows humans to be used as sin sacrifices.

The issue is if Jesus could fulfill a law by breaking it.

The issue is if God was serious when he said not to add or subtract from his holy law.

You cannot claim that Jesus fulfilled the law or was a valid sacrifice while ignoring the very HOLY LAW that the Bible God set down as binding and eternal.

 

Here's the deal - you built yourself a nice little straw man and called it "God's Holy Law" - now you've painted yourself into a corner, and you can't get out. So you lash out.

Here’s the deal preacher.

Pointing out the obvious makes you squirm.

You completely ignore the point of God’s law because you’ve backed yourself into a corner.

God’s law isn’t a straw man, it’s the essence of the theology presented in the Bible.

You claim Jesus fulfilled the law when he didn’t.

You then engage in blatant special pleading to escape the dilemma you created for yourself.

Jesus is special and exempt from his Father's law, and therefore anything he did must be proper because you say so.

You preach on and on about a holy God but when it comes to walking the walk instead of only talking the talk, you collapse like a cheap tent.

You wave away the obvious problems and contradictions by falsely labeling them as a "straw man".

The so-called straw man rests firmly on the foundation of God's word, which you edit and revise as you see fit.

 

 

You're simply wrong about the sacrifice of God the Son on behalf of sinners - it's perfectly good & righteous. And it secures salvation for all who believe.

A human sin sacrifice is illegal according to God’s law, which was binding on Jesus.

In order to escape this dilemma, you “lash out” by claiming I’m wrong and in the process toss God’s law aside like an old shoe.

It’s utterly amazing how so-called believers like you will claim they believe the whole Bible and then deny and contradict it.

In doing this you’re directly contradicting what God told his people about sin sacrifices and engaging in revisionist theology as well.

Now, you can resolve this quite easily by showing from the Hebrew scriptures where the law of God states that humans are valid sacrifices for sin.

List some of the requirements for a sin sacrifice and show how Jesus complied with the law.

Show where the new covenant as defined in the Hebrew scriptures, states that obedience to the law would be replaced by faith in a vicarious human sacrifice.

God's word says that salvation comes from the law, not through a pagan human sacrifice.

Repenting and obeying the law are the recipe for salvation as Ezek 18:20-27 shows.

Also, there is no God the Son, as the Hebrew deity is not a three headed hydra.

[rayskidude]

The fundamental reason I am no longer a Christian is because I could no longer handle the grinding cognitive dissonance of reconciling the dogma with common sense and with my own experience of actual reality. I am much happier responding to life as it presents itself to me, even though there are aspects of life that I don't care for -- indeed, even though there are aspects of it I don't understand or can't explain, at least I am not making apologies to myself or anyone else for anything morally reprehensible.

 

I'm curious how you regard me -- seeing as I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour at age 5, went to a Bible institute, and was a committed Christian for two decades before I began to entertain any doubts at all and probably four decades before I actually deconverted. I don't really fit into your neat calculus of someone who stubbornly refuses to submit to god. I submitted to and embraced your god for quite possibly longer than you have, for all I know. How do you explain that? Do you find it necessary to deny that I was ever really a Christian? Are you able to admit the possibility that someone would genuinely embrace the faith and yet the search for truth would ultimately lead them out of it? Not just as a backslider who at some level really wants to come back home, but actually led to a deep conviction that the truth, such as it is, lies elsewhere?

 

I'm guessing that you can't handle that -- it actually puts you on "tilt". And yet -- here I am.

Bob, I regard you as a thoughtful guy who's looking to match his beliefs to what he's seeing and experiencing - and so you drew a conclusion, which you're now living out. I don't think you're any different than anyone else - I think we're all trying to make sense out of this world, which is too often non-sensical and even cruel. Obviously, I have had similar thoughts, but I found Biblical Christianity as the best and most plausible explanation for what I see everyday. I see that the Bible presents and deals with reality - doesn't sweep things away, but presents reality as beautiful and ugly as it really is.

 

Now for me - I was raised a devout Catholic; church, choir, schools, CCD, etc. Yet - RCC had no answer for a simple question; How can a person go to heaven? All I got was "Try to be good, and try not to be bad." So vague as to be nearly useless. I attended a Bible study, learned that Jesus told a religious man - 'You must be born-again, born from above, born of the Spirit.' Wow - right from the lips of Jesus, Gods Son - the simple Gospel. That was 39 years ago, when I was 17.

 

And having then continued in the RCC - couldn't justify that association. With all the saints, Mariolatry, indulgences, works righteousness, inquisitions, and now the rampant pedophilia amongst the priests >> how could anyone think the RCC is Christian?

 

Your situation - well, I've seen others leave the faith. I think Jesus' parable of the soils describes your situation - the word was received with joy, but the cares & worries & riches & whatever of life choked out the word. And since Spiritual Life never actually existed (sorry, that's my opinion, based on Scripture - and my experience with others) you were not willing nor able to maintain a humble walk with Christ.

 

For me, assessing the reality of this world, this universe >> I earned an MS in biochemistry, worked as an analytical chemist, then a research radiation chemist at two universities; then as a scientist for Uncle Sam >> neo-Darwinianism is woefully insufficient in answering basic questions of how we got this world. Creation by an Intelligent, all-powerful, gracious God is the most plausible means. And nothing but Biblical Christianity seems to tell us about the spiritual/moral/relational realities we experience everyday.

 

I appreciate the ongoing conversations - let's stay at it.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

Help me here - exactly what doesn't sit well here? Why is it surprising that people who study God's word actually believe it to be God's word - as attested by their research; as well as what it accomplishes for good in their lives, their families, their church, missions in the world, etc?

You answered the question, the reaction to this however is what differs between you an me. I think its more the latter then the former, they come to it already believing it was true, usually and do there work for a more mission fieldesque kind of goal. I will just name one for a example, william lane craig. Said the following and regardless of the source which where i find this I will link, I have a hard time believing this is a misquote.

 

"My friend, I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true. And you can know it, too, because God is knocking at the door of your heart, telling you the same thing. If you are sincerely seeking God, then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true. Now, to try to show you it's true, I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing. But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you, that's my fault, not God's. It only shows that I'm a poor apologist, not that the gospel is untrue. Whatever you think of my arguments, God still loves you and holds you accountable. I'll do my best to present good arguments to you. But ultimately you have to deal, not with arguments, but with God himself."

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html

 

 

 

Why would the firm belief in the virgin birth, miracles, transfiguration, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus the Messiah necessitate a belief in other "miracles" from other sources - especially given the fact that miracles have a very specific purpose >> God is revealing Himself to Man in remarkable ways, so that Man will turn from false pursuits to follow after the one & only valid pursuit - to know the only true God, the Triune God of the Bible.

Without theology, dealing with purely factual persuits you would have to. What i bolded is theology.

[Guest Valk0010]

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

 

 

 

 

 

Yes or No

 

No, no one goes to hell for being Jewish.

 

LNC

 

I know this is old. How can one be anything other then a messanic jew(christian by another name but that is just a opinion) or a christian, and get to heaven, didn't jesus say he was the way truth and the life, and you had to believe he was divine, from heaven, etc. Can't be a regular old jew and believe the messiah has already come, ask a jew.

[DesertBob]

The point I would make is that it was absolutely essential we leave the womb and become self-aware, become an individual. And as part of that process, we become fully self-actualized ... There is no other way to posses "God consciousness", if we don't yet exist.

Yes, I understand that differentiation was necessary and we aren't out to undo that.

For me personally, it's about hearing your own voice and pursuing it. We build on understandings to find what we look for, our own self in the greater whole. That to me, is the real truth.

That is where I am at with this ... I think each of us has to remain authentically who we are at all times.

... if we were to raise our children from the earliest stages of growth to be hard-core rationalists... would they ever actually, really learn the stages to get there? It would be like depriving a child of their childhood to fit some adult ideal of responsibility. So, those who find in our culture the attraction to go into the woods, dance naked under the moon, beating the drums around the bonfire, engaging with their somatic, sensual, earth self in magic realities... what is this symptomatic of in our culture?

Yes, for some of us that may be necessary. I don't think it necessarily even requires that you be raised in a certain fashion. Some people have personality characteristics / proclivities that just run them aground. I know someone for example who is endowed with uncommon brilliance but is also by nature highly competitive. I know the parents; this person has not been stage-managed into this, if anything he's been encouraged to understand that he can't always win or excel at everything he sets his hand to, that doing his best is all that's needed. Yet he is now at the point of his mind imploding from the self-induced stress of excessively high personal standards and constant self-criticism. He's becoming depressed, angry, and paralyzed. He's going to need professional help, most likely.

 

I've seen this kind of thing often enough that I'm thinking many of us have to come to the end of ourselves to fully become. I realize you're talking about something slightly different but I am just saying that whether others deprive us of our normal development or it is blocked by our own developmental quirks, whether you deliberately shake it loose by going through some drum beating ritual or by passing through a personal crisis or in some other fashion, sometimes you do have to go back and pass through developmental phases you "should" have gone through eons ago.

Bob, thanks for your feedback in these discussions. You inspire thoughts for me.

You're very welcome -- thanks for your kind words.

[bdp]

ascension of Jesus

 

is not mentioned in any of the gospels. Only Luke suggests it ever happened (in Acts) and Luke was not an eyewitness to anything connected to 'Jesus.'

 

I've come to the conclusion that Ray is really only just a feeble minded dunce.

[bornagainathiest]

The Pharisees considered themselves true believers, but their attitudes and actions proved otherwise. This is not to say that true believing Christians do not on occasion act hypocritically. We're all guilty of sin - we're all progressing in Christlikeness.

 

All progressing in Christlikeness? All of us? All?

 

That's not what you said here...

 

Rayskidude wrote... "Actually, we don't think the Gospel is a message you haven't heard; it's a truth that you've chosen not to embrace. Yet."

 

So if you think that we Ex-Christians haven't yet embraced the Gospel message, then we aren't and never were Christians. So then, how can we, unsaved non-Christians, be progressing in Christlikeness?

 

Oh wait! I get it now!

 

When you typed the word, 'All' you actually meant, "All us true believers, like... me." So, 1 Corinthians 11 : 1 applies here? That we should imitate your ways, as you imitate Christ?

 

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." ESV.

 

So when we see your hypocrisy, denial and lies Ray, you are showing us how Jesus lived?

 

Thanks. Now I get it.

 

BAA.

[Xerces]

I love how when a claim is made about god or the buybull ray gets all mad & puffy. But anything he says about god or the buybull is obviously true, perfect, right in every which way, you're just an angel aren't you ray?

[Ouroboros]

 

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?

 

Remember - that people in hell remain eternally unrepentant,

How do you know? Have you asked them?

 

they will forever refuse to acknowledge God as God,

How is that even possible? They are dead, know the afterlife exists, are punished by being sent to Hell by God, and yet are able to claim that God doesn't exist?

 

eternally blaming God for their own sin and it's consequences.

Again, how is that possible? It would be obvious at that point that afterlife, God, penalty, and sin would be all real. You give stubbornness too much credit. People are not that stubborn.

 

Sometimes I think you're stuck in stupidville and short of money for the bus fare.

 

Eternally refusing to accept personal responsibility - as you have shown >> "It's all God's fault."

"It's all God's fault." Did I say that? When? Where?

 

I believe it's humans' fault. It's your fault. It's all our fault for maintaining a destructive and evil religion and belief in some fantasy. I don't blame God. God doesn't exist!

 

But if you're talking about the hypothetical God that you have created in your mind, then yeah, your God supposedly created all things this way. It would be God's fault that humans go to Hell. He made it all such. He has all the control. He knows everything. He planned everything. And what's even funnier, it is all supposedly perfect! (Think about the argument for God's existence from a perfect world. It is perfect, or it is not. Which is it?) In this sense, absolutely, your God is the one who made it all this way, and it is his "thanks to him" (="it is his fault") that it is this way. So don't congratulate God for a perfect job, unless you're willing to also blame him for the mistakes he made.

 

Let me ask you this, is God the creator of everything or not? Is God the creator of sin, evil, Satan, and Hell? If not, then who created those things? Another God? If God created those things, then how come God is not guilty of creating those things? Either he is, or he isn't. If he isn't, then he didn't. If he didn't, then he's not God. If he's not God, then why do you insist on claiming that he is?

 

And if your argument is that sin and evil is the "absence of God," then the question is who created that absence if God didn't? Someone who is powerful enough to create a void in God's omnipresence must be on the same level of power as God himself. So if Satan can create non-God, then Satan is on the same level as God, not created. If Satan was created by God, then God was the source, first cause, and reason to why Satan later could create the void of God. It all comes back to God as the first reason to all this, even evil, or it does not come to God as the first reason, and God isn't God anymore.

[Ouroboros]

Remember - that people in hell remain eternally unrepentant, they will forever refuse to acknowledge God as God, eternally blaming God for their own sin and it's consequences. Eternally refusing to accept personal responsibility - as you have shown >> "It's all God's fault."

 

So, answer the question, Ray. What "sin" causes the biblegod to condemn us to eternal torture? If you answer "rebellion", state what specifically is considered "rebellion". All that you said is after the fact, or post-condemnation.

 

You really have earned the title "most annoying christian".

Based on what he said, it must be stubbornness. To be stubborn is the most horrendous sin of them all! Funny thing, Rayskidude is the quintessence of it.

[oddbird1963]

 

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?

 

Remember - that people in hell remain eternally unrepentant, they will forever refuse to acknowledge God as God, eternally blaming God for their own sin and it's consequences. Eternally refusing to accept personal responsibility - as you have shown >> "It's all God's fault."

 

 

This is an example of an answer yanked totally out of one's anus and masquerading as a biblical, theological answer. In fact, it's just an ad hoc, desperate speculative response to try to bolster a weak and unjustifiable premise - that eternal punishment and torture is somehow reflective of a just and compassionate god.