Why am I a Christian?

[Guest Challenger]

RH, you said, "You indicate that we do not need to be saved, as we are not condemned.  But it seems that we are, doesn't it, because we all die."

 

One extra note here to my post I just made....No, I do not agree with that premise.  Death, to me, is not a condemnation.  It's just part of nature.  I do not relate to the concept that death is something to be viewed negatively.  It just is...and it's part of nature...life and death...nothing about judegment there...  Look at all the earth's creatures, do you feel all creatures are condemned because they die?  I just don't view death in that way....death is not a punishment.  So, I do not seek "salvation,"....there is nothing to be saved from.  Likewise in your belief system of being "saved" from death...it may give you comnfort but you relate it to "God through Jesus" I think you said, does it follow then that in your belief system those who do not share your belief system and concepts are not privy to being "saved" from death?  See, that's something I reject....I believe we're all equals...not one is better than another...we're just human beings making choices...and I feel it is best for me to make those choices free from any religious dogma which is man-made.

 

Best wishes,

TruthSeeker

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Death is an inevitable consequence of living. I don't look forward to it, but I certainly don't fear it, either. It happens to everything. Why should I get off lightly, then?

 

Great post, TruthSeeker! You said it far better than I could!

 

Challenger

[Antlerman]

<snip>

Belief involves both wanting something to work, and trusting that it wil, such as the brakes on our cars, the fidelity of our spouses and the loyalty of our friends.  Want is motivation, just as you say.   Trust derives from experiencing reliability.

 

<snip>

 

You've heard the arguments that something motivated fearful disciples of Christ as well as former opponents of Christ (Paul) to boldly claim Jesus had resurrected and appeared in what you and I might recognize as some quantumly-altered body.  Wtihout resurrection, Paul said he and these ohers ought to be pitied.  If you want me to ramble on about why I find the historicity of these texts reliable, I'll take a stab at it.

 

RH

Welcome RH. It's genuinely refreshing to hear your perspectives. Unlike the fundie's, you have spent a great deal of personal reflection and an open and balanced consideration in what you are choosing to believe. My sincere regards to you.

 

On the subject you mentioned above in your response to spamandham, I wanted to address the issue of trust for myself now. Having been a fundi (actually was converted when I was living out in Montana, BTW ), and then having come to the awareness that the system's beliefs are purely mythological, it is hard for me to have that sense of reliability you speak of.

 

Image you find out that all the data in the tests your brake manufacturer claims proves the products trustworthiness, were originally randomly drawn up by the 5 year old daughter of the CEO with orange and green crayons? Later, editors made it sound more like reliable data by modifying it to sound better. Then all the studies with opposing data were destroyed in shredders and everyone was paid off? Now how confident are you about your brakes?

 

That's what it is for me to take a desire to believe in God, and then to tell myself I can believe it anyway. I was lied to. I was betrayed. I was spiritually raped by people who twisted a book of mythology into the trustworthy anchor of God's word. I know with great confidence that the Bible is not trustworthy historically, to the point I seriously doubt any historical Jesus every really existed, rather it all began as a mythical Logos concept and latter given a historical setting.

 

I am not trying to dissuade you against what you believe, only stating how that despite how much I may want to believe in God as an object of my spirit's desire for higher expression, I cannot overcome my distrust of its origins and its history - not just for my own experience, but its track record in this world. It's emergence from its simple and meager beginnings into the greater world is based on deceit, and its fruits are filled with blood and oppression of the minds and bodies of countless millions. It's hard for me to embrace anything good that may be hiding somewhere in that.

 

Again, I do respect what you have been saying here and I'm not intending to discount anything you have to say. I look forward to engaging in discourse with you further about this.

[Antlerman]

The texts are historical only in the sense that they are genuinely old and historically important.  But, they are genuinely old records of mythology, not history.

Wow. Thanks for that quotable! I'm going to use that. It says it so very well!

[rhuntermt]

Our personalities, emotions, memories, and personal identities are all stored within the physical organ contained within the cranium.  Even a propensity to believe in God can be traced to a certain area of the brain (the left temporal lobe)

 

It is only wishful thinking and religious hocus-pocus to believe that somehow, when the brain dies, all of it's information is magically transferred to an immortal soul.    "All things are possible with God" doesn't get it.  Might as well say it's magic.

 

The burden of proof is not on the person who believes that when the brain dies, you cease to exist.  It's on the one who claims that your personal identity and memories carry on after the brain is no more.

 

If you want to start talking about NDE's or ghosts, (which is normally where the conversation goes from here)  we'll be happy to oblige ya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mythra:

 

Good evening. Glad to see you carry on the conversation. I'll begin at your end by repeating remarks I've made in discussions with others here: NDEs do not interest me, nor does the concept of immortal souls. Like you, I believe that when we're dead, we're completely dead. No disembodied existence, no ghost. All that remains of us is contained in the memory or thought of others, either spontaneously conjured without aid of externalities, or spurred by artifacts of our existence (photos, possessions, etc.). Memories of us by those still living are not in aggregate complete or error free, nor do they possess any power to bring us back into being.

 

My postulate is what I understand the Biblical postulate to be: that there is a consciousness where complete, fully accurate memory of us remains intact, a consciousness which possesses the power to restore us to life in a perfected state, unencumbered by the limitations that now beset us, as well as the will to so restore us. You lay a burden of proof at my feet, and I offer you offer none as none exists. There is of course evidence that you've previously considered: the record of Jesus' followers' teachings and actions following his death. I find this evidence more reliable than do you, but I freely admit it is not proof - it is not compelling.

 

Your postulate is that there is no such consciousness as I suppose to exist. You offer no proof, presumably because you feel no burden of proof should rest upon you. I agree. If the consciousness exists, then the burden of proof is on the consciousness, not on you (nor on me). If you are resurrected, no further proof will be needed. If you are not, well, no (additional) skin off your back. ;-)

 

I find peace in the hope of resurrection. You apparently find peace absent that hope. Same result, different paths. Freed of anxiety about eternal destiny, we can fully devote our attention to the needs of here and now. That's gospel, brother.

 

Rob

[rhuntermt]

Not sure what exactly is one being saved from

 

[b} Pritishd: The post I just completed (reply to Mythra) may aid your understanding.  Very simply, we all die, right?  So, if we are resurrected from that death, then we are saved from death. If we are not, then we simply remain dead.  The scriptures state that all will be resurrected, meaning all will be saved from death.  Christian tradition has not been satisfied with this result, and so has inserted the non-scriptural concept of "eternal death" (endless torture or ET, as I prefer to call it) as something that follows this resurrection.  [/b]

 

 

And this anticipation is confirmed by the OT. The hebrew scriptures show that he was supposed to be mortal human, not some god in human form

 

  The NT writers present Jesus as making no claim about being God.  He gives consent only to recognition as Messiah, and that somewhat cautiously.  As you say, Messiah was not anticipated as deity.  Jesus repeatedly distinguishes God from himself, and in the couple of instances where he is directly accused of claiming to be God, he denies it.  The gospel of John goes the furthest toward a claim of deity, claiming that Jesus embodied the pre-existent Word of God.  Christian tradition takes this and other scant evidence and proclaims Jesus as deity.  I only go so far as to recognize what he allowed concerning himself: Messiah, savior, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man - all by delegation or designation. If he actually was/is deity, however, I've no objection, and in any case I am persuaded that he was endowed with something that no other human possesses.

 

Who exactly were these zealots and what were they planning to do the rebellion? I am sorry my biblical history is not that good.

 

Josephus' "History of the Jews" provides some insight.  The zealots were akin to American revolutionaries and Islamic jihadists.  They sought to violently cast off Roman dominion over Israel.  Some were politically motivated, others religiously so, and no doubt some were adventure seekers.  They sealed themselves within the walls of Jerusalem around 67 AD after not faring so well in skirmishes in the open field.  The Roman army sent Josephus, an officer who was a Jew, to negotiate with these zealots to abandon their futile, under-prepared attempt at independence.  Josephus risked his life to enter the City to appeal to his countrymen to lay down their arms an come out from the City.  His appeal echoes that of Jesus a generation previous: "Repent, and believe in me."  IOW, change course, and follow me in my actions of subordinate accommodation.'  They rejected his counsel, and over a million Jews in Jerusalem died during the three and one-half year seige from disease, starvation and sword (both Roman and Zealot).

 

At this point Jesus it is not proved to me that Jesus was the messiah or god. People still proclaim a lot of things in the name of god(including christianity). That doesn't mean that the proclaimation makes it true.

 

You are correct.

 

There were many conditions that the messiah was supposed to fulfill.

 

And besides there were a lot of  things that didn't take place after the coming of the messiah.

 

Far from failing to fulfill the OT prophecies, he actually goes and does what a messaiah should not do.

 

Please direct me to verses from the OT, which says that the kingdom was a spritual one and not a physical one. Christians still hope today that christ would come again and establish a new "physical" kingdom(Book of Revelation).

 

It isn't surprising the reason why Jesus was killed cause he turned out to be false prophet and was blaspmising the god of the OT, and punishment was not was death. The god of the OT gave precise instructions how to recognise false prophets and messiah.

 

A proper messiah doesn't go about changing god's eternal and perfect law nor he says that you may keep some law while other you can choose to ignore the others.

 

And again I repeat my request about showing me scriptures from the OT which says that the messiah would be god himself. God repeated states he is not a man

 

Num 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

According to christian theology, the Sacrificial servant-king is god himself. So god is a servant of himself. Mmmmmmmm. how does that work out again?

 

The NT may claim that it is supported by the OT, but it is only after reading the bible it doesn't turn out so. The NT has just hijacked the theology of the OT and refashioned it into something else

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You offer a lot of ground to cover. There is only one of me, and only so much time: it is 11:00 PM, past my bedtime, with other replies unread and so to which I have not responded and will not be able to respond, at least not tonight. So I'll just throw up a few trial balloons for you. First, as indicated above, you and I have no quarrel about the deity issue.

 

The OT contains a mixed record of God's commands. There is a progression from the books of the law, where Israel perceives that sacrifices are required to appease an angry God, to the writings of the prophets where it is recorded that God never desired sacrifices, and where those who experience God's wratch in this life are neverhteless restored. Likewise, while ancient Israel sought to adhere to laws that distinguished it from surrounding cultures and customs, the Israel of Jesus' time had greatly added to these laws and associated compliance with achieving eternal life. Jesus did not take Mosaic law away from Israel, but he did interpret that law so as to emphasize its intent. He also claimed that he, not the law and sacrifice, held the key to salvation. Remember, the Judaism of Jesus' day held a very narrow understanding of the qualifications for salvation: Jewishness, adherance to law and sacrifice. Jesus indicated he would draw ALL men to himself, that he would fulfill the law by doing what it could not do, as no man could perfectly comply with the law which concerned more than external compliance, the "more" being attitude and intent. It would be interesting to see if the sum of the law that Jesus asserts (love God and neighbor as self) sort of naturally emerges from reading just the OT law. I've not done that.

 

Beyond this, I might be able to respond effificiently to your concerns if you were to be more specific, i.e., offer scriptures such as the Numbers passage above. Short of that, I'm left to shotgunning here.

 

Rob

[Kryten]

Rob,

Sounds like you are a Universalist (-everyone is saved by Jesus' sacrifice and hell is a myth)... In my research into the origins of Christianity and formation of the N.T., I ended up there as well-- for about a month. Further study led me to conclude that Jesus never existed, and the whole thing is made up.

Keep reading and searching and you may end up with the same conclusion. To me the evidence is overwhelming. And as a Christian I used to tell unbelievers that there was more evidence that Jesus lived than George Washington. It was what I was taught in church. . . Doh!

[Mythra]

I find peace in the hope of resurrection.  You apparently find peace absent that hope.  Same result, different paths. Freed of anxiety about eternal destiny, we can fully devote our attention to the needs of here and now.  That's gospel, brother.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rob - you sound like a really great guy. (I mean it).. Such a nice break from the evanjelly-filled fundamental christians we get in here. I wish that I could have gotten to where you are, and locked in.

 

But for me, belief of any kind in the bible is no longer an option. It's not that I'm without hope, or unhappy. Quite to the contrary. I'm as happy right now as I've ever been. But it would be nice to be convinced that even greater happiness awaited me after death. But that's not something I'll ever believe again.

[rhuntermt]

I'm sorry RT, but this just looks like a variation on Pascal's Wager to me.  Replace "content" w/"fear" and it's exactly the same thing.  The desire for the continuation of the "I" (is that better than "ego"?  ) is natural in a being that is aware of it's own mortality.  Nobody really wants to die.  To desire so would be a sign of sickness.  The "impulse to life", as you describe it, doesn't require a supernatural basis, so why do you ascribe it one?

 

For me, Christianity tends to mistake the goal for the journey.  Which is more selfless: being "good" according to a set of beliefs for the promise of a future reward or trying to be a "good" person for sake of being a good person?

 

Sometimes it seems the entire paradigm of salvation is just like Santa, only instead of presents/coal there's heaven/hell (or life/death in your interpretation).

 

IMOHO,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Skankboy: You say this: "The desire for the continuation of the I' is natural in a being that is aware of its own mortality." I agree - completely natural, and also universal (except for the sick, as you say). Why? Life is difficult. Sleep is uncomplicated except for weird dreams, and death doesn't have any such complication. Why then - why should we naturally prefer difficult life over uncomplicated death?

 

You also say I assert supernatural over natural causation of life. That may be fair, but I don't know what God is, so I'm not prepared to assert that God is supernatural. There is reason from scripture to speculate instead that God is nature that we do not yet understand.

 

As to your question, which is an excellent question btw, I suspect that we would answer it identically. The reward of a life well lived is a life well lived.

 

RH (or RT if you prefer) ;-)

[rhuntermt]

If it is real, it is possibly provable, as the bible claims that many dead were resurrected when Jesus died, and were seen by many walking around the holy city (Jarusalem).  Don't you agree that zombies walking around Jarusalem would be an incredible event that should have found its way into numerous historical records had it actually happened?

 

Possibly provable?  Maybe.  Doubtful.  Evidence, sure, but proof?  A lot of time has passed, technology wasn't then what it was now - a videotape would be nice to have, or just some photos, and perhaps some new technique will develop in the future. as unexpected as DNA testing was for people living a hundred years ago, but I'm not holding my breath. 

 

Zombies?  You got me smiling with that one.  What passage of scripture gives you the idea that those who wrote about resurrection perceived the result as a zombie?  Your perjorative aside, I don't understand this scripture at all.  I'm not completely writing it off due to my lack of understanding - but I have no explanation for it, either.

 

However, if it isn't real, then it's falseness is not provable.  But the question isn't whether it can be proven false or not, but rather, why believe it at all if it can't be shown to be true?  I seriously doubt your standard is "I believe it if it can't be disproven" in other aspects of your life.

 

I make many decisions each day based on educated guesses, reasoning from incomplete evidence that falls far short of proof.  I don't imagine anyone lives otherwise. 

 

What is your basis for this claim?  The Old Testament is filled with examples of god's relationship with men changing as the result of actions of men. 

 

I'm sorry, but I just realized I've got a problem with how I'm attempting to reply to posts.  You are responding to something I said that I can't see - all I can see is your response above.  Digging back through old posts to find my message would be cumbersome.  I'm going to have to stop here and ask you to help me figure out how to use this system properly so that I can see both my question and your reply. I promise to try to pick up where I've left off once you educate me.  Ideally, I would just be inserting text below your text below my text, etc.   

 

Consider 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 

 

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"

 

What scriptures was Paul referring to?  Keep in mind that his writings are the earliest writings in the New Testament.  He is referring to the Jewish scriptures.  So the obvious question is, which scriptures?  The concept of the Messiah dying for sins and rising on the third day is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. 

 

Was Paul uninformed?  Was he just making stuff up?  No, he was reading between the lines in the Old Testament and moved by visions to come up with a new Revelation.  This is the revealed mystery Paul referrs to over and over.

 

Romans 16

"25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen."

 

Notice that in Galatians, Paul explains his role in all this is to preach the revelation:

Galatians 1:16

"God chose to reveal his Son in me, and through me to preach him to the gentiles."

 

This makes no sense at all if Paul viewed Jesus as a historical person.  Paul's view is that Paul plays a special role in revealing the Son.  How can that be if Jesus himself had an earthly ministry just a few years earlier?

 

Earl Doherty has put together an excellent analysis of Paul's perspective of Jesus, which I'm using:

 

Was there a historical Jesus?

I don't recall assuming that.  My position is positivism.  Unless there is positive reason (not to be confused with motivation) to believe something, it is summarily dismissed.

True.  These texts are assumed false (mythology) until proven true.  The standard is higher than for other historical writings because the Bible makes fantastic claims.  To paraphrase Sagan, fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.  This is the same standard we all use in our daily lives.

It isn't hard at all.  When fantastic claims are made and are supported by crap evidence, myth is the conclusion.  Myth is the default assumption for such claims, and I'm sure you apply that assumption to other such fantastic claims that are outside your belief system.

Should we be surprised that the Gospels contain some accurate history?  They are legitimately old.  Even writers of fiction usually interweave real history and real places.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Skankboy]

Skankboy: You say this: "The desire for the continuation of the I' is natural in a being that is aware of its own mortality." I agree - completely natural, and also universal (except for the sick, as you say). Why? Life is difficult. Sleep is uncomplicated except for weird dreams, and death doesn't have any such complication. Why then - why should we naturally prefer difficult life over uncomplicated death?

 

Hi RH (or RT, or whatever... )

 

If I had to take a biological stance, I would say it's because beings that don't, didn't survive, and we are the one's that are left. In biology, survival is THE most basic drive that life possesses. If it didn't, it would last very long. For those of us that are actually conscious of this process, and are aware that like everything else, we will die, the survival drive can be taken to the next step of looking for survival after death (ie an "afterlife").

 

From a purely philosophical standpoint, I'd say it's because most of us have trouble imagining a world without us in it. We are the length and breadth of our own realities (you can try to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, but it's still really you).

 

You also say I assert supernatural over natural causation of life. That may be fair, but I don't know what God is, so I'm not prepared to assert that God is supernatural. There is reason from scripture to speculate instead that God is nature that we do not yet understand.

 

Fair enough. Sound in many repects like pantheism (god = nature). The biggest difference is that in pantheism, the idea of "god" is a passive one, where your's must certainly be "active" to some extent to bring about bodily ressurections. I personally don't believe anything is supernatural and that the term is really just a cop-out where "I don't know" is just as valid.

 

The reward of a life well lived is a life well lived.

On this, we most certainly agree.

 

[rhuntermt]

RH:

 

Yes, we (you andI) do agree that the highrest aim then is to endeavor to live expressing love....for me, that's my guiding principle....to love all as my brother and sister.  No one is excluded from that love (in fact, my pursuit of understanding love was a significant factor in my rejection of Christianity as well--Christianity-its dogma--teaches sin--and that there are distinctions between people--and there was just no way I could look at the "Christian" family as my family and not the whole of the human race).  I do believe in the love Jesus taught...but view Jesus as a man who was a teacher--a teacher as others--and as each of us can be.  Christianity divides people...and I believe love cannot be divided.

 

As for death, I have no fear.  In fact, I live my life with this: there are only two emotions-- love...and fear.  I reject fear--just as I reject the concept of sin.  Thus, it doesn't bother me to consider that death is the end... what is-is.  I need no comfort to protect from some fear that I might not continue to exist.  Whatever the reality is ....is....no matter what ways people try and comfort themselves now.  I just cannot understand why people feel a need to have a belief about an afterlife....why not spend all your energy living in this moment--you know you have this.  I do see how your feeling may comfort those who are inclined toward fear....but for me, I have no such fear.  I just want to live while I'm alive.  One may speculate about what happens next....but it really is not important....that is if you do not fear it.  The fear concept it would seem to me is not relieved by a Christian beleif but strengthened....fear of death...fear of damnation or punishment...fear of whether you're living in "God's will" or not...etc.  I have no fear.  I just endeavor to live my life in ways that please me...my value, yes, is love...and I try and understand what that means in relation to others.  But, I just don't fear death.  If it's the end...it's the end of the world for me...and the world goes on for those still living...why would that bother someone? 

 

Anyway, interesting thread you've started here...the thing you and I do agree on is that love is a principle to heal and nurture...for me, it does not take any religious dogma to know that.  And, I will not choose to belief anything in life just to give me comfort or relieve fear of the unknown...I just reject fear...it is irrational.  Actually, it has been my experience that Christians do fear death--that's why they cling to their religious dogma and rituals...  Perhaps, well obviously, some may not as you are an example of...due to your decision to believe a Christian doctrine.  For me, I have no fear of death.  I just live to the fullest now.

 

Yes, you've got lots to read on all our replies...glad you bookmarked my site for another time...and am appreciating the dialogue you've begun here.  (Thanks for the compliment on my screen name--it describes me perfectly...  seeking truth.)

 

TruthSeeker

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Truthseeker, I'm liking you more each post. I understand that you would not want to be called a Christian, but I suspect you won't mind if I observe that you just might be a follower of Jesus (I won't repeat it in public).

 

Hmmm, that presents a side road I'd like to drive down sometime if you or others are willing: can you follow Jesus yet not believe in God?

[rhuntermt]

RH, you said, "You indicate that we do not need to be saved, as we are not condemned.  But it seems that we are, doesn't it, because we all die."

 

One extra note here to my post I just made....No, I do not agree with that premise.  Death, to me, is not a condemnation.  It's just part of nature.  I do not relate to the concept that death is something to be viewed negatively.  It just is...and it's part of nature...life and death...nothing about judegment there...  Look at all the earth's creatures, do you feel all creatures are condemned because they die?  I just don't view death in that way....death is not a punishment.  So, I do not seek "salvation,"....there is nothing to be saved from.  Likewise in your belief system of being "saved" from death...it may give you comnfort but you relate it to "God through Jesus" I think you said, does it follow then that in your belief system those who do not share your belief system and concepts are not privy to being "saved" from death?  See, that's something I reject....I believe we're all equals...not one is better than another...we're just human beings making choices...and I feel it is best for me to make those choices free from any religious dogma which is man-made.

 

Best wishes,

TruthSeeker

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Truthseeker: Perhaps I ascribed others questions about salvation ("salvation from what?") to whatever you said that I responded to. Damn, wish I could efficiently read the whole string o discusion instead of being left with just what's above here. Whiniing aside, condemnation = certainty: we're going to die, a statement of fact or nature, nothing more, certainly not punishment.

 

Members here obviously don't like the concept of sin, and I owe it to all of you to learn why that is, but if you'll permit me the liberty, the Biblical record suggests that people died before there was such a thing as consciousness of sin, or imperfection as I think of it. Imperfection yields mortality, or as the Bible putsit, the wages of sin is death. Not a punishment, just an observaton of fact: the two go hand in hand. Conversely, to be perfect is to be immortal, and to be immortal is to be perfect. The scripture teaches that all will gain perfection/immortality through resurrection, and this in Christ: "As in Adam (man) all die, so in Christ all will live." Christian tradition teaches otherwise, as you observe. That misfortune aside, the bottom line of scripture is similar to yours: "afterlife? don't worry about it - nothing to fear or worry over, so get on with loving your neighbor."

 

Rob

[TruthSeeker]

You said, "Truthseeker, I'm liking you more each post. I understand that you would not want to be called a Christian, but I suspect you won't mind if I observe that you just might be a follower of Jesus (I won't repeat it in public).

 

Hmmm, that presents a side road I'd like to drive down sometime if you or others are willing: can you follow Jesus yet not believe in God?"

 

Well, you could repeat that in public. I can accept and do the attaining of a Christ consciousness...and feel few Christians seek much less attain it. Yes, I do believe in love....no matter who is teaching it. Jesus, at best, was a teacher of love whose teachings, I believe, were corrupted by man. A number of people Iknow (who are Christians) and who know of my rejection of the religion, have observed what you have....as perhaps being a follower of Jesus? I follow love...and endeavor to understand what that means and seek its truth wherever I find it.

 

Have you ever read in A Course in Miracles? I have found it intriguing....and so much truth in regards to what love is...and that we are perfect as we are...we are all holy...now all we need do is recognize it and live it. Love ourselves...and then we can love others.

 

Your final question...can one follow Jesus yet not believe in God? Yes. It's all matter if you believe in his deity or not. I view Jesus as man, like all of us, enlightened...a teacher. Truth is where you find it. Again, have you ever read in A Course in Miracles? If not, I highly recommend it to you.

 

TruthSeeker

[Asimov]

That misfortune aside, the bottom line of scripture is similar to yours: "afterlife? don't worry about it - nothing to fear or worry over, so get on with loving your neighbor."

 

Just a question, rhunter. If there is nothing to fear or worry over, why should we love our neighbour?

[beverly]

" 2. That God is wrathful toward life (including us)"

---------------------------------------

 

Gee RH, I think they taught you that in church.

 

and I think it takes years and years of that kind of teaching,

and treatment towards others

 

to develop that idea

 

I look around at the planet and see things like:

flowers, fruit, children

systems like photosynthesis, and homeostasis of the human body

 

I don't think God is wrathful, I think the christians are way out of control,

and going in reverse

 

Consider this:

 

Church is the only 100% tax exempt, mega bucks business in America

it draws corruption like a magnet

 

and they get the money

even if they teach crap

 

and it is completely unregulated,

no body can touch them,

they have freedom of religion here

 

the Supreme Court will soon decide if hallucinagins are OK to take at religious services

 

that is how wacked out things are becoming

 

and I think it has a whole lot more to do with Pastor

than God

 

Beverly

[spamandham]

I make many decisions each day based on educated guesses, reasoning from incomplete evidence that falls far short of proof.  I don't imagine anyone lives otherwise. 

 

I'd say that's pretty reasonable. What do you generally do when told about something incredible? Do you accept it if there isn't compelling evidence against it, or do reject it if there isn't compelling evidence in favor of it? If I told you there is an invisible dragon living in my garage, is my word enough to convince you? What if there was an ancient book that made the same claim? Is that credible? What if 1/3 of the people on earth believed it, would that be credible?

 

I'm sorry you're having trouble figuring out how to use the quote system and back pages. I'm willing to be patient as you learn how to use the mechanics of the board. Perhaps a single thought at a time would be best until then.

[SkepticOfBible]

You offer a lot of ground to cover.  There is only one of me, and only so much time: it is 11:00 PM, past my bedtime, with other replies unread and so to which I have not responded and will not be able to respond, at least not tonight.  So I'll just throw up a few trial balloons for you. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for your answer

 

First, as indicated above, you and I have no quarrel about the deity issue.

 

So are you saying jesus is not god. Mmmmm. I had assumed that you being a Universalist would believe that.

 

 

The NT writers present Jesus as making no claim about being God.  He gives consent only to recognition as Messiah, and that somewhat cautiously.  As you say, Messiah was not anticipated as deity.  Jesus repeatedly distinguishes God from himself, and in the couple of instances where he is directly accused of claiming to be God, he denies it. 

 

The NT isn't just the gospels you know. Others books (especially the one written by Paul) explicitly say that he is god.

 

There are instances in the Four Gospels itself which said Jesus was god.

 

Trinitarians would dispute that claim. The issue of whether or not Jesus is God can't be resolved with any certainty if it's based on Biblical scripture.

 

The following are good examples of debate amongst Trinitarian and Non Trinitarians

 

Dueling Christians

 

Debate about Trinity

 

 

The gospel of John goes the furthest toward a claim of deity, claiming that Jesus embodied the pre-existent Word of God.  Christian tradition takes this and other scant evidence and proclaims Jesus as deity.  I only go so far as to recognize what he allowed concerning himself: Messiah, savior, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man - all by delegation or designation. If he actually was/is deity, however, I've no objection, and in any case I am persuaded that he was endowed with something that no other human possesses.

 

A christian site which would thoroughly interest you.

 

Bible Truths

 

 

The OT contains a mixed record of God's commands.  There is a progression from the books of the law, where Israel perceives that sacrifices are required to appease an angry God, to the writings of the prophets where it is recorded that God never desired sacrifices, and where those who experience God's wratch in this life are neverhteless restored.  Likewise, while ancient Israel sought to adhere to laws that distinguished it from surrounding cultures and customs, the Israel of Jesus' time had greatly added to these laws and associated compliance with achieving eternal life.

 

The sacrifical law were not written by men, it was given by god. It is was god that desires sacrifices. Read the story of Noah. He drowns the world, and saves some animals, and then ask Noah to sacrifice. And then he was so pleased with the aroma of the burned flesh that he promised not to drown the world again.

 

Incidently not all sins required a animal sacrifice or blood. In the OT there are different types of sins that require different types of sacrifices or atonement. Forgiveness does not always require bloodshed. Offerings of fine flour (Lev 5:11 ), money (Ex 30:15-16), jewelry (Num 31:50) and prayer ( Hos 14:1-4) can also atone for sin.

 

Sin Sacrifices in O, and why Jesus is not a valid sacrifice?

 

The reason why Isreal adhered to these law strictly was because God told them to do so.

 

Deuteronomy 11:1

"Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway."

 

Psa 19:7

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

 

Psa 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever.

 

Psa 119:1-4

Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.

Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

Thou(God) hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

 

 

Jesus did not take Mosaic law away from Israel, but he did interpret that law so as to emphasize its intent. 

 

And off course he broke certain laws, and tried to lead them from the law by saying it doesn't matter what you eat, and by working on the Sabbath. These were considered sin according to the OT.

 

Where does it say in the OT that you may understand the intent of the law, but you need not comply with it.

 

He also claimed that he, not the law and sacrifice, held the key to salvation.  .

 

The God of the OT has a different opinion about that.

 

Isa 45:21-22

…and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

Remember, the Judaism of Jesus' day held a very narrow understanding of the qualifications for salvation: Jewishness, adherance to law and sacrifice

 

Salvation came from addhering to the law.

 

Ezek 18:27-28

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

Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

 

Psa 119:174

I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight.

 

 

Jesus indicated he would draw ALL men to himself, that he would fulfill the law by doing what it could not do, as no man could perfectly comply with the law which concerned more than external compliance, the "more" being attitude and intent. 

 

Just because some people broke the law, doesn't mean you don't have follow it or you drop it. The law was the way to righteousness.

 

Deut 4:8

And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I(God) set before you this day?

 

The New revised Covenant Of Christianity

[chohan]

Everybody not now living has died, right? That's what I mean - they all ceased to exist, and so will we (unless we come up with a scientific means to achieve immortality - I'd settle for curing the common cold). IOW, I don't buy into the idea of an immortal soul that lives on after the body dies, a belief that you may have assumed I held, thus your questions. [The Biblical Hebrew word for soul means a living being, nothing more or less. When the being stops living, the soul, the person, is dead, kaput, non-existent. Whether or not one believes in Christ in this life is immaterial - everybody dies. So, you underestimate me when you ask about only the majority who cease to exist - I mean everyone including you, me, the Pope and Billy Graham.

 

Thank you for the clarification rhuntermt.

 

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." 1 Peter 3:18-20

 

Christ preaching to some disobedient spirits in prison who weren't fortunate enough to be one of the eight obedient curls who got saved from the flood. Then we have the great cloud of witnesses over in Hebrews, the cosmic cheerleaders hoping we don't fall away. The apostle Paul also comes to mind... "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord which is far better." How would he verify it's far better if he's non-existent, kaput?

 

Of course we have some poor souls who have been beheaded (kaput) over in Revelation crying out... "how long oh god, before you take your vengeance on these curls who killed us?" Then we have Moshe and Elijah manifesting in front of Jesus and his cool inner circle. Jesus telling the thief, "This day, you'll be with me in paradise.", etc.

 

Perhaps a good apologist could harmonize all that with 'kaput'. Not that it bothers me too much; I read the NT as fiction just like a Stephen King novel (except the writers of the NT were not as talented). I agree you could make a pretty good case for your position from the OT but the writers are even less talented than those of the NT so no suprise there.

 

Regardless, what I admire about your writings is your acceptance of others and freedom from labels (almost).

 

can you follow Jesus yet not believe in God? [/b]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps others are following the same thing you are without filtering it through the Jesus/Christ sunglasses.

 

cheers,

cho

[rhuntermt]

Work is crazy this week, plus my sister is in town for a conference so has been over the past couple of evenings - first time she has visited us in fifteen years. Miss the dialogue here, hope to be back by the weekend if not sooner to catch up.

 

RH

[Skankboy]

No rush RH, say hello to your sister from all of us...

 

[Guest aexapo]

Members here obviously don't like the concept of sin, and I owe it to all of you to learn why that is

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because we don't view the world through a biblical construct -- we try to see life as it can be observed. In the life that nature has given us, health, death, fortune, love, and hate do not come to us because of how we follow certain dictates, but they come to us due the circumstances we were born and live under. We have choices, but our lives are neither richer, poorer, nor unhealthy because we don't subscribe to your mythology (or any other mythology, for that matter).

 

For me, there is right and wrong -- wrong mostly being that which hurts, exploits, or undermines others or the world at large; not something that creates a notch on a scorecard of some supernatural entity. But, this right or wrongness isn't inherent -- it's something I project on to the world. The forces of nature themselves aren't conscious, and couldn't perceive or judge (or care) whether man continues to live a certain way, or even continues to exist at all.

 

I'd like to think we're important, but we're only really important to ourselves.

[rhuntermt]

You said, "Truthseeker, I'm liking you more each post. I understand that you would not want to be called a Christian, but I suspect you won't mind if I observe that you just might be a follower of Jesus (I won't repeat it in public).

 

Hmmm, that presents a side road I'd like to drive down sometime if you or others are willing: can you follow Jesus yet not believe in God?"

 

Well, you could repeat that in public.    I can accept and do the attaining of a  Christ consciousness...and feel few Christians seek much less attain it.  Yes, I do believe in love....no matter who is teaching it.  Jesus, at best, was a teacher of love whose teachings, I believe, were corrupted by man.  A number of people Iknow (who are Christians) and who know of my rejection of the religion, have observed what you have....as perhaps being a follower of Jesus?  I follow love...and endeavor to understand what that means and seek its truth wherever I find it. 

 

Have you ever read in A Course in Miracles?  I have found it intriguing....and so much truth in regards to what love is...and that we are perfect as we are...we are all holy...now all we need do is recognize it and live it.  Love ourselves...and then we can love others.

 

Your final question...can one follow Jesus yet not believe in God?  Yes.  It's all matter if you believe in his deity or not.  I view Jesus as man, like all of us, enlightened...a teacher.  Truth is where you find it.  Again, have you ever read in A Course in Miracles?  If not, I highly recommend it to you.

 

TruthSeeker

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for recommending the title. I've heard of it, but not about it until now, and have not read it. Sounds interesting, and I'll see if it's available through Amazon or some other source. [Now I just have to find time to read more than the newspaper!]

[rhuntermt]

Rob,

Sounds like you are a Universalist (-everyone is saved by Jesus' sacrifice and hell is a myth)...  In my research into the origins of Christianity and formation of the N.T., I ended up there as well-- for about a month.  Further study led me to conclude that Jesus never existed, and the whole thing is made up. 

Keep reading and searching and you may end up with the same conclusion.  To me the evidence is overwhelming.  And as a Christian I used to tell unbelievers that there was more evidence that Jesus lived than George Washington.  It was what I was taught in church. . .  Doh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kryten:

Yes, I'm a universalist. Been so for about two years - guess I'm just slower on the uptake than you.

 

Could be Jesus was made up, could be (nearly) everything in the Bible is a myth. As you observe, I'm not so persuaded. But, whatever its mix of myth/metaphor/code and historical fact, the text strkes me as a legitimate attempt by people to understand and/or convey spiritual understaning. At the risk of being either premature in this assessment or offensive to some here (or both) I perceive an element of absolutism popping up now and again that is reminiscent of fundamentalism. For example, claims that the whole Bible is a myth goes beyond the facts and in many cases ignores extra-Biblical confirmations of factual content, e.g, from archaeological finds.

 

I'm smiling over that George Washington remark, realizing I'm probably not even aware of the bunk that still takes up space in my outlook.

 

Looking forward to having more time soon to really go through the content of this site. October just happens to be our busiest month of the year at work, and all of my kids (3 here, 1 in college) are in sports and music activities that seeminly take up every spare minute - good stuff that I no way am going to miss, much as I enjoy dialoguing here.

 

Rob

[spamandham]

For example, claims that the whole Bible is a myth goes beyond the facts and in many cases ignores extra-Biblical confirmations of factual content, e.g, from archaeological finds.

 

I'm not aware of anyone making such a claim. To say "the Bible is myth" does not imply every word is myth anymore than saying "Capricorn One" is fiction implies that every aspect of it is fiction.

[rhuntermt]

Rob - you sound like a really great guy.  (I mean it)..  Such a nice break from the evanjelly-filled fundamental christians we get in here.  I wish that I could have gotten to where you are, and locked in. 

 

But for me, belief of any kind in the bible is no longer an option.  It's not that I'm without hope, or unhappy.  Quite to the contrary.  I'm as happy right now as I've ever been.  But it would be nice to be convinced that even greater happiness awaited me after death.  But that's not something I'll ever believe again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mythra:

 

Much as I appreciate your compliment, I was just this morning reflecting on how every few years I look back a few years and realize what a butthead I was in so many ways back then. Someday I hope to be fully grown up and suitable for going out in public. ;-)

 

If there is an all-loving., all-powerful God or ground of being-ness that makes life (or its-self) irrepressible and therefore resurrects to life, and if we needed to do anything or know anything about such being-ness to atain that result, then surely there would be better information than what is available to us. Just going by that job description, if I was in the position I'd at least resurrect someone from every group of people every generation. Since nothing remotely close to this level of evidence exists, it seems there either must be no such God, or there is nohing we need to do to attain this result. Your conclusion that the former condition holds is perfectly reasonable, and I appreciate that the absence of cognitive dissonance is at least conducive to, and likely essential to, a state of peace or happiness such as you experience.

 

Rob