The Bible Boogyman

[Guest end3]

If this were true we would be worse than we were before. But we are not. Slavery? Gone. Women's rights? I could give you a long list of improvements if you'd like.

 

If you were right, what was cruelty before would seem as paradise to us today! But on the contrary where shudder at the thought of our ignorant past. We are better, not worse.

 

Anyway, again your myth is upside down.

 

I think you are being a bit harsh here. Women's rights, sure, but I don't see anyone rushing to elect women to high places of leadership. Take Facebook, basically one big gossip session between women. I believe the union of men aand women present a more rounded decision.

 

We are moving towards a moral perfection for lack of a better word. How is this upside down as people are moving towards a perfection in Christ/God? You act like we are moving back towards slavery and oppression. A tired argument AM.

[Antlerman]

If this were true we would be worse than we were before. But we are not. Slavery? Gone. Women's rights? I could give you a long list of improvements if you'd like.

 

If you were right, what was cruelty before would seem as paradise to us today! But on the contrary where shudder at the thought of our ignorant past. We are better, not worse.

 

Anyway, again your myth is upside down.

 

I think you are being a bit harsh here. Women's rights, sure, but I don't see anyone rushing to elect women to high places of leadership. Take Facebook, basically one big gossip session between women. I believe the union of men aand women present a more rounded decision.

I didn't say we have overcome yet, but the ball is in motion and that is what never was before.

 

We are moving towards a moral perfection for lack of a better word. How is this upside down as people are moving towards a perfection in Christ/God? You act like we are moving back towards slavery and oppression. A tired argument AM.

Oh, but the argument is that without Christ we are given over to our own barbarity and lusts and sinful nature. I say that is false. These advances in human rights were done outside the Christian religion. These were Enlightenment philosophies, the dignity of modernity.

[agnosticator]

A-man must have the code decipher...I can't comprehend what was meant from what was said.

[Guest end3]

Oh, but the argument is that without Christ we are given over to our own barbarity and lusts and sinful nature. I say that is false. These advances in human rights were done outside the Christian religion. These were Enlightenment philosophies, the dignity of modernity.

 

Certainly I am ignorant in many aspects of this discussion, but I hear you saying that everyone should agree on the origin of morality and that any deviation of such is a complete condemnation of an explanation. I think you yourself are not sold completely to the Enlightenment philosophies as I understand the movement.

 

In other words, the pull or deviation of Christianity off of the direct path to perfection is corrected by the pull or deviation of reason..for a time...but I don't see how this changes faith or the original cause or the final destination/endpoint.

[Guest end3]

A-man must have the code decipher...I can't comprehend what was meant from what was said.

 

Lol, yes, he is one of the few people that can connect the dots of my thoughts without me fleshing them out in my writing.

[Antlerman]

Oh, but the argument is that without Christ we are given over to our own barbarity and lusts and sinful nature. I say that is false. These advances in human rights were done outside the Christian religion. These were Enlightenment philosophies, the dignity of modernity.

 

Certainly I am ignorant in many aspects of this discussion, but I hear you saying that everyone should agree on the origin of morality and that any deviation of such is a complete condemnation of an explanation.

The only argument I am making here is that Ray's explanation of the events of history are consistent with pre-modern myths, and that those explanations are the opposite of what we see having actually occurred. I'm not making an argument here to say how I understand these things occurring in any theological sense, but rather that facts do not support Ray. We see humanity as a whole improving, not getting worse. That flies directly against his myth, and frankly his entire theological understanding as well.

 

I think you yourself are not sold completely to the Enlightenment philosophies as I understand the movement.

This is very true, but it's not an either/or option in my world. I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The advances within Modernity have brought the world important improvements to our overall maturity, both as individuals, as societies, and in knowledge. We are more advanced in our understanding and our dignity as humans than we have ever been in history. But at the same time, we also have developed some fairly serious pathologies in that growth. We took these advances and developed wonderful, incredible knew depth of understanding and possibilities, as well as a recognition of higher moral values. But, it failed to thrive in the sense of also developing any cohesive philosophy, or religion if you prefer, to bring these advances all together into an integrated whole.

 

So what you see with Ray's brand of religion is an attempt to reunite human experience underneath the umbrella of myth, the umbrella they used to be under before. But that is going back, forcing us to give up these advances in science, art, and culture to the control of dogma. This is like saying as a teenager develops certain pathologies, where he fails to integrate these changes in his life, in his mind, in his emotions as he transitions from being a child to a teen, that he should give up those changes and advances a normal healthy teen enjoys and instead be an eight-year old again! That is not the cure! That is poison to growth.

 

No, going back to myth is not the answer. Going forward, Ray taking his myth and accepting the light that science has shown and maturing his theological views from pre-rational myth, to a rational view that can integrate these important and necessary advances with a unifying umbrella that lives in a post-mythic reality. And trying to make the myth itself scientifically valid is hogwash. That's neither dealing with the reality of our knowledge we've gained, nor even recognize the spiritual value in the myth, underlying it, that can if his heart can deal with it, move beyond it's framework.

 

In other words, the pull or deviation of Christianity off of the direct path to perfection is corrected by the pull or deviation of reason..for a time...but I don't see how this changes faith or the original cause or the final destination/endpoint.

How it's a deviation is how I just explained. It prevents people from embracing what is necessary to embrace in order to mature and in fact become what I would call truly spiritual. We cannot deny our minds, we cannot deny reason in pursuit of 'salvation'. Just as we cannot deny our own spirit, IMO. The sword cuts both ways.

 

 

P.S. Yes, I think I must have the 'gift of interpretation' when it comes to translating your 'strange tongues'.

[Guest end3]

How it's a deviation is how I just explained. It prevents people from embracing what is necessary to embrace in order to mature and in fact become what I would call truly spiritual. We cannot deny our minds, we cannot deny reason in pursuit of 'salvation'. Just as we cannot deny our own spirit, IMO. The sword cuts both ways.

 

Well, I think we agree..

 

P.S. Yes, I think I must have the 'gift of interpretation' when it comes to translating your 'strange tongues'.

 

That makes one(1)....but I am glad you do.

[Mriana]

Satan cannot possibly be going around manipulating people tempting them to do evil acts so that they will ultimately end up in hell. If he is not omniscient or omnipresent then it is an impossibility because he would have to be spending every single moment of his time doing it. In fact he'd need more than just every single moment. Do you not believe that Satan is going around tempting people trying to manipulate people? How do you figure he does this when not omniscient or omnipresent?

 

Satan does not to be omniscient and omnipresent to tempt many people, I would liken his tactics to what CS Lewis portrays in The Screwtape Letters. But again, Satan needs only to be active and motivated to accomplish his purposes.

 

I tried to read Screwtape for a CS Lewis class and it read like I was reading a man in a mental ward. The prof. who was Catholic agreed that it did sound like that and told me to keep reading (not much choice since I wanted an A in the class, which I got). The man still read as though he was mentally ill through out the story. So what you are saying is that "Satan" is a mentally ill person? You know, that could be offensive to people who do have a mental illness. Then again, I must admit, those who talk about Satan... Well, I won't go into that, because we need something in the DSM for that and we don't yet. The DSM-V might provide it though.

 

 

 

[DesertBob]

Pre-modern myths always started with this notion of a once pristine state of the world that fell on a path downward towards ultimate blackness, and we are poised somewhere down that slope. Instead what we actually see once we have had to tools to actually examine it with, unlike those in primitive times, is that everything moves toward improvement, not destruction. Your myth is upside down.

I provisionally agree with you, AM. I see it moving in fits and starts with many setbacks, including the potential for substantial societal regression, but for all that, it seems that knowledge eventually has to win out over ignorance.

 

I see this as caused by mankind reaching a tipping point via the information age and widespread literacy. It would take a complete global collapse of technological society to reverse it now.

 

Which is probably the most optimistic thing I've had to say in a long time :-) Not optimistic for me personally, or even for the family of man in the short run, but, long term outlook is good, methinks.

[Antlerman]

Pre-modern myths always started with this notion of a once pristine state of the world that fell on a path downward towards ultimate blackness, and we are poised somewhere down that slope. Instead what we actually see once we have had to tools to actually examine it with, unlike those in primitive times, is that everything moves toward improvement, not destruction. Your myth is upside down.

I provisionally agree with you, AM. I see it moving in fits and starts with many setbacks, including the potential for substantial societal regression, but for all that, it seems that knowledge eventually has to win out over ignorance.

When I talk about it it may seems like it's a linear line but it's not. It's the overall direction of it, the overall progress as opposed to the actual process itself. That's evolution. As a whole it moves, the individual movements can be in waves or in spirals, passing past the same spot again and again in an overall movement.

 

Knowledge winning out over ignorance. Yes, but more than just a head knowledge. Our knowledge today is our ignorance tomorrow. I think what we see tomorrow as our ignorance today will be in the recognition that we thought we could figure it out with finding yet the next discovery through science. Our knowledge tomorrow will recognize a fuller picture of how we come to have knowledge and how we understand its place in our existence which transcends it. So yes, that will be a knowledge that understands its limits and our liberties. In other words our knowledge is also our ignorance.

 

I see this as caused by mankind reaching a tipping point via the information age and widespread literacy. It would take a complete global collapse of technological society to reverse it now.

I'm not entirely sure even if we collapsed technologically that we would or could ever entirely devolve back to our primitive minds. This is why I look at fundamentalists, like Ray, as in fact being like modern man pretending to be 1st Century "Saints". There is no way they actually can be. We have evolved beyond that. It's too late.

 

In essence, back to my earlier analogy of the teen with a dysfunction and some ignorant person suggesting his cure is to be an 8 year old again. At best you have a dysfunctional teen acting like a child, but not actually being a child, nor a normal healthy teen. Their regression is an acting out as a symptom of their adolescent dysfunction.

 

I'll say that again. Fundamentalism is a regressive acting out as a symptom of adolescent dysfunction.

 

It's not spiritual. It can't be. It's a symptom of dysfunction.

 

Which is probably the most optimistic thing I've had to say in a long time :-) Not optimistic for me personally, or even for the family of man in the short run, but, long term outlook is good, methinks.

Nice to hear optimism from you. Refreshing.

[Noggy]

This is the lions den? So I can call these dudes ridiculously dense and dumb?

 

Dudes, you're all really dense. One day it will click for you guys too. Just open your eyes to the fact that it all may not be true. Things make a lot more sense that way.

[Guest end3]

In essence, back to my earlier analogy of the teen with a dysfunction and some ignorant person suggesting his cure is to be an 8 year old again. At best you have a dysfunctional teen acting like a child, but not actually being a child, nor a normal healthy teen. Their regression is an acting out as a symptom of their adolescent dysfunction.

 

I'll say that again. Fundamentalism is a regressive acting out as a symptom of adolescent dysfunction.

 

It's not spiritual. It can't be. It's a symptom of dysfunction.

 

I keep telling you, but you won't listen, that it's a stage, an economy, within Spiritual development as presented in the tabernacle layout. Lot's of folks sitting there starting the Cross wondering what to do now, the Cross being the equivalent of the large altar in the outer court.

 

Also, I would like, if you have time to define "framework" that you keep mentioning. Thx.

[Antlerman]

In essence, back to my earlier analogy of the teen with a dysfunction and some ignorant person suggesting his cure is to be an 8 year old again. At best you have a dysfunctional teen acting like a child, but not actually being a child, nor a normal healthy teen. Their regression is an acting out as a symptom of their adolescent dysfunction.

 

I'll say that again. Fundamentalism is a regressive acting out as a symptom of adolescent dysfunction.

 

It's not spiritual. It can't be. It's a symptom of dysfunction.

 

I keep telling you, but you won't listen, that it's a stage, an economy, within Spiritual development as presented in the tabernacle layout. Lot's of folks sitting there starting the Cross wondering what to do now, the Cross being the equivalent of the large altar in the outer court.

It's funny, back when I was a newbie Christian and was exposed to that whole Tabernacle analogy drawing off the book of Hebrews, I was like "Oooh, wow, cool. It has to be from God cause the whole thing is there foreshadowed in the Old Testament!" I was impressed! Not really so much now. Sure, we can easily draw parallels and lessons from a lot of things from the OT Tabernacle, to an acorn, to the furry little tail on a raccoon. It's really up to the creativity of the person making the metaphor. The better you are at it, the better you can make it fit. It's hardly evidence of any Divine "plan", but it can be useful vehicle to illustrate with nonetheless, so long as you don't take them literally.

 

To me my favorite part of the Tabernacle metaphor was where the veil was ripped open in the Temple. There is no more need to come to the Tabernacle to find God. So.... time to empty the churches!

 

BTW, I don't think they're sitting there wondering what to do now. They know what they want to do and that is to substitute spirituality with religion. They look at the cross and think that is their salvation.

 

Also, I would like, if you have time to define "framework" that you keep mentioning. Thx.

Framework = the structures of understanding created through culture and language upon which we process and hang our observations and experiences and thoughts on to in order to give them shape, to give them form, and to how we interface with what we call "Reality". Think of the framing that goes up on which the house is built. To think we can know reality directly if we just examine hard enough what we observe alone 'out there' becomes utterly blind to that entire fabric of reality that is created through language and biology that becomes very much part of the reality of that house. To say we can know reality, we can know that house as it really, truly is by carefully examining the walls and roof and sides, ignores the entire structures that it hangs on, let alone the spaces inside.

[Guest end3]

In essence, back to my earlier analogy of the teen with a dysfunction and some ignorant person suggesting his cure is to be an 8 year old again. At best you have a dysfunctional teen acting like a child, but not actually being a child, nor a normal healthy teen. Their regression is an acting out as a symptom of their adolescent dysfunction.

 

I'll say that again. Fundamentalism is a regressive acting out as a symptom of adolescent dysfunction.

 

It's not spiritual. It can't be. It's a symptom of dysfunction.

 

I keep telling you, but you won't listen, that it's a stage, an economy, within Spiritual development as presented in the tabernacle layout. Lot's of folks sitting there starting the Cross wondering what to do now, the Cross being the equivalent of the large altar in the outer court.

It's funny, back when I was a newbie Christian and was exposed to that whole Tabernacle analogy drawing off the book of Hebrews, I was like "Oooh, wow, cool. It has to be from God cause the whole thing is there foreshadowed in the Old Testament!" I was impressed! Not really so much now. Sure, we can easily draw parallels and lessons from a lot of things from the OT Tabernacle, to an acorn, to the furry little tail on a raccoon. It's really up to the creativity of the person making the metaphor. The better you are at it, the better you can make it fit. It's hardly evidence of any Divine "plan", but it can be useful vehicle to illustrate with nonetheless, so long as you don't take them literally.

 

To me my favorite part of the Tabernacle metaphor was where the veil was ripped open in the Temple. There is no more need to come to the Tabernacle to find God. So.... time to empty the churches!

 

BTW, I don't think they're sitting there wondering what to do now. They know what they want to do and that is to substitute spirituality with religion. They look at the cross and think that is their salvation.

 

Also, I would like, if you have time to define "framework" that you keep mentioning. Thx.

Framework = the structures of understanding created through culture and language upon which we process and hang our observations and experiences and thoughts on to in order to give them shape, to give them form, and to how we interface with what we call "Reality". Think of the framing that goes up on which the house is built. To think we can know reality directly if we just examine hard enough what we observe alone 'out there' becomes utterly blind to that entire fabric of reality that is created through language and biology that becomes very much part of the reality of that house. To say we can know reality, we can know that house as it really, truly is by carefully examining the walls and roof and sides, ignores the entire structures that it hangs on, let alone the spaces inside.

 

If you are going to poo-poo the tabernacle analogy, then I am somewhat at a loss to help you see that it is IMO, a better definition of framework than what you have given. It allows for coming and going, acceptance, sacrifice, light, food, definition, grace and love, and more,......all in a progressive manner. For example, was the Law the original framework? Are we hanging our experiences on the framework through culture, etc. with grace and love now on the way to building a House of Love? Do you see? Basically, I don't see any difference between what I would describe as your discovery method and a structure already in place to achieve the same discovery.

 

The fact that people camp in one spot should not be amazing, should it? How many people do you know actively seek with respect to the population?

 

Edit: I don't mind your picture/representation being different than mine, I just enjoy agreement more than disunity. Your God is not in the Holy of Holies but on the outside apparently. Mine is in the final room but helps me learn the way there.

[Antlerman]

Framework = the structures of understanding created through culture and language upon which we process and hang our observations and experiences and thoughts on to in order to give them shape, to give them form, and to how we interface with what we call "Reality". Think of the framing that goes up on which the house is built. To think we can know reality directly if we just examine hard enough what we observe alone 'out there' becomes utterly blind to that entire fabric of reality that is created through language and biology that becomes very much part of the reality of that house. To say we can know reality, we can know that house as it really, truly is by carefully examining the walls and roof and sides, ignores the entire structures that it hangs on, let alone the spaces inside.

 

If you are going to poo-poo the tabernacle analogy, then I am somewhat at a loss to help you see that it is IMO, a better definition of framework than what you have given.

You asked me what I mean when I say framework of understanding. Talking about the Tabernacle, or an acorn, or a raccoon's tail, even though I can draw parallels to many things in life from these example, utterly fail to talk about the sweeping, all-encompassing meaning of Framework of Understanding or Framework of Reality that I am referring to. Your analogy is very specific to a certain aspect of life, I'm talking about knowledge and truth itself in how and where we seat our very worldviews themselves.

 

I can appreciate your Tabernacle analogy in regard to talking about how it may be able to draw comparison to how people behave, but again that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It's at best an analogy, not the very fabric of perception itself. I'm talking about that very fabric of perception itself: how we process what comes into our minds.

 

I'm talking this level:

 

 

• We experience something
  
• It splits into two parts: subjective and objective
  
• The subjective is highly affected by language, symbols, signs, experience, emotions, personality. It is only understood subjectively though these filters
  
• The objective is affected by tools of perception, ability to analyze, ability to measure, ability to reference
  

 

All of these vary by our technology, by our culture, by our evolutionary development mentally, etc. Furthermore, the subjective affects the objective, and the objective affects the subjective. There is no removal of either in how we process life.

 

Our notions of Reality are hung on these changing frameworks. To someone who denies the subjective as nothing other than brain function, that to understand the meaning you must understand the biology, the subtle nuances of it will never be looked at and considered as valid knowledge, and therefore that belief will affect the result, which is a reality which deprives that person of that experience and consequently any awareness that affects understanding. For the religious Dogmatist, the only valid religious experience belongs to their group and their deity. As a result, that belief deprives them of a greater understanding of their own experiences by dismissing others. And so on, and so forth.

 

Again, what does the Tabernacle have to do with this? If you want to discuss it as an analogy then we can do that....

 

For example, was the Law the original framework?

No, tribalism was.

 

Are we hanging our experiences on the framework through culture, etc. with grace and love now on the way to building a House of Love? Do you see?

Again, framework of understanding. That involves how the mind interprets things. Love, is that part of it? Yes, if someone gives it credence in their lives and makes its experience inform them to meaning.

 

In the spirit of changing and evolving frameworks, I would say that love is the highest influence, to the point that ultimately it informs every aspect of our lives and thus all our frameworks are informed by it. Now process that...

 

The fact that people camp in one spot should not be amazing, should it? How many people do you know actively seek with respect to the population?

Well, it's my belief not everyone can be peering into the heavens, so some have to bring up the rear of the ship heading across the ocean. Some have to be the steerage in the boat, which give the whole a certain amount of drag through the water so it doesn't just plane and capsize. Fundi's are definitely a major drag. (BTW, that was an analogy, not a framework).

 

 

P.P.S. Another use of framework of understanding could be a theoretical model. I certainly make use of those in my thinking. That's a valid use of framework of understanding too. But that's not how I meant it in talking of that invisible framework that informs us unawares to us, since that's what you asked me.

[Guest end3]

[*]We experience something

[*]It splits into two parts: subjective and objective

[*]The subjective is highly affected by language, symbols, signs, experience, emotions, personality. It is only understood subjectively though these filters

[*]The objective is affected by tools of perception, ability to analyze, ability to measure, ability to reference

 

All of these vary by our technology, by our culture, by our evolutionary development mentally, etc. Furthermore, the subjective affects the objective, and the objective affects the subjective. There is no removal of either in how we process life.

 

That's fine, but in a very broad sense, our "house", our "home", our "reality", objective mixed thoroughly with subjective is this framework decorated with experience....with all the aforementioned qualities. I would think there must BE a framework to build on. For example, if you don't mind me using the framework word, my framework 4 years ago was primarily less decorated, my house had less windows, less views. I don't see the framework changing so much as the experiences driving the renovations to the house. This, used with the tabernacle analogy, also a building that we traverse to some perfect construction. I don't see our personal houses being any different. So in the end, for example, you take someone who finally feels less need to define life as strictly objective builds a house that is less hostile to the subjective visitor.

 

Again, what does the Tabernacle have to do with this? If you want to discuss it as an analogy then we can do that....

 

Please see above, but my original impression of the Tabernacle is a movement towards God in a progression of experience and maturity. Very simply, you have many levels of

Spiritual maturity from minimal outside the outer wall...meandering back and forth through the gates to the outer court. Then inside the walls, looking at the lesson of sacrifice on the altar. For some, that is as far as they will go......kinda like going to church and never moving out of that pew for the rest of your life, never gaining much more insight into the lessons. Then you have the Holy Place, with the various lessons of that experience....the lampstand, the table, etc. Then ultimately a presence in God. So, I don't see this as much different than someone moving from the progressions you are describing to be ultimately Spiritual/Godly.

 

Again, framework of understanding. That involves how the mind interprets things. Love, is that part of it? Yes, if someone gives it credence in their lives and makes its experience inform them to meaning.

 

I tentatively gather what you are suggesting, but speculate that truth is essentially a plumb line regardless of our individual developing frameworks.

[rayskidude]

I actually do see suffering as 'necessary' in some ways, but those ways are not consistent with the mythical idea of God you have. Suffering is part of what drives the evolutionary process to strengthen and better humanity itself. The very fact you are trying to rationalize it to make your inherited mythology from our past fit somehow with a rational understanding, shows that you too think it needs to be overcome. You too are part of that evolutionary process to improve itself, to better survive, to better live. And ironically you don't even recognize that fact.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to pull you into this, but I'm happy to see you here. I will say ag-man in the future. Suffering does elicit & produce good compassionate courageous acts within our human race - that is one purpose for suffering. And I do believe that evil must be overcome - we are to do all we can to address tragedy, calamity, sickness, suffering, poverty, etc. The Church and individual Christians have done so throughout the centuries - as have others. We're all created in God's image & likeness with human sensibilities. But I am not part of an evolutionary process, I am part of a sanctification process, where we are striving to become like the Lord Jesus Christ - re: his character, compassion, forgiveness, service, etc. I certainly recognize a process - I disagree with your assessment of the nature of the process. I think you're mistaken - only a sanctification process leads to improvement, but certainly not evolution.

 

Pre-modern myths always started with this notion of a once pristine state of the world that fell on a path downward towards ultimate blackness, and we are poised somewhere down that slope. Instead what we actually see once we have had to tools to actually examine it with, unlike those in primitive times, is that everything moves toward improvement, not destruction. Your myth is upside down.

 

I agree that myths can have their basis in truth - and I think that various myths re: The Fall & The Curse harken back to the historical events that happened in the Garden of Eden. But to say that Mankind is improving? I continue to press you that you are simply not facing the facts of history. Improving technology, medicine, spreading democracy, better distribution of resources to address famine, etc do not equate to improvement. Witness the current fighting in Somalia, where the leadership confiscates supplies and famine is used as a weapon. As was done by Stalin against Ukraine decades ago.

 

In all honesty - how can you possibly examine the last 100 years on Planet Earth - with all the purges, holocausts, pogroms, wars, greed, etc and say there is improvement. I am truly baffled by your assertions. Do you believe that these man-made catastrophes are good and evolutionary? PLz help me understand.

 

In fact to my point you use your myth of looking to Christ to come on white horse through the clouds (hopefully avoiding our modern aircraft on his descent), as an expression of that very hope towards healing, health, and perfection that drives each and everyone of us. Your myth is an expression of that evolutionary force in our hearts that in fact drives us to betterment - not sin and destruction.

 

I fully agree that we all seek deliverance for this present world, and only the return of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, will bring that sought-after salvation. ONLY the return of Jesus Christ.

[Phanta]

I think you are being a bit harsh here. Women's rights, sure, but I don't see anyone rushing to elect women to high places of leadership.

 

Amongst your set. Female police chief and mayor in my town.

 

Take Facebook, basically one big gossip session between women.

 

Amongst your set. Lots of interesting conversation going in my facebook circles between and amongst all genders, transgenders and topics. We love discussing local issues, personal struggles, etc. But, we are people who do not believe in banging ourselves and into rigid gender roles, so everyone gets to participate in whatever they feel like participating in (see how that works?).

 

I held a female-only clothing swap recently and got flak from the men about AT LEAST including transgender and cross-dressers. Called me sexist! I am sufficiently chastised and considering the logistics of an open-gender swap this winter, probably involving various changing areas for the body-modest.

 

I believe the union of men aand women present a more rounded decision.

 

Or the union of three men makes a more rounded decision. Or a man, a woman, a transgendered man, and a transgendered woman makes a more rounded decision. Or 18 women from different parts of the world make a more rounded decision. Or five men from 5 different generations make a more rounded decision. All of these make more rounded decisions, because each person bring a different personal perspective which is made up of their personal biology, values, socialization, and experiences. You have less in common with most men in my social circle in every area of your life than you have with most women in your social circle.

 

We are moving towards a moral perfection for lack of a better word. How is this upside down as people are moving towards a perfection in Christ/God? You act like we are moving back towards slavery and oppression. A tired argument AM.

 

People are diverse. They have so many different strengths and qualities that cut across gender lines. You are fixated on fitting into a small, well-defined gender box, and stuffing everyone one else in that box, or another box, without regard for the reality of their personality, sense of self, expression, talents. Your faith is similarly rigid. But for those who do not have that need for a rigid gender definition, telling them they are deficient is moving backwards. People need to flourish as individuals in interdependent relationships, not as men and women in codependent relationships. When the Bible was written, there was not this idea of individualism like there is now. This is how we as a human race are striving to evolve. Help us, already, End!

 

Phanta

[Guest end3]

I think you are being a bit harsh here. Women's rights, sure, but I don't see anyone rushing to elect women to high places of leadership.

 

Amongst your set. Female police chief and mayor in my town.

 

Take Facebook, basically one big gossip session between women.

 

Amongst your set. Lots of interesting conversation going in my facebook circles between and amongst all genders, transgenders and topics. We love discussing local issues, personal struggles, etc. But, we are people who do not believe in banging ourselves and into rigid gender roles, so everyone gets to participate in whatever they feel like participating in (see how that works?).

 

I held a female-only clothing swap recently and got flak from the men about AT LEAST including transgender and cross-dressers. Called me sexist! I am sufficiently chastised and considering the logistics of an open-gender swap this winter, probably involving various changing areas for the body-modest.

 

I believe the union of men aand women present a more rounded decision.

 

Or the union of three men makes a more rounded decision. Or a man, a woman, a transgendered man, and a transgendered woman makes a more rounded decision. Or 18 women from different parts of the world make a more rounded decision. Or five men from 5 different generations make a more rounded decision. All of these make more rounded decisions, because each person bring a different personal perspective which is made up of their personal biology, values, socialization, and experiences. You have less in common with most men in my social circle in every area of your life than you have with most women in your social circle.

 

We are moving towards a moral perfection for lack of a better word. How is this upside down as people are moving towards a perfection in Christ/God? You act like we are moving back towards slavery and oppression. A tired argument AM.

 

People are diverse. They have so many different strengths and qualities that cut across gender lines. You are fixated on fitting into a small, well-defined gender box, and stuffing everyone one else in that box, or another box, without regard for the reality of their personality, sense of self, expression, talents. Your faith is similarly rigid. But for those who do not have that need for a rigid gender definition, telling them they are deficient is moving backwards. People need to flourish as individuals in interdependent relationships, not as men and women in codependent relationships. When the Bible was written, there was not this idea of individualism like there is now. This is how we as a human race are striving to evolve. Help us, already, End!

 

Phanta

 

I can always count on you for a solid repromand......and I hear your argument, but I am really not convinced P. What are the actual member numbers on facebook, men vs women? Women are more social, more gossipy. Men are more analytical. Perhaps this is the same thing AM and I are discussing.....the need for both to form a complete entity.

Face it, one analytical + one socially oriented covers more turf than two analyticals or two socials.....unlike poker. If you decide "covers more turf" is not adaquate, then certainly it presents a unique entity vs the others......no way around it.

 

You take my business....there are a lot of women in managerial positions, but there is more backstabbing and crap that goes on in that business than three businesses with men only. I'm not so much forcing the issue as accepting the reality.

[Antlerman]

And I do believe that evil must be overcome - we are to do all we can to address tragedy, calamity, sickness, suffering, poverty, etc. The Church and individual Christians have done so throughout the centuries - as have others.

In what ways fit well enough within the context of their days. I'll certainly grant that. Do bear in mind they still believed slavery and the subjection of women and other races were morally valid, as well as caring for the poor and widowed. This is pretty much historical fact. I'm not judging them as morally inferior. Not at all. I'm recognizing them as part of the moral world they were part of at the time. That's a morality we have now surpassed today, just as they had surpassed human sacrifice to the gods in their day.

 

We're all created in God's image & likeness with human sensibilities. But I am not part of an evolutionary process, I am part of a sanctification process, where we are striving to become like the Lord Jesus Christ - re: his character, compassion, forgiveness, service, etc.

If you're not part of the evolutionary process then which universe not ours did your physical body that looks just like mind come from, pray tell? Do you actually understand what evolution really is? I gather you summarily reject it because you don't like the idea that humans evolved from one of numerous lines of primates, just as primates evolved from early species. But what evolution really is is just that - a process. It's the process of change, and how it happens. You say you're part of a sanctification process, but couldn't that be that very process of evolution that I'm speaking of?

 

Evolution is all about improvement of design. It's tendency is toward increasing complexity, improved design. And if your values of love in the image of God are of the highest level, then guess how that happens? Guess which process brings about this transformation from animals to God? A process of change. And that process has a name. Evolution.

 

What we see in history is exactly that transformation, from animals to as the philosopher Plotinus observed, mankind is poised midway between the beasts and the gods. Every millennium or so we move one step further towards developing, or evolving, a compassionate world-soul.

 

I certainly recognize a process - I disagree with your assessment of the nature of the process. I think you're mistaken - only a sanctification process leads to improvement, but certainly not evolution.

Why not evolution? What is 'bad' about evolution to you? I sense a prejudice in your tone about it. Why? Evolution is really another word for development. We all develop over time, humans, societies, cultures and it all follows the same patterns that biological evolution does. You think that evolution leads to death or something, and not an overall improvement?

 

I agree that myths can have their basis in truth - and I think that various myths re: The Fall & The Curse harken back to the historical events that happened in the Garden of Eden.

Not so fast there! I didn't say they were based on truth in the sense of historical facts! You can't agree with me on that since I never said that. I believe they were based on a perceived truth about the origins of man, without the actually benefit of any evidence, eyewitness accounts, or recorded history. Origin myths are a common feature of societies, and they bear certain earmark features. But those common features are about how early man thought about his place in the world. It betrays a certain conceptual framework functioning in a prerational world, in exactly the same way a child does before he develops higher cognitive functions.

 

The fact that you can see a child pass through developmental stages into a reasoning mind, and imagine that somehow humans as a whole didn't, is truly magical thinking on your part. A child follows the same pattern in their development that the species as a whole has to this point in our evolution. This pattern of development is unvarying in all cultures. It is universal. We do in 20 years what humans developed over 200,000. We quickly mature these inherited qualities passed down to us.

 

It's how evolution works, gradually develop traits, pass them on to the children, as they gradually build on those with new and higher traits, then pass those on, and so forth. Again, this pattern of development is universal, and is a view back into our history as an evolving species. Where do you think that developmental pattern came from?? Why would God make humans develop as individuals, while somehow magically make humans fully evolved to begin with? It makes no sense at all. There no reason your child shouldn't have been born with a fully developed mind, as that follows the Mud + Magic model of creation. Is there?

[Antlerman]

But to say that Mankind is improving? I continue to press you that you are simply not facing the facts of history.

Not facing the facts of history? You're joking. I'll list the actual facts of history that existed nowhere in society as widely-accepted values prior to the Enlightenment:

 

 

• Equality
  
• Freedom
  
• Representational and deliberative democracy
  
• The equality of citizens before the law, regardless of race, sex, or creed
  
• Political and civil rights
  
• Freedom of speech
  
• Freedom of assembly
  
• Fair trial
  
• The end of slavery
  
• and...Freedom of Religion guaranteed by constitution
  

 

Now Ray, I want you to accept this also, that no premodern religion delivered any of these values and rights on a large scale, and in fact often did the exact opposite! That Ray, is the fact of history. That is what actually has occurred historically. That is overwhelmingly evident. Do you deny this?

 

If your religion is what brought these to life and light in the world, then please offer proof. So as it stands, my point is correct. We improved, and we improved without it coming through church dogma. We are not sinners unraveling at the seams. We are growing more moral! Accept the facts Ray.

 

Improving technology, medicine, spreading democracy, better distribution of resources to address famine, etc do not equate to improvement.

No they don't, but the above list I offered does. WE ARE NOT PERFECT. Quit trying to say because we still have illnesses, immaturity, ignorance, and prejudices, that we are not improving! Do you say that to your child??? "You'll never be any better. Just look at you, you piece of filth! May God have mercy on you Billy!"

 

Of course you wouldn't. You're not full of that much ignorance and darkness in your soul. So now extend that to others. Open your eyes and your heart. We are improving, morally. Just as you did growing up from childhood to adulthood.

 

Methinks you should really look hard at exactly what evolution really is, Ray.

 

Witness the current fighting in Somalia, where the leadership confiscates supplies and famine is used as a weapon.

yes, and many of us have a long ways to go. But... the fact that you today find it appalling tells it all!! Back when, back in your Biblical days, that was normal and acceptable! Peace was only an interruption of war back then! People lived war. Back then they wouldn't have blinked at Somalia, and yet we do! Get it?

 

We are improving. We know it's wrong. And they are not even of our own tribe! Get it? We see beyond ourselves. We see beyond our group and extend our compassion to strangers! Wow. When and where did that ever happen in history on a scale like this Ray?? Wow. Good example Ray. It makes my point loudly.

 

As was done by Stalin against Ukraine decades ago.

Yep, and we are learning from history's lessons on our path to betterment. My point, we don't accept this. We're growing beyond it. This fact flies straights into the face of your argument and destroys it.

 

In all honesty - how can you possibly examine the last 100 years on Planet Earth - with all the purges, holocausts, pogroms, wars, greed, etc and say there is improvement.

I just did. Yes, we aren't perfect, and autrocites like this stand forever etched into our collective minds as IMMORAL. We never want that to happen again. That is an improvement to what was once seen as just how things were. We no longer are willing to accept that. We have improved beyond that in what we are willing to turn a blind eye to anymore - like slavery, which the church did nothing about in 2000 years.

 

I am truly baffled by your assertions.

No assertions. Just the facts. I'm baffled that you can't see the power of what is in fact unfolding in the world in front of your eyes? Higher good is emerging, and you have those unwilling to evolve themselves, and this is why you have the wars you have and an increase in fundamentalism.

 

Do you believe that these man-made catastrophes are good and evolutionary? PLz help me understand.

I believe that man has always been destructive from the first, but we are learning ways to not be precisely because the greatest danger of technology is that it just takes the obliviousness of individuals in their world and increases its destructive power by many magnitudes, potentially even globally! That's very scary. That's why people are rising up to say enough! Be responsible!

 

The fact we are shows improvement. What kind of vehicle do you as a Christian drive? What about your fellow conservatives? How many miles per gallon does that SUV that Jesus blessed them with get? My point is, our consciousness is awakening regardless of the religion. It comes from within all of us, and is how we have evolved from waring primates, to an emerging globally compassionate world. If, we can manage to stop the few in their lusts with dangerous tools from destroying the majority of those who love life.

 

I fully agree that we all seek deliverance for this present world, and only the return of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, will bring that sought-after salvation. ONLY the return of Jesus Christ.

That's nonsense. I never said we are looking for deliverance from this world! Not at all. That is such an incredibly, unloving, narcissistic sentiment! "God get me away from this hole!" No, I say we need to embrace the highest possible Truth within us and let it flow out in compassion to the world, transforming it into that very "image of God" you talk about with no understanding at all, it seems.

 

You astound me sometimes. I hope there's something in you that can hear.

[duderonomy]

"Good questions. Are you now claiming to be an expert on Satan? Chatted with him lately? Perhaps the reason he is all these things is because God intended him to be. The bible certainly shows us in the OT that Satan was like God's lap dog. You can see the book of Job for an example of this. Satan did God's dirty work for him. He was only allowed to act when God gave him permission. Perhaps God wanted Satan to run riot, perhaps to give him a bit of competition? Ever thought of that? Like a chess game. Chess is no fun when you play it by yourself, you need an opponent. God most likely realised that. Imagine a world with no sin and no Satan. Everybody worshipping God and everything's wonderful. No drama for God. No entertainment value. there's only so much ass kissing you can take before you get bored, right...? Mmmmm, I guess it will be like that in heaven. Better watch it, you might find God gets bored again and decides to create another evil sickening creature to taunt his creations with.

 

"Perhaps Satan rebelled against God on principle and in Heaven when you find out what a cruel task master God is you might decide to rebel too?"

 

Job does not show us that Satan was God's lap dog. Satan in the book of Job had been walking to and fro wherever he pleased, on earth as he did in heaven, and manipulated God with a wager, a question, an observation and a doubt. God fell for it. If there was a Biblical Satan, then it looks instead as if God did Satan's dirty work in the book of Job. The boils, the death, the whole thing.

 

Satan did the entire Genesis snake in the garden thing with Eve, and then with God in Job, and it worked both

times.

[rayskidude]

But to say that Mankind is improving? I continue to press you that you are simply not facing the facts of history.

Not facing the facts of history? You're joking. I'll list the actual facts of history that existed nowhere in society as widely-accepted values prior to the Enlightenment:

 

• 
   
  
• Equality
  
• Freedom
  
• Representational and deliberative democracy
  
• The equality of citizens before the law, regardless of race, sex, or creed
  
• Political and civil rights
  
• Freedom of speech
  
• Freedom of assembly
  
• Fair trial
  
• The end of slavery
  
• and...Freedom of Religion guaranteed by constitution
  

 

Now Ray, I want you to accept this also, that no premodern religion delivered any of these values and rights on a large scale, and in fact often did the exact opposite! That Ray, is the fact of history. That is what actually has occurred historically. That is overwhelmingly evident. Do you deny this?

 

If your religion is what brought these to life and light in the world, then please offer proof. So as it stands, my point is correct. We improved, and we improved without it coming through church dogma. We are not sinners unraveling at the seams. We are growing more moral! Accept the facts Ray.

 

I grant the things you've listed are improvements, but I think as we look at the vast sweep of human history, this list comprises things which are only Pyrrhic victories. We're thankful for these advances, but cannot promote them as evidence that humanity is evolving and improving as a race. Way too much death and destruction occurring as we speak - even the the face of some significant victories. I'll respond with more later.

[Thackerie]

Excellent post, OnceConvinced!

 

Ask yourself this. How do you think God will deal with sin in heaven? Do you think you will be an automaton then,incapable of indepedent thought an action?

Wouldn't the typical xtian answer to this be that there is no sin possible in heaven, because our sinful natures no longer exist and we have been transformed into new heavenly beings? Then how is it that satan, a heavenly being, an angel, sinned against god? The other problem is that nothing seems to be set in stone in this place called heaven any more than it is on earth. There are wars and all kinds of strange things happening. Eternity is a rather long time and an omniscient god could do whatever he pleases as eternity progresses. Xtians would say that god is perfect, therefore he will keep his promises to us.

 

I think one of the reasons xtians conclude that we have turned away from xtianity due to being angry with god is because they don't understand we are only discussing our viewpoints about characters in stories when we raise these issues. They interpret our viewpoints to mean that deep down we actually think god is exists but is malevolent, so we don't like him. We simply don't believe the god of the bible exists at all and we use these stories to illustrate why he doesn't make logical sense. He is not consistent with the highest intelligence in the universe, neither an all loving one, nor a just one, etc. There are many other inconsistencies in the bible as well, so we have rejected it as the ultimate truth.

 

Xtians claim that we just don't understand the bible or god, but we have been where they are and we thought we understood it at the time, just as they do now. When they talk to us, it's a mirror of our past selves. The truth is that they don't understand god or the bible either. That is why they are forced to resort to "God works in mysterious ways" ... "We can't possible understand god with our limited capacity" ...those types of weak rationalizations. I attempted to use those same rationalizations to maintain my faith when I was a xtian. I had an incredible amount of faith and accepted that I did not need to understand what didn't make sense ... that god was perfect and it was only my own lack of understanding that would make me doubt that. Thankfully I came out of that fog.

 

Excellent post! I wish I could "like" it more than once.

[Thackerie]

I apologise for my outburst

None needed.

 

What I really cannot understand is how theists are so fucking dense to think that their wholly babble is authoritative to us heathen?

 

The twats cannot have a discussion w/o streaming walls of text.

 

Maybe it's because they believe in magic? Maybe they think if we heathens hear or read the just-right mix of magic words from the magic book they idolize, we'll all come slithering on our bellies back to their mind-fuck cult?

 

Or maybe it's even simpler than that: They really are just dense. (At least, that's my opinion of anyone living in a developed nation in the 21st century who believes in the literal existence of bogeymen. Sheesh!)