The Bible Boogyman

[Guest end3]

I'm sure you will in your ignorance say this is who we are if we become Christians, but that is not the context at all. He is not talking to his disciples but human beings standing around who are in fact capable of being good, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc. Those people, those who follow good, are called the Children of God. He is appealing to something INSIDE them, not something they get after they join your cult and magic happens.

 

I see that as the OT def .....those found righteous realative to their day....not perfect by any means. It didn't work then as it doesn't work today. Everyone cannot exist a single day without committing some type of "sin" by definintion, be it lust, whatever....lust being my favorite. Then you're wiping out the the crucifixion, faith, etc. by your deifintion.

 

Answer, those with a pure heart. Humans. Those who have a pure heart. Surely you're not so naive as to take that to mean a convert to a religion, are you? Follow the order... 1. Pure heart 2. See God. What's that? If you, inside, have a pure heart, then 2. you will see God. Internal. Inside you. Within you. Get it yet?

 

Regardless of where It resides, by the story, subscription to good was initially subscribing to relative righteousness within that day, and now, the definition is NOT the same via ANY Christian church I am aware. You are welcome to present the scriptures to support such.

 

And for grins and giggles, what is the genetic mechanism for "good"......oh shit, did I say genetic mechanism? .....that would open the door for possible racism? WHAA????

 

Well, that's the problem with your religion then! It rejects pure hearts based on religious affiliations! How possibly more carnally minded can you get, judging according to the flesh?

 

Yes, religious affiliations, not Godly ones.....

 

 

 

 

Edit: If you belief is true than Christ was never a man, but more of figurative representation of perfect man?

 

And yes, I would like to add to my last answer.....religious affilliations. Yes, religiously subscribing to good. I would like you to describe evolution of good without race.....And if race is involved, then what does that say about the Bible story????

[Antlerman]

I'm sure you will in your ignorance say this is who we are if we become Christians, but that is not the context at all. He is not talking to his disciples but human beings standing around who are in fact capable of being good, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc. Those people, those who follow good, are called the Children of God. He is appealing to something INSIDE them, not something they get after they join your cult and magic happens.

 

I see that as the OT def .....those found righteous realative to their day....not perfect by any means. It didn't work then as it doesn't work today. Everyone cannot exist a single day without committing some type of "sin" by definintion, be it lust, whatever....lust being my favorite.

It certainly did work, according to Jesus' proclamation to the pure of heart, the meek, those who seek righteousness, the peacemakers in fact existed. Blessed are those!, he says. Do you want to say it was some sort of twisted object lesson that should be understood this this: "Blessed are the peacemakers... which none of you are!!! Bwahaaaahaaaaa". No, I think he was talking to what people were capable of. Otherwise it's nonsense. Why not just say 'you're all incapable of any good!', which is what your Orthodox Christian Theologians came up with 300 years later.

 

Then you're wiping out the the crucifixion, faith, etc. by your deifintion.

Yes. That is exactly why the Christian church 300 years later came up with this doctrine of orignial sin that Ray, and apparently you just swallowed whole from the church's doctrinal soup mix.

 

Here, please read this End and let me know your thoughts: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_hist_pelagius.htm

 

Personally, if Christianity had adopted his views instead of Augustine's, I think the world would be a whole lot better off, and frankly the religion might work better for those who know we are not dirty rotten sinners, but for the forgiveness of a god above.

 

God in us, is a whole lot more appealing, and consistent with the reality of the human heart towards the good.

 

That we "sin" every day is first of all a labeling of often times normal, healthy human behavior as 'bad' - guaranteeing a captive audience to always come back for 'forgiveness'; forgiveness for essentially breathing and eating and sleeping and being alive. Secondly, those flaws, or even outright bad behaviors are what we try to overcome as normal, maturing humans. Again, not some eternal factor. I believe in higher mind, higher morals, and higher consciousness. But I do not at all consider stages of growth and our stumbling and bumbling about on the rise to that to be 'sinful'. It is part of the process. Learn, grow, and move beyond. Don't grovel in the dirt and beat your chest to heaven crying, "Oh God, forgive me for the worm that I am!". Forgive yourself, and stop using God that way.

 

 

Answer, those with a pure heart. Humans. Those who have a pure heart. Surely you're not so naive as to take that to mean a convert to a religion, are you? Follow the order... 1. Pure heart 2. See God. What's that? If you, inside, have a pure heart, then 2. you will see God. Internal. Inside you. Within you. Get it yet?

 

Regardless of where It resides, by the story, subscription to good was initially subscribing to relative righteousness within that day, and now, the definition is NOT the same via ANY Christian church I am aware. You are welcome to present the scriptures to support such.

If you want to make these time specific references then fine. Christianity itself was for that day. Now we are here, 2000 years later. It's funny, in a lot of ways that how I do see this. That the Orthodoxy that was created by the Bishops of Rome that became your Protestant religion through its mother the Holy See, was a dumbed-down version of spirituality so that the masses could process it with their unenlightened minds. Now that we are growing up, it's time to set the bar higher. I liken Christianity to us today to be what Judaism was to them 2000 years ago. Upgrade version 2.0. Where's version 3.0? Maybe its "Religion with out Borders"? That sounds better, doesn't it?

 

And for grins and giggles, what is the genetic mechanism for "good"?

Yikes, I could fill 200 paragraphs of explanation on that question. I'll keep it simple, and consequently an unclear answer to what I really mean. It's not genetic, but holistic. It's the process of evolution itself, towards fully actualized awareness through form. The spiritual component is that the essence of all Being itself is Spirit. It is the interior that is realized in ever unfolding degrees of depth, through ever increasing complexity. Evolution is the manifest expression of that in external form. I do accept that "Omega Point" view, that all things in dynamic systems move towards that, are drawn to that, are pushed towards that through these processes. Of course it's not a straight and linear line, but an overall rising and falling in movement towards that in an unfolding and enfolding universe. What is the mechanism? Being itself.

 

 

I would like you to describe evolution of good without race.....And if race is involved, then what does that say about the Bible story????

I'm not sure what race has to do with anything. Actually, there is only one race and that race is Human. Skin color has zip to do with anything. We are all 99% identical genetically.

 

The evolution of good? It is our Nature. The nature of the Divine. We move towards that, not away from it. My entire point expressed in all my previous posts. It's fine if someone doesn't call that the Divine, but there is movement towards good away from bad, nonetheless, and the theology that says otherwise is outdated, and upside down.

[Antlerman]

Edit: If you belief is true than Christ was never a man, but more of figurative representation of perfect man?

I'm not a mythicist. I believe there was a real Jesus, but the Bible writers created him in symbolic ways that took him to a level beyond just the teacher.

 

How I understand what "the Christ" is, is something more than the man Jesus. The Christ is an expression of the Divine in the minds of those in the Asia Minor area where Paul developed that concept. I understand what is meant by Christ in this sense, and to open a can of worms, it is the state of consciousness of Divine Mind, that is accessible to everyone. It is Buddha-mind, Christ Consciousness, etc. It gets really murky going there in discussion, but in essence it is the expression of Godhead in various theologies in World Religions. Christianity most definitely was influenced by Eastern religions in this area. I could explain more, but it would take time.

[Guest end3]

It certainly did work, according to Jesus' proclamation to the pure of heart, the meek, those who seek righteousness, the peacemakers in fact existed. Blessed are those!, he says. Do you want to say it was some sort of twisted object lesson that should be understood this this: "Blessed are the peacemakers... which none of you are!!! Bwahaaaahaaaaa". No, I think he was talking to what people were capable of. Otherwise it's nonsense. Why not just say 'you're all incapable of any good!', which is what your Orthodox Christian Theologians came up with 300 years later.

 

You are missing my point that "in favor"/ "relative righteous" is not Christ. The faithful pursuit is much different, IMO, that the destination. Also, the book describes all of us from two people, one man.....that got "banned" because of sin. I myself maintain that humanity is inherently good, yet, I can certainly see the point that is made with a sinful, worldly world. It is inescapeable for me and you. So I see your point, but disagree from a observed reality POV.

 

 

That we "sin" every day is first of all a labeling of often times normal, healthy human behavior as 'bad' - guaranteeing a captive audience to always come back for 'forgiveness'; forgiveness for essentially breathing and eating and sleeping and being alive. Secondly, those flaws, or even outright bad behaviors are what we try to overcome as normal, maturing humans. Again, not some eternal factor. I believe in higher mind, higher morals, and higher consciousness. But I do not at all consider stages of growth and our stumbling and bumbling about on the rise to that to be 'sinful'. It is part of the process. Learn, grow, and move beyond. Don't grovel in the dirt and beat your chest to heaven crying, "Oh God, forgive me for the worm that I am!". Forgive yourself, and stop using God that way.

 

Yes, but there is not ONLY the fair pursuit of self improvement/learning etc., but there is "evil" with intent.....but to you credit you used the word ofen rather than always. K, there are transgressions worth groveling over.

 

 

If you want to make these time specific references then fine. Christianity itself was for that day. Now we are here, 2000 years later. It's funny, in a lot of ways that how I do see this. That the Orthodoxy that was created by the Bishops of Rome that became your Protestant religion through its mother the Holy See, was a dumbed-down version of spirituality so that the masses could process it with their unenlightened minds. Now that we are growing up, it's time to set the bar higher. I liken Christianity to us today to be what Judaism was to them 2000 years ago. Upgrade version 2.0. Where's version 3.0? Maybe its "Religion with out Borders"? That sounds better, doesn't it?

 

The Doctrine of Good? Kind of some interesting thoughts of what would be version 3.0.

 

Yikes, I could fill 200 paragraphs of explanation on that question. I'll keep it simple, and consequently an unclear answer to what I really mean. It's not genetic, but holistic. It's the process of evolution itself, towards fully actualized awareness through form. The spiritual component is that the essence of all Being itself is Spirit. It is the interior that is realized in ever unfolding degrees of depth, through ever increasing complexity. Evolution is the manifest expression of that in external form. I do accept that "Omega Point" view, that all things in dynamic systems move towards that, are drawn to that, are pushed towards that through these processes. Of course it's not a straight and linear line, but an overall rising and falling in movement towards that in an unfolding and enfolding universe. What is the mechanism? Being itself.

 

Yeah, lot's of discussion potential here. I don't have the energy to make counter-points, but thanks for the effort. I just place humanity in a different category.

 

The evolution of good? It is our Nature. The nature of the Divine. We move towards that, not away from it. My entire point expressed in all my previous posts. It's fine if someone doesn't call that the Divine, but there is movement towards good away from bad, nonetheless, and the theology that says otherwise is outdated, and upside down.

 

I agree that is the nature of the Divine(and I am sure we are talking two different definitions), but you somewhat hint at an inanimate unfolding only governed by the nature of the unfolding. Humans don't seem to mirror the balance that we see naturally, so I would have to disagree with the notion that the unfolding is without exception for humanity.

 

And, we really can't unfold in any way, moving towards good, without defining detriment as we go. So that really leans away from some good not being defined beforehand.....nature moving towards such. In other words, how is the whole thing moving that way but still being defined by humanity. That is not logical.

[Antlerman]

It certainly did work, according to Jesus' proclamation to the pure of heart, the meek, those who seek righteousness, the peacemakers in fact existed. Blessed are those!, he says. Do you want to say it was some sort of twisted object lesson that should be understood this this: "Blessed are the peacemakers... which none of you are!!! Bwahaaaahaaaaa". No, I think he was talking to what people were capable of. Otherwise it's nonsense. Why not just say 'you're all incapable of any good!', which is what your Orthodox Christian Theologians came up with 300 years later.

 

You are missing my point that "in favor"/ "relative righteous" is not Christ. The faithful pursuit is much different, IMO, that the destination.

If you are saying that there was 'less' of an experience of God prior to Jesus, I think you are imposing that from a "Christian-centric" theological bias. Let's take what Jesus said again, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." To underscore that, "they shall see God". To put a finer point on it, they shall "see God". That doesn't sound relative or partial to me.

 

Also, the book describes all of us from two people, one man.....that got "banned" because of sin. I myself maintain that humanity is inherently good, yet, I can certainly see the point that is made with a sinful, worldly world. It is inescapeable for me and you. So I see your point, but disagree from a observed reality POV.

What's funny about the myth is that it actually does describe quite well the state of being human. It's just that it says so in an orientation that imagines a fall from a full cognizant awareness. That's just the framework of the story, not the literal 'how' of it, but the point is that state of existential angst at being not quite animal, and not quite God. There is a sense of isolation, of separation from the world, and from the Divine. I just happen to understand that in the opposite direction. The eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was a choice to open our eyes and no longer be just part of the ecosystem alone, as the rabbit or the squirrel. We chose to move forward and see the world as God.

 

That's a positive story, but its choice brought woe to us, because now were were cognizantly aware of death, not just our own physical self, but our unique identities as individuals in our own mortality. A frightening an lonely prospect for the choice to be aware. So to speak.

 

Ponder that.

 

Yes, but there is not ONLY the fair pursuit of self improvement/learning etc., but there is "evil" with intent.....but to you credit you used the word ofen rather than always. K, there are transgressions worth groveling over.

Evil with intent is a dysfunction, an illness of the body and mind. But in all honesty, that sort of dysfunction is rare. The body must as a whole be healthier than sick. If it was our nature, if our hearts are inherently bent on destruction, we would have all become dead millennia ago and not having this discussion today.

 

Yikes, I could fill 200 paragraphs of explanation on that question. I'll keep it simple, and consequently an unclear answer to what I really mean. It's not genetic, but holistic. It's the process of evolution itself, towards fully actualized awareness through form. The spiritual component is that the essence of all Being itself is Spirit. It is the interior that is realized in ever unfolding degrees of depth, through ever increasing complexity. Evolution is the manifest expression of that in external form. I do accept that "Omega Point" view, that all things in dynamic systems move towards that, are drawn to that, are pushed towards that through these processes. Of course it's not a straight and linear line, but an overall rising and falling in movement towards that in an unfolding and enfolding universe. What is the mechanism? Being itself.

 

Yeah, lot's of discussion potential here. I don't have the energy to make counter-points, but thanks for the effort. I just place humanity in a different category.

That's interesting why you see that humanity is in a different category, whereas you imagine I don't. Sure we are in a different category in where we are at on that scale, but we are also not in that we are part of that overall system itself of the Universe. We are literally, the Universe aware of itself, in a way that is unique to us. We are wonderful and unique, shining jewels in the cosmos (notice how very, very unlike this is in vision to the deep pessimism of Ray's theology?). But that specialness is not because we are "unlike" this or that over there!

 

It is not a comparison of better or worse, but of a brilliant shining of a conscious mind awakening to the glories of Life Itself! The tree is beautiful, the ant, the birds, the ocean, the sky, the clouds, the insects, the child, the parent, the adult, the man, the woman, the downtrodden, the inspired, all living, experiencing, and being part of this stupendous, incomprehensible and infinite glory of existence, of Being and Becoming.

 

And, we really can't unfold in any way, moving towards good, without defining detriment as we go. So that really leans away from some good not being defined beforehand.....nature moving towards such. In other words, how is the whole thing moving that way but still being defined by humanity. That is not logical.

This gets complex here. I'm not going to touch on it here very much. In brief, how we define things is a cognitive construct of raw experience itself which is independent of definitions. Those constructs are always part of our interpretive framework that is both individually and culturally influenced. The only way to experience that Reality itself, is to move beyond all definitions. This is where things like intuition come to bear, where we respond to what we later call better, or worse. It can be argued that there are universals of 'better' or 'worse', and I would make the case that it comes from a place consistent with more evolved or developed conscious awareness. It not just 'pragmatic' in function, but existential. Love.

 

 

Something to think about. Try to process your understanding of God in a context like this. Spend a formidable amount of time on that, looking from this angle and that. I know you're good for that.

[Guest end3]

[

quote name='Antlerman' timestamp='1314238713' post='688151]

If you are saying that there was 'less' of an experience of God prior to Jesus, I think you are imposing that from a "Christian-centric" theological bias. Let's take what Jesus said again, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." To underscore that, "they shall see God". To put a finer point on it, they shall "see God". That doesn't sound relative or partial to me.

 

I was trying to make the point that in the OT, the selection of God's "special" guys to do his work were those he found favor with. I have always taken that as righteous relative to their peers, but not to the pefect standard of Christ. Please pardon my lack of clarification. You also point out "they shall". I have also garnered that that was futuristic in nature.....they shall see God in the last day for lack of a better phrase. I DO though, see your point that experiencing God at that moment is possible. I believe that as well. The crux is giving credit to where credit is due.....per dogma....Christ. Just saying.

 

Also, the book describes all of us from two people, one man.....that got "banned" because of sin. I myself maintain that humanity is inherently good, yet, I can certainly see the point that is made with a sinful, worldly world. It is inescapeable for me and you. So I see your point, but disagree from a observed reality POV.

 

What's funny about the myth is that it actually does describe quite well the state of being human. It's just that it says so in an orientation that imagines a fall from a full cognizant awareness. That's just the framework of the story, not the literal 'how' of it, but the point is that state of existential angst at being not quite animal, and not quite God. There is a sense of isolation, of separation from the world, and from the Divine. I just happen to understand that in the opposite direction. The eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was a choice to open our eyes and no longer be just part of the ecosystem alone, as the rabbit or the squirrel. We chose to move forward and see the world as God.

 

I don't know that that is not a valid perspective, but you have to understand that you will be fighting an uphill battle convincing the even moderate Christian because of the intrenched views.

 

That's a positive story, but its choice brought woe to us, because now were were cognizantly aware of death, not just our own physical self, but our unique identities as individuals in our own mortality. A frightening an lonely prospect for the choice to be aware. So to speak.

 

Yes it is, and I hope that it is wrong and more figurative with respect to livings one's life accessing "God". Don't get me wrong, some post death heaven would be good...lol.

 

That's interesting why you see that humanity is in a different category, whereas you imagine I don't. Sure we are in a different category in where we are at on that scale, but we are also not in that we are part of that overall system itself of the Universe. We are literally, the Universe aware of itself, in a way that is unique to us. We are wonderful and unique, shining jewels in the cosmos (notice how very, very unlike this is in vision to the deep pessimism of Ray's theology?). But that specialness is not because we are "unlike" this or that over there!

 

Well, you had just mentioned humanity unfolding with the rest of existence, so I assumed.

 

It is not a comparison of better or worse, but of a brilliant shining of a conscious mind awakening to the glories of Life Itself! The tree is beautiful, the ant, the birds, the ocean, the sky, the clouds, the insects, the child, the parent, the adult, the man, the woman, the downtrodden, the inspired, all living, experiencing, and being part of this stupendous, incomprehensible and infinite glory of existence, of Being and Becoming.

 

In some sense, I feel like that may be the message in Heaven, but not here on earth. I say that because I feel like the urgency that Christ/Paul, expresses is the urgency to understand something we don't understand now. "Follow Me, Follow Me, Follow Me" "Here are the signs".....etc. mixed with my peak experience K, that lead me to understand it is EXTREMELY important to move humanity to the door. I know, whacko, but that's what I got.

 

This gets complex here. I'm not going to touch on it here very much. In brief, how we define things is a cognitive construct of raw experience itself which is independent of definitions. Those constructs are always part of our interpretive framework that is both individually and culturally influenced. The only way to experience that Reality itself, is to move beyond all definitions. This is where things like intuition come to bear, where we respond to what we later call better, or worse. It can be argued that there are universals of 'better' or 'worse', and I would make the case that it comes from a place consistent with more evolved or developed conscious awareness. It not just 'pragmatic' in function, but existential. Love.

 

Very hard to do as I feel like we are stuck in this particular time/culture/whatever unable to escape those. Again, as you are aware, the point lies in Christ the Man, crucifixion, etc.

Something to think about. Try to process your understanding of God in a context like this. Spend a formidable amount of time on that, looking from this angle and that. I know you're good for that.

 

I do, my love isn't directed with labels, but I still am in the camp of giving Christ the credit.....if this makes sense. I may be wrong, but that's where I'm at, at the moment.

 

Good stuff sir....thanks.

[Casey]

If I might join in this discussion for a moment:

 

Edit: If you belief is true than Christ was never a man, but more of figurative representation of perfect man?

I'm not a mythicist. I believe there was a real Jesus, but the Bible writers created him in symbolic ways that took him to a level beyond just the teacher.

 

How I understand what "the Christ" is, is something more than the man Jesus. The Christ is an expression of the Divine in the minds of those in the Asia Minor area where Paul developed that concept. I understand what is meant by Christ in this sense, and to open a can of worms, it is the state of consciousness of Divine Mind, that is accessible to everyone. It is Buddha-mind, Christ Consciousness, etc. It gets really murky going there in discussion, but in essence it is the expression of Godhead in various theologies in World Religions. Christianity most definitely was influenced by Eastern religions in this area. I could explain more, but it would take time.

 

There may well be something to the Christian tale, but the way it has been sold over the centuries makes it smell ever so slightly of the love of power that some folks have. If it were left as mere "Consciousness of the Divine Mind," it would be useless for the purpose of societal control. Much better to have Original Sin and a stark choice between Eternal Bliss and Eternal fiery Hell. It is for that reason also that Christianity rejects any concept of Reincarnation as heresy; were the idea of Reincarnation accepted as a possibility, there would be no more selling of Afterlife Fire Insurance.

 

As it happens I myself believe in Reincarnation, although I have no proof of it and would not force my own views on anyone else even if I did. However, I cannot see how anyone could be so bad or evil in one lifetime as to deserve the eternal torment Christianity prescribes for any so called "reprobate;" nor do I see how anyone could be so good, again in any one lifetime, as to deserve eternal bliss. The best one might hope for would be to be rewarded in proportion to the good one has done; the worst, to suffer (again in proportion!) to the evil one has done. Simply put, "One will get what one gave." No more and no less.

 

Quite frankly, if Christianity simply taught one to strive to unselfishly do the best with what one had and to strive to leave the this world just a tiny bit the better for one's having lived in it, I should have no objection to it. Nor would anyone else. But what does one get, what does one have to believe, when one accepts "biblical," or "fundamentalist," Christianity?

 

A lot of nonsense is what one gets and has to accept. Nonsense about a Creation Myth's having to be taken literally, nonsense about Man being an intrinsically evil and worthless creature, and nonsense about a loving God who can commit mass murder or genocide whenever HE, she, or it likes, yet condemns mankind for committing the same or indeed, any lesser sins! And that's just the Old Testament!

 

As for the New Testament, here we see a Christ who supposedly performs miracles, up to and including the raising of the dead. All fine and large, but where is the evidence from other notable writers of ancient times? "And the dead arose and appeared to many?" Why is it it's only the New Testament writers who state that this occurred? Surely everyone else in the ancient world would have noticed? One would have thought that even such comparatively minor magics such as healing the halt, the lame, and the blind would have attracted some attention? Matter of fact, one of these minor magics did, namely the healing of the man with the withered hand, but that was attributed to the Roman Emperor Vespasian as well as to Jesus.

 

Then we have the "Pious Frauds," such as The Donation of Constantine. Not to mention the supposed testimony of Flavius Josephus and a few cherry picked lines out of the writings of Cornelius Tacitus!

 

Much has been made by one poster in this topic of all the good Christianity has done in the world, and indeed I suppose it has done some good; but the good it has done is often done with the objective of getting more and more power for fewer and fewer people. For instance, in the US in the 20th Century, from 1920 to 1933 in the US, there was Prohibition, brought to the nation by bluenoses who made it their business to stop people from drinking whether they would or no. That one did a bit of good though, it stopped Colonel Thompson from going broke; he sold a lot of his finely made Tommy Guns!

 

More lately we have The War on Drugs, in which I believe six times more people have been killed than US soldiers have been killed in Iraq! Can't say The War on Drugs has done no good though; it has certainly kept prison guards and police drug squads awash in money! However, very little of that money has been spent fighting many of the things that cause people to use drugs in the first place!

 

I could go on for several more pages, but I think you get the point. Suffice it to say finally that in my own life the version of Christianity known as Catholicism cost me my childhood and teenage years through emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. (And please don't tell me Catholics aren't True Christians^TM; they damn well are, it's just they throw a little paganism into their version of the delusion). Besides which, it's all too easily proved it's not just the Catholic version of the delusion that abuses children; it's only that they, for now, are the most notorious.

 

End of rant.

Casey

[Antlerman]

There may well be something to the Christian tale, but the way it has been sold over the centuries makes it smell ever so slightly of the love of power that some folks have. If it were left as mere "Consciousness of the Divine Mind," it would be useless for the purpose of societal control.

Even more simple than that is that it isn't as easily accessible to the masses. It wouldn't remain very popular if it required people to spend years of discipline to raise the mind. Just be assured you are 'saved' by via some sort of status change on heavens accounting books when you say the magic words and getting sprinkled with the magic water, is easy. This is why their early Gnostic Christians as part of the Church at large at the time, had what they called the '2nd Baptism'. They recognize that just joining the church, or even taking the shortcut to God by needlessly making yourself a martyr was in fact not actually become enlightened, nor knowing that "Mind of Christ". The Bishops didn't like that, so they branded their fellow Christians with different views "heretics".

 

Is it about societal control? More basic than that, it's about specific organization structure. It can't be too esoteric, otherwise the administrators can't manage it. In other words, it's less about quality than it is about quantity.

[rayskidude]

I missed this earlier. Clearly you don't have ears to hear, nor eyes to see. That is becoming sadly apparent to me. I almost imagine Jesus talking to you as a 1st century person of his day and saying this to you. "He that has ears to hear let him hear." I'm sure he'd be patient with you as you had not yet developed enough yet to see and hear.

 

If you believe humans are created in the image of God, then they in fact would have that nature of the Divine within them. What does Jesus say in Matthew?

Jesus says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God"

Oh but no, Ray says the Bible says this is not possible to have a pure heart!

Jesus says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God"

But no! It is not possible to have the heart of a peacemaker because man is only capable of death. His heart if full of deceit and lies! According to Jesus they will be called the children of God by being peacemakers, by following what is inside them to follow. They don't join a damned religion in order to become one!

Ray says, "

The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke??

"

Jesus says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled"

But no, no one thirsts for righteousness according to Ray. We have to have that within us for that to happen and....

Ray says, "

The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke??

"

 

Interesting that you skipped over the first three beatitudes;

 

Matthew 5:2–5 (ESV)

 

The Beatitudes

2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

 

Who are these humble, mournful, meek people? These people to whom Christ says they are to be pure in heart & peacemakers who hunger and thirst after righteousness. And I submit that these folks are humble in their spirituality (poor in spirit), they mourn over their sin (being comforted in forgiveness) and are broken before God & neighbor, because of their sin; then having come to saving faith in Jesus >> God changes their hearts to seek conformity to the character of Jesus Christ.

 

The poor in spirit (Matt. 5:3) are those who consciously depend on God, not on themselves; they are “poor” inwardly, having no ability in themselves to please God (cf. Rom. 3:9-12). Those who mourn (Matt. 5:4) recognize their needs and present them to the One who is able to assist. Those who are meek (v. 5) are truly humble and gentle and have a proper appreciation of their position. (Praeis, the Gr. word rendered “meek,” is translated “gentle” in its three other usages in the NT: 11:29; 21:5; 1 Peter 3:4.) Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matt. 5:6) have a spiritual appetite, a continuing desire for personal righteousness. The merciful (v. 7) extend mercy to others, thus demonstrating God’s mercy which has been extended to them. The pure in heart (v. 8) are those who are inwardly clean from sin through faith in God’s provision and a continual acknowledging of their sinful condition. The peacemakers (v. 9) show others how to have inward peace with God and how to be instruments of peace in the world. They desire and possess God’s righteousness even though it brings them persecution (v. 10).

These qualities contrast sharply with Pharisaic “righteousness.” The Pharisees were not “poor in spirit”; did not “mourn” in recognition of their needs; were proud and harsh, not humble and gentle; they felt they had attained righteousness and therefore did not have a continual appetite or desire for it; they were more concerned with “legalities” of God’s and their own laws than with showing mercy; were pure ceremonially but not inwardly; created a rift, not peace in Judaism; and certainly did not possess true righteousness. Jesus’ followers who possess these qualities become heirs of the kingdom (vv. 3, 10) on earth (v. 5), receive spiritual comfort (v. 4) and satisfaction (v. 6), receive mercy from God and others (v. 7), will see God (v. 8), that is, Jesus Christ, who is God “in a body” (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. John 1:18; 14:7-9). His followers were known as God’s sons (Matt. 5:9; cf. Gal. 3:26) for they partook of His righteousness (Matt. 5:10).

 

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Mt 5:1–12). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

 

Jesus says, “You are the light of the world." Jesus says, "let your light shine before others"

 

Who was Jesus addressing here?

 

Matthew 5:1 (ESV)

 

The Sermon on the Mount

5 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

 

Jesus is speaking to those who are actively following Him, those who are His disciples. Is that not clear in the text?!

 

Well, according to Jesus there are those who do follow that truth within them. He calls those who listen and follow the Truth within them, the meek, the peacemakers, the pure in heart, those who thirst and hunger for righteousness, and the light of the world!

 

I'm sure you will in your ignorance say this is who we are if we become Christians, but that is not the context at all. He is not talking to his disciples but human beings standing around who are in fact capable of being good, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc. Those people, those who follow good, are called the Children of God. He is appealing to something INSIDE them, not something they get after they join your cult and magic happens.

 

As I've already shown you the context of Matt 5:1; Jesus is indeed speaking to His disciples. Everything else you've said here is simply an inference - where did Jesus ever say that people are to live according to the "truth" within us??? And all these beatitudes are spoken to His disciples, those who are capable of living God-pleasing lives. Unregenerate people are not capable of being pure in heart, or hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.

 

Jesus came to seek & to save that which was lost - people from every tongue, every tribe, every nation, every language>> a Mankind, created in His image & likeness which was marred by sin.

 

Ephesians 4:17–24 (ESV)

The New Life

17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

[rayskidude]

You are a fundamentalist, no? Fundamentalism is the goal of getting back to the fundamentals of a movement or cultures past. Back to the past glories, where they did things right! That is in essence, what Western Romanticism as a movement was about. Turning back the hands of change to that prior pristine state. I will contend that American Fundamentalism was influenced in this mentality in its own response to Modernity entering into religion, in the same way Romanticism flooded our own culture in response to it on a secular level.

 

No, I am not a fundamentalist - I am an evangelical Christian. I do not Romanticize any past stage of the world (well, OK, the Garden of Eden) or the Church. The early church was not pristine. Just read Acts and the epistles >> lots of problems there to be addressed by repentance and faith. The same is true today, people are people throughout all earthly time. Fundamentalism sought to ensure sound doctrine against the creeping debilitating effects of the now defunct 'higher criticism.' The main focus was the Church, the purity of the Church, the purity of the Gospel preached - not a return to any Romanticized state of the Church. Have you studied Church history? What would be the Romantic Age for the Church?

 

You Romanticize the Bible and early Christianity as a magical Faith from God. That is a Romantic Myth. It is idealizing the past, making it something more than it was.

 

As stated above, there is no magical mythologizing Christianity's past - there were sever issues even in the earliest days & years of the church >> Acts chap 5 & 15; and nearly all the epistles list doctrinal and moral issues in the Church of the 1st century. Where is this Romantic past you keep pointing to??

 

Christianity itself these days in the Modern world is poised teetering between narcissism and self-realization. It really depends on which group you're talking about. I place American Conservative Evangelical Christianity much more in the Regressive, narcissist camp, with some pull towards maturing causing a spiritual conflict for them. There are others who are able to see "God" in the world as vital in other religions and human movements as in their own. You don't however. "He who has ears to hear....."

 

This is, of course, just your opinion. Christians recognize that all people of all time are created in the image & likeness of God, yet have rebelled & fallen from grace both inherently in their hearts and actively by their thoughts & actions. Ergo, God's saving grace in Christ Jesus must be communicated and believed for any person to have any hope of any deliverance from sin into God's salvation of eternal life.

 

We see God at work through His Spirit, His Bible, His people, His Gospel, in bringing spiritual and physical healing and health to millions all over the globe >> but not in disparate religions.

 

Isaiah 45:18–24 (ESV)

 

18 For thus says the LORD,

who created the heavens

(he is God!),

who formed the earth and made it

(he established it;

he did not create it empty,

he formed it to be inhabited!):

“I am the LORD, and there is no other.

19 I did not speak in secret,

in a land of darkness;

I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,

‘Seek me in vain.’

I the LORD speak the truth;

I declare what is right.

 

20 “Assemble yourselves and come;

draw near together,

you survivors of the nations!

They have no knowledge

who carry about their wooden idols,

and keep on praying to a god

that cannot save.

21 Declare and present your case;

let them take counsel together!

Who told this long ago?

Who declared it of old?

Was it not I, the LORD?

And there is no other god besides me,

a righteous God and a Savior;

there is none besides me.

 

22 “Turn to me and be saved,

all the ends of the earth!

For I am God, and there is no other.

23 By myself I have sworn;

from my mouth has gone out in righteousness

a word that shall not return:

‘To me every knee shall bow,

every tongue shall swear allegiance.’

 

24 “Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me,

are righteousness and strength;

to him shall come and be ashamed

all who were incensed against him.

 

I do not have faith in Man... Experience replaces faith

.

 

And knowing what you say you know about the bloodbath of the last 100 years leads you to have confidence in what experience? Your personal experiences? This evolution that you keep speaking of which is moving us in a good direction - as evidenced by changing some laws and seeing incremental improvements in some societal practices becoming less brutal?

 

Don't be so quick to applaud the "Arab Spring" before we see what comes of it. The Muslim Brotherhood, which I believe originated in Egypt about 100 years ago, has historically been a fundamentalist, jihadist Muslim organization.

[Antlerman]

Who are these humble, mournful, meek people? These people to whom Christ says they are to be pure in heart & peacemakers who hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Interesting insertion of your opinion into the text there. You make love and purity of heart something they are to try to conform to. I think you make my point about your understanding of "faith" to be like a child who has to be told to act a certain way. I take this to mean a mature state of being, where you are not commanded anything. You simply are. Blessed are the pure of heart, the meek, the humble, etc for they shall see God. And I do not believe this to be an afterlife, but the present.

 

Now I had vowed long ago I would not get into theological quibbles with you, as I see it's the whole snarl and tangle of your theologies that in fact blinds your heart and deafens your ears to the Truth in others. Suffice to say there are plenty of your fellow Christians who in fact don't read the texts so rigidly, and are able to maintain a practicing faith where they in fact are humble, pure in heart, etc, not by trying to be, but as a result of their sincerity and humility. According to you, they would be wrong. You would not only judge them, but you judge all in the world with pure hearts.

 

And I submit that these folks are humble in their spirituality (poor in spirit), they mourn over their sin (being comforted in forgiveness) and are broken before God & neighbor, because of their sin; then having come to saving faith in Jesus >> God changes their hearts to seek conformity to the character of Jesus Christ.

You know, I can be sympathetic to the symbolic nature of what is expressed here, and I could rephrase in more open terms than your rigid theology interprets in ways which I see as a more prepubescent literalism. As an exercise that I'm sure End3 will pipe in on as I try it, I'll give it a whirl for you:

 

Does God change hearts? You know, I have a feeling no matter how I express it you won't get it, nor will it seem to make sense. I believe our highest nature is the Divine. We are not created in the Image of God specially and specifically, but all things are expressions of the Divine. Where humans in their myths expresses their view of themselves in the world as not entirely like the animals, yet not fully awakened either, but somewhere between these states of ignorance and Truth, it is the embrace of that higher Truth their eyes are partly opened to that compels them toward it, like a plant to the sun. We crave higher principles, not lower ones. We are willing to set aside our immediate gratification as animals for greater results for ourselves and others, albeit it is always, and will always remain a struggle with our less developed nature with our higher natures. We build upon our immaturity, but we never get rid of them. They are always with us, just as that temper-tantrum throwing 2 year old is still there in us.

 

Is is that lower nature that myth calls "sin". It is inconsistent with higher love to greedily steal what is your neighbors because you need to exercise power over them. You need to act out in such ways because of an dysfunction in your development. What you call sin against God, I call a dysfunction of the body. In a sense, you can call it that symbolically. Is it 'falling short' of maturity, of our true nature as Divine. Yes, so in that sense of the word, your myth system appears as 'object lessons' using symbolism to speak of something that all humans experience. You say "Jesus saves you", but I would say it is us who do, through accessing our higher nature. In a sense yes, "God saves you". It is you in response to what is already in you. It is listening to your True Voice. All the rest, all the darkness we experience is also us in response to it, typically out of fear of it because of a sense of pure existential dread. We turn in on ourselves, and it is a constant battle between that which we're drawn to, and what we dread and fight against. It's that fight that dysfunctions arise. It's in the Realization that release occurs - that salvation, if you will.

 

So now continuing in understanding your theology in a greater context. So saying they are humble in spirit can in fact come from such an opening into the Divine itself. It's the realization of the immensity, the infinity of all that is which in fact strips away all the facades we create to mask ourselves from that confrontation with it, that confrontation with the Void so to speak. Where Christianity and other theistic religions come into play is in a role of how one relates oneself to That. I've heard it expressed in terms of 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person experience. Theism is a 2nd person experience, a face put upon that Infinite. The Divine is the holy "Other". As we view ourselves in light of that face of the Infinite, be that whatever Divine symbol you choose, including Jesus as well as Krishna and others, it becomes a means to relate ourselves to it within a dualistic reality, in the way we experience life as humans poised "midway between the beasts and the gods". 1st person is more rightly understood nondualistically, where your identification is as the Divine itself - our True Nature. 3rd person is the Divine in All.

 

I have experienced all three of these states. So in that sense, I understand the power of theism, but where you fail is in taking it dogmatically. You fail to recognize its nature as symbolic, and how that plays important roles in human experience. As a result, you demonstrate that you can't hear or see beyond that rigid, literalism mentality and recognize the Truth that is beyond and within all such systems, including your own traditions. And as such, I see this as very much similar to an adolescent who has not developed beyond a concrete operational stage of cognitive development, into the formal operational stages. They simply cannot see subtleties, nuances, shades, and abstracted layers in life and the world. Things must remain hard, cold, sharp, well defined lines, right/wrong, truth/lies, etc. And so, they relate to God or the Divine, as a skyparent, with exacting "plans of salvation" and what have you. "Just follow the explicitly defined rules, and you'll be saved." That describes well what I mean, and how you appear to think.

 

Reality is much higher, much less clean than that, and much more open and free as well. Freedom to become that Light. That doesn't come at the end of conforming to dogma, and won't come until dogma is broken.

 

 

Ephesians 4:17–24 (ESV)

The New Life

17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Yes, Jesus was and can be used symbolically to draw ones attention to that higher nature that is already theirs. "Set your mind on what is above," etc. Many religions teach these things.

[Antlerman]

You are a fundamentalist, no? Fundamentalism is the goal of getting back to the fundamentals of a movement or cultures past. Back to the past glories, where they did things right! That is in essence, what Western Romanticism as a movement was about. Turning back the hands of change to that prior pristine state. I will contend that American Fundamentalism was influenced in this mentality in its own response to Modernity entering into religion, in the same way Romanticism flooded our own culture in response to it on a secular level.

 

Fundamentalism sought to ensure sound doctrine against the creeping debilitating effects of the now defunct 'higher criticism.'

That's a laughable statement Ray. Higher criticism is defunct? In whose reality? Care to qualify that statement? Perhaps you mean that it has taken on new and additional forms of modern scholarship? That by no means makes it bankrupt and that your Conservative brand of theology has triumphed. That's absurd. Is this wishful thinking?

 

The main focus was the Church, the purity of the Church, the purity of the Gospel preached - not a return to any Romanticized state of the Church.

Yes. Exactly. It was the belief that the Apostles and the early church had the original pure message, and that Modernity had crept into corrupt it! That Ray, is what I mean. It is a Romantic view that there was any real consistent, original truth to get back to, away from the ills of Modernity. That is exactly what Romanticism was doing in response to Modernity, and exactly what Fundamentalism did as well in response to Modernity. "Give me that old time religion" was born out of that very sentimentalism.

 

Literalism is a modern phenomena. It is reactionary in response to Modernity.

 

Christianity itself these days in the Modern world is poised teetering between narcissism and self-realization. It really depends on which group you're talking about. I place American Conservative Evangelical Christianity much more in the Regressive, narcissist camp, with some pull towards maturing causing a spiritual conflict for them. There are others who are able to see "God" in the world as vital in other religions and human movements as in their own. You don't however. "He who has ears to hear....."

 

This is, of course, just your opinion.

I so love responses like this. As if that makes it somehow not valid? It is my opinion of course, but it is based on quite a breadth of understanding and considerations that I form it upon. I'd say it has some considerable strength of merit to it. That you would try to minimize it by stating "This is, of course, just your opinion", would seem to indicate it rattles you enough to try to knock it down a notch this way.

 

Christians recognize that all people of all time are created in the image & likeness of God, yet have rebelled & fallen from grace both inherently in their hearts and actively by their thoughts & actions. Ergo, God's saving grace in Christ Jesus must be communicated and believed for any person to have any hope of any deliverance from sin into God's salvation of eternal life.

 

We see God at work through His Spirit, His Bible, His people, His Gospel, in bringing spiritual and physical healing and health to millions all over the globe >> but not in disparate religions.

All of which fits underneath that self-facing narcissism I mentioned above in my 'opinion'. You see it as centered around your group of believers, that God has a plan for you, that you have to save others by getting them to come to God in the prescribed ways of your group, etc. This is one side of that Christianity being poised between narcissism and higher truth that I mentioned above. Your symbols in how you use them express and betray this mentality. That is an unavoidable opinion based on observation, based on content, and based on attitudes and actions following.

 

I do not have faith in Man... Experience replaces faith

.

 

And knowing what you say you know about the bloodbath of the last 100 years leads you to have confidence in what experience? Your personal experiences? This evolution that you keep speaking of which is moving us in a good direction - as evidenced by changing some laws and seeing incremental improvements in some societal practices becoming less brutal?

Whoa, I'm not sure I like how you just mashed my quotes together that way! You destroyed the contexts. I cry foul.

 

I was very clear in my original post about not having faith in man. The bit about experience replacing faith was in a new context, not the same one. Of course, this just betrays you don't follow me anyway that you think it did. I expect too much I suppose.

 

As far as this "last 100 years" nonsense, I've addressed this very well, with a great deal of evidence you have chosen to ignore and just come back to repeat your unfounded opinions yet once more, like some sort of mantra. Please watch that video linked to at least, and then come back and talk facts with me. At this point, I consider you disproved on this one, and you are just showing an unwillingness to examine your views.

 

Don't be so quick to applaud the "Arab Spring" before we see what comes of it. The Muslim Brotherhood, which I believe originated in Egypt about 100 years ago, has historically been a fundamentalist, jihadist Muslim organization.

Oh, I'm not naive. But I don't think this spontaneous uprising across the Arab world was spawned by any single organized group, do you? To be sure, like your version of Christianity, fundamentalism is also a symptom of the end of an old way of thinking. Change is and has been coming, and even though you see a rise in the antics of the extreme religious conservatives, they are symptoms of the implosion of the old guard. It's a power grab but will be short lived.

[bornagainathiest]

Rayskidude wrote...

This is, of course, just your opinion.

 

Antlerman replied...

I so love responses like this. As if that makes it somehow not valid? It is my opinion of course, but it is based on quite a breadth of understanding and considerations that I form it upon. I'd say it has some considerable strength of merit to it. That you would try to minimize it by stating "This is, of course, just your opinion", would seem to indicate it rattles you enough to try to knock it down a notch this way.

 

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

 

Just for the record, I'd like Ray to make it clear that anything he writes in this forum is just his opinion too.

 

Will you please do so Ray?

 

I ask because this forum's guidelines make it clear that Christians are NOT permitted to teach here.

Therefore, if you were teaching in your recent postings, you should cease and desist this activity immediately!

 

Because we are all equals here, your opinions do not, by default, carry greater weight than Antlerman's.

 

It is up to you to present persuasive arguments so that your opinions can sway him and others. That is what happens here - not teaching!

 

So, once again, I ask you... please confirm that you are not here to teach and have not been teaching since your recent return.

 

BAA.

[bdp]

Religion IS narcissism.

[Chikirin]

the thought occurred to me the other day, as I was psyching myself up to face a fear, that I have already gotten rid of the biggest boogeyman there was in my life -- God. So if I could get rid of that boogeyman, I can surely get rid of the other boogymen in my life too.

[Suzy]

I think Satan is not the most evil entity in the Bible. Yahweh is.

[mcdaddy]

Rayskidude, I would love, LOVE, LOOOVE to have someone as knowledgable of Gods holy word as yourself refute the videos I posted in the Gen Theology section. I need a review of them from an opposing POV to find errors. Thx

[mcdaddy]

Damn. Old thread.