Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[Guest end3]

of repenting and sacrifice for that outcome.

 

 

There's no one to repent to and therefore nothing to repent for.

 

There had to be repenting in order to come to a dialogue.

[Guest end3]

In the grand scheme of things.....you take my Christianity or AM's Ground of Being or some proposed reductionist mechanism, they have ALL demonstrated failure on an immediate level in "this here very thread".

 

Two things to point out here......one, failure of humanity and two, that the rules, whatever they may be, and the rigorous practice thereof, are less of a covenant than is the unity, harmony, and oneness of repenting and sacrifice for that outcome.

 

So, i am unclear why this is not recongnizable to most. It's very, very, VERY similar to the OT Law vs. the NT Grace.

 

I rest my case.

 

Edit: And that, mi amigos, would be true. Shred it as you may, it won't change.

You rest your case for what?

 

Not that I want to stray too terribly far from our current discussion over beers together, but as usual End, even though your words strung together in your nearly incomprehensible manner, with my unfocusing my eyes just right, I actually get what you are trying to say. It seems I've always had this almost supernatural gift to understand you that way.

 

All you are trying to say is that we cannot understand that nature of the absolute, that essence of beingness, to give it another word, with any sort of mental models or forms. You then cite the book of Hebrews to show how that the author of it understood the OT in this light, that they are mere shadows of what is beyond them, and that to him that full Realization is in Christ. Perhaps for him it was. But in reality, Christianity itself is but a model. Christ is an archetypal symbol in religious experience. And as a form, it is a face, and not the thing itself.

 

So what we are left with together then End is this: No Religion.

 

Let me think outloud

 

All three are proposed sets of rules, and held to the letter of the rules themselves, they all fail with humanity.

 

Christianity gives perfection of the rules/law to Christ.

Science would have universal theory I assume and a drug that should produce perfection.

Fwiw, you demonstrated failure of a higher state....IMO of course.

 

But Christianity says humans fail......and Christianity says the rules in themselves no one can adaquately do.....which is demonstratably true.

So why does the truth not lie with the one that describes this?

[Antlerman]

Christianity gives perfection of the rules/law to Christ.

Where have you ever actually seen that bear out as true? Anywhere? Or is that just a theoretical/metaphysical position?

 

What's the Yoga to realize this? And I'm not talking some rote formula you perform and somehow that magically grants you some assumed token into paradise when you die. I'm talk real, actual, practical transformation to the point you realize even your religion is nothing? What do you do personally beyond theorizing?

 

But Christianity says humans fail......and Christianity says the rules in themselves no one can adaquately do.....which is demonstratably true.

And so the answer is to pray for perfection after death. Good solution. Not.

 

So why does the truth not lie with the one that describes this?

Which of course are humans who describe this.

 

Again my friend End, why do you worship the Bible?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi i want to make it personal, Again my name is Aaron, i will be participating on this site for the long Haul, i hope to learn and grow in my christian faith, and i hope to Learn and Grow in different theology and perspectives, and understand the view of the world and of the unsaved.

 

 

Sigh. good bye, Aaron. Weren't on here very long.

[♦ ficino ♦]

In the grand scheme of things.....you take my Christianity or AM's Ground of Being or some proposed reductionist mechanism, they have ALL demonstrated failure on an immediate level in "this here very thread".

 

Two things to point out here......one, failure of humanity and two, that the rules, whatever they may be, and the rigorous practice thereof, are less of a covenant than is the unity, harmony, and oneness of repenting and sacrifice for that outcome.

 

So, i am unclear why this is not recongnizable to most. It's very, very, VERY similar to the OT Law vs. the NT Grace.

 

I rest my case.

 

Edit: And that, mi amigos, would be true. Shred it as you may, it won't change.

You rest your case for what?

 

Not that I want to stray too terribly far from our current discussion over beers together, but as usual End, even though your words strung together in your nearly incomprehensible manner, with my unfocusing my eyes just right, I actually get what you are trying to say. It seems I've always had this almost supernatural gift to understand you that way.

 

All you are trying to say is that we cannot understand that nature of the absolute, that essence of beingness, to give it another word, with any sort of mental models or forms. You then cite the book of Hebrews to show how that the author of it understood the OT in this light, that they are mere shadows of what is beyond them, and that to him that full Realization is in Christ. Perhaps for him it was. But in reality, Christianity itself is but a model. Christ is an archetypal symbol in religious experience. And as a form, it is a face, and not the thing itself.

 

So what we are left with together then End is this: No Religion.

 

Let me think outloud

 

All three are proposed sets of rules, and held to the letter of the rules themselves, they all fail with humanity.

 

Christianity gives perfection of the rules/law to Christ.

Science would have universal theory I assume and a drug that should produce perfection.

Fwiw, you demonstrated failure of a higher state....IMO of course.

 

But Christianity says humans fail......and Christianity says the rules in themselves no one can adaquately do.....which is demonstratably true.

So why does the truth not lie with the one that describes this?

 

Because the Bible's full of contradictions and morally repugnant stuff, from Genesis to Revelation.

[♦ ficino ♦]

hello Antlerman, I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your replies above. I won't quote, because it will make things even more unwieldy. I'll try to reply within the confines of this reply box.

 

I understand that no words can adequately describe the mystical experience or convey what it is. Since I have not had one (I started out doing yoga and seeking mystical experiences decades ago but then my life went elsewhere) and probably will not have one, I accept that the mystical experience is closed off to me. Therefore, there is a realm of your experience about which I cannot comment, and there isn't a point to my asking any more questions about it, because you know what it is and I so far cannot.

 

What I contest is your using mystical experience as a storehouse of evidence for the truth of a range of assertions that you make about human life/the world/reality. I can accept that mystical experience is evidence for the truth of assertions about mystical experience (but I can't evaluate that evidence). I do not accept that mystical experience provides evidence for the truth of assertions like "the essence of the hummingbird and our essence and the essence of all that is, is one." I protest against such statements! They are either meaningless or false.

 

You may reply that statements like this are only strings of symbols that imperfectly map the deep mystical reality that you have experienced. I understand that it's really wonderful for you and others, but again, I protest. Any philosophy in my opinion has to confront the fact that each of us is a mortal singular individual. When my lover Mervin dies, no one will replace him - though I may find another, different lover some day, as singular as he and as mortal. It doesn't get me anywhere to repeat, "I am he and he is me and we are they and you are me." You, Antlerman, are very different from me, and we share some common stuff and differ on other things, and each of us is a singular with rights and responsibilities that we POSSESS because we are both two PERSONS. We can have a relationship because I am I and thou art thou.

 

OK, enough with the caps!

 

Cheers, and have a beer, F

[Ouroboros]

But Christianity says humans fail......and Christianity says the rules in themselves no one can adaquately do.....which is demonstratably true.

I don't see why or how Christianity is validated because it says that humans fail. If we would look into Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and paganism and find the same "rules" (which you state are true), then would they be true religions?

 

I don't understand why there's an attempt of trying to justify or rationalize Christianity if religion/faith/belief/mysticism/spirituality aren't reductive in nature? Trying to use rational reasons for faith and yet argue that rational reasons are not valid? It's like saying "it's logical that logic is false" and use syllogisms to prove it. Either spirituality can't be rationalized, or it can. But if it can, it must follow rational arguments.

 

So why does the truth not lie with the one that describes this?

That's a rationalization and an attempt of logic. It fails.

[Ouroboros]

Again my friend End, why do you worship the Bible?

That. And also that he's trying to use reasons and arguments (attempts of logic) to explain his faith, but they fail. I can accept people having a faith based on experience and even emotion and such, but when a faith is explained and justified using some kind of logic, then logic must follow. At least that's my belief. Logic is what logic does. And logic isn't logic unless logic is used. It's logical... Hmm... starting to think about Supertramps "Logical Song."

[Guest end3]

Where have you ever actually seen that bear out as true? Anywhere? Or is that just a theoretical/metaphysical position?

I said that the perfection was in Christ and faith in that, not perfection in my life nor any Christian.

 

What's the Yoga to realize this? And I'm not talking some rote formula you perform and somehow that magically grants you some assumed token into paradise when you die. I'm talk real, actual, practical transformation to the point you realize even your religion is nothing? What do you do personally beyond theorizing?

 

What would you like, a list of things I do in spite of my nature?

 

 

And so the answer is to pray for perfection after death. Good solution. Not.

No, we pray for wisdom to do the right thing now.

 

Which of course are humans who describe this.

 

I've seen some monkeys and asses try to describe it....

[Guest end3]

Because the Bible's full of contradictions and morally repugnant stuff, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

You don't always make the same decision and have the same answer for every situation. I would expect given the consideration, that the morally repugnant stuff falls into this category.

[Guest end3]

I don't see why or how Christianity is validated because it says that humans fail.

 

Most of this thread demonstrates the "sin" of humanity from at least three different beliefs.

 

I don't understand why there's an attempt of trying to justify or rationalize Christianity if religion/faith/belief/mysticism/spirituality aren't reductive in nature? Trying to use rational reasons for faith and yet argue that rational reasons are not valid? It's like saying "it's logical that logic is false" and use syllogisms to prove it. Either spirituality can't be rationalized, or it can. But if it can, it must follow rational arguments.

The prominent belief here at ex C if I am not mistaken is that it CAN be......just a matter of time. You may have a different view, but wearing two hats puts you in the dumb ass with stupid beliefs club. Call me, not only am I a member, I am the president.

[Ouroboros]

Most of this thread demonstrates the "sin" of humanity from at least three different beliefs.

And that validates Christianity specifically? So, "sin" that is described in the much older Zoroastrianism and the fall of human nature and requirement of cleansing and forgiveness by the Holy Spirit ("Spenta Mainyu") does not?

 

Your religion and faith is not unique. We've talked about this before, you know.

 

The prominent belief here at ex C if I am not mistaken is that it CAN be......just a matter of time. You may have a different view, but wearing two hats puts you in the dumb ass with stupid beliefs club. Call me, not only am I a member, I am the president.

I don't think the prominent belief at Ex-C is that Christianity can be justified with reason and logic, but the opposite. Using reason and logic invalidates it. My impression is that Antlerman is trying to get you to understand that faith is justified by other means, not evidence, proof, or logic. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you and other spiritual people on this board are trying to justify your belief with science now? That would be interesting.

 

---

 

Also, I thought you talked about that your faith were based more on how you felt about it and your experience rather than logic. So what changed?

[Guest end3]

Your religion and faith is not unique. We've talked about this before, you know.

I didn't think the two were eqivalent either.

 

 

I don't think the prominent belief at Ex-C is that Christianity can be justified with reason and logic, but the opposite. Using reason and logic invalidates it. My impression is that Antlerman is trying to get you to understand that faith is justified by other means, not evidence, proof, or logic. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you and other spiritual people on this board are trying to justify your belief with science now? That would be interesting.

 

Right, the population here, most, believe that science can reduce it to some mechanism. I personally believe the properties of the physical match spiritual properties if one is willing to look. Is that a proof of God, No, but it sure makes a case for the Bible. I don't think most people want to marry the two for lack of whatever.

 

 

 

Also, I thought you talked about that your faith were based more on how you felt about it and your experience rather than logic. So what changed?

I thought I have talked many times about both. Day one I was trying to convince people that people glowed due to a hightened energy state. Huh. Now that you mention it. Higher state? Inducing spiritualism in someones brain.

 

Probably a Nobel prize in there somewhere.

 

Let's see.....the cooperation of energy and matter to produce spirit. So if a guy is in the electric chair, is he "on fire for the Lord"? I crack myself up.

[LivingLife]

This perfection in Christ is an oxymoron. It is a title like king is a title. Are all kings noble in the sense of fair leadership and morality? Obviously not.

 

This dissemination of Jesus and Christ is merely a relatively recent spin and some even go as far as a corporate Christ esp. amongst the Unis.

 

The legend of jesus, he was in no way a perfect person taking the gospels at face value. We see there a man/guru with flexible standards. The reason for that, men wrote the gospels with agendas and biases.

[Antlerman]

hello Antlerman, I appreciate the thought and effort you put into your replies above. I won't quote, because it will make things even more unwieldy. I'll try to reply within the confines of this reply box.

Ficino, Thanks for your reply here. I appreciate the clarity of thought and respectful honesty of them. I'll address a couple points in the interest of clarification for you and others.

 

I understand that no words can adequately describe the mystical experience or convey what it is. Since I have not had one (I started out doing yoga and seeking mystical experiences decades ago but then my life went elsewhere) and probably will not have one, I accept that the mystical experience is closed off to me. Therefore, there is a realm of your experience about which I cannot comment, and there isn't a point to my asking any more questions about it, because you know what it is and I so far cannot.

I appreciate that you recognize that to really understand to adequately address the things that are spoken about you really have to have a frame of reference yourself coming from a place of experience. This is very true.

 

As far as being 'cut off from them' as you put it, I wouldn't place any limits on anything, as those are of course constructed mental realities we create through beliefs that indeed place limits, or open possibilities, for us. Kind of common sense that if you tell yourself something isn't every going to be, the chances are that will be true because we block them through that mindset. Now, I'm not telling you you should be looking for them. Not at all. In fact, the thing I have found is that with mystical experience (I am preferring that term now), is that the more you seek the experience, the less likely you will have it. The reason I have come to understand why that is the case in my experiences, is that if you are seeking to 'have one', your focus is on yourself.

 

What my experience in meditation has taught me through practice is that there is a truth to the axiom 'seek and you shall find', but with this its a bit of a parodox. You don't seek for yourself because you want it, because you want an experience, you instead seek it for its own sake, so to speak. It is not about you. You set yourself aside. You fall into it. You seek beauty for the sake of beauty, love for the sake of love, light for its sake, truth for its sake - coming from a place of love for it. The focus is not on what you may posses. If you seek for that reason, for what you may experience for your own sake, you'll find what you already have - your self. If you seek what is truth and beauty for its own sake, you will find truth and beauty. The entire thing is a process of learning to grown beyond your self, into something larger, wider, deeper, and higher than the sum of what you possess. It is quite literally falling into that Ocean to become that in you. You do not seek to experience it, you seek for it to become you.

 

That said, if someone feels compelled to go there, it is very much something within the individual. Some might never feel such a pull, and for them, I'm not sure the value to try. No judgements.

 

What I contest is your using mystical experience as a storehouse of evidence for the truth of a range of assertions that you make about human life/the world/reality. I can accept that mystical experience is evidence for the truth of assertions about mystical experience (but I can't evaluate that evidence). I do not accept that mystical experience provides evidence for the truth of assertions like "the essence of the hummingbird and our essence and the essence of all that is, is one." I protest against such statements! They are either meaningless or false.

As I make such states they are of course coming from that place of perception. They are not meant as scientific realities that somehow you should now see this hidden truth discoverable in the material world. They may or may not be, but it doesn't matter either way. It is not 'evidence' in any scientific sense. It is simply an experiential reality, in the same way we in an experiential reality see each other as separate islands. I'll address this further....

 

You may reply that statements like this are only strings of symbols that imperfectly map the deep mystical reality that you have experienced. I understand that it's really wonderful for you and others, but again, I protest. Any philosophy in my opinion has to confront the fact that each of us is a mortal singular individual.

I would say this is true for philosophy as it is a tool of the mental world of reason and logic. Seeing the world through the 'eye of mind' will produce a dualistic reality, and so to speak in those terms is in fact appropriate. But is it binding truth to the facts of the world? Oh, that's a bit riskier of a position to hold. It is appropriate within a certain general perceptual reality to speak to and support that 'eye of mind'. But through the eye of contemplation, that perception is not the same. It's no mere extension of philosophy as arm of the eye of mind. The eye of contemplation, or the eye of spirit, to use that term as well, begins from a different framework, even if it is in fact includes aspects of the eye of mind into itself.

 

Philosophy that tries to address what is exposed there, is really more that highly symbolic world of shadows - not some penetrating logic of philosophy. It can't adequately describe it, because it is not the right tool for that domain, just like the science we use to study the natural world is not the right tool to penetrate the domain of mind where philosophy is more appropriate.

 

When my lover Mervin dies, no one will replace him - though I may find another, different lover some day, as singular as he and as mortal. It doesn't get me anywhere to repeat, "I am he and he is me and we are they and you are me." You, Antlerman, are very different from me, and we share some common stuff and differ on other things, and each of us is a singular with rights and responsibilities that we POSSESS because we are both two PERSONS. We can have a relationship because I am I and thou art thou.

I know I've tried to explain this a few times already, and I think it might not be possible to do so now. But again, yes, you are unique individuals, and that never goes away. But what is seen, what is perceived is that metaphor I used of that radiant nature of who we are in all others and theirs in you. We see beyond the facades of masks of individuality, to the 'essence' of all living things. It adds a quality to the experience of love with another human that really, sees the nakedness of all of us in a loving embrace. It enhances the experience of love and individuality.

 

My best metaphor is that of the seamless cloth. We are not little patches of fabric all stitched together into a quilt, but rather an endless seamless cloth with individual patterns formed out of it across the surface like embroidery. As one of those patterns, I look across that surface and see your pattern and we say hello and interact with each other, seeing each other and ourselves as unique islands of individuality in the universe. We live our lives with this awareness of the world from that vantage point, seeing only all the dots over the landscape. At some point however, we see the fabric itself and see that fabric is what makes us 'me', that unique pattern. We see that fabric that is formed to make 'me' is the same fabric in the other pattern called 'you', and suddenly how we understand and relate to each other takes on a whole new dimension of perceptual and experiential reality. It is still reality, just a different awareness.

 

Absolutely how you see others is true. it is true to that way of knowing the world, and that is valid. But it is not the only reality.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Because the Bible's full of contradictions and morally repugnant stuff, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

You don't always make the same decision and have the same answer for every situation. I would expect given the consideration, that the morally repugnant stuff falls into this category.

 

This answer doesn't address the issue. In fact, your answer makes most of the Bible irrelevant to moral decision making. You also don't remove the problem that there are many contradictory assertions about matters of fact and doctrine, and there are assertions about the natural world that are false.

[Guest end3]

This perfection in Christ is an oxymoron. It is a title like king is a title. Are all kings noble in the sense of fair leadership and morality? Obviously not.

 

This dissemination of Jesus and Christ is merely a relatively recent spin and some even go as far as a corporate Christ esp. amongst the Unis.

 

The legend of jesus, he was in no way a perfect person taking the gospels at face value. We see there a man/guru with flexible standards. The reason for that, men wrote the gospels with agendas and biases.

 

I appreciate your efforts here, but your words leave me flat......which is my point. Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy your writing as you write well. I believe there is a definition, an explanation that won't leave anyone out. If you have something to share in this department, it would be life giving. Thanks.

[♦ ficino ♦]

You seek beauty for the sake of beauty, love for the sake of love, light for its sake, truth for its sake - coming from a place of love for it. The focus is not on what you may posses. If you seek for that reason, for what you may experience for your own sake, you'll find what you already have - your self. If you seek what is truth and beauty for its own sake, you will find truth and beauty. The entire thing is a process of learning to grown beyond your self, into something larger, wider, deeper, and higher than the sum of what you possess.

 

Very valuable comments. Thanks for your reply, A-man.

[Guest end3]

Because the Bible's full of contradictions and morally repugnant stuff, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

You don't always make the same decision and have the same answer for every situation. I would expect given the consideration, that the morally repugnant stuff falls into this category.

 

This answer doesn't address the issue. In fact, your answer makes most of the Bible irrelevant to moral decision making. You also don't remove the problem that there are many contradictory assertions about matters of fact and doctrine, and there are assertions about the natural world that are false.

 

Please hear me out. If we follow a set of rules/laws exactly as written every time.....even if there is nothing unjust about the rules, then there will be a miscarriage of justice at some point. We will convict someone that is innocent. I am suggesting that the advent of Christ is an aspiration to incorporate love within the rules themselves pursuing wisdom thus coming closer to the actual intent of God. Wouldn't we all wish this for ourselves, that people find grace within our mistakes?

 

To the facts etc...rationality suggests the stories are mythic. Could there be actual events that were the origin of the stories? I would think yes. Are the stories interpreted today per their orgininal meaning? Maybe not. I look at types and shadows and patterns more than the average Joe. I personally think the truth of the Bible is tied up in the types, in the definition of human nature.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Because the Bible's full of contradictions and morally repugnant stuff, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

You don't always make the same decision and have the same answer for every situation. I would expect given the consideration, that the morally repugnant stuff falls into this category.

 

This answer doesn't address the issue. In fact, your answer makes most of the Bible irrelevant to moral decision making. You also don't remove the problem that there are many contradictory assertions about matters of fact and doctrine, and there are assertions about the natural world that are false.

 

Please hear me out. If we follow a set of rules/laws exactly as written every time.....even if there is nothing unjust about the rules, then there will be a miscarriage of justice at some point. We will convict someone that is innocent. I am suggesting that the advent of Christ is an aspiration to incorporate love within the rules themselves pursuing wisdom thus coming closer to the actual intent of God. Wouldn't we all wish this for ourselves, that people find grace within our mistakes?

 

To the facts etc...rationality suggests the stories are mythic. Could there be actual events that were the origin of the stories? I would think yes. Are the stories interpreted today per their orgininal meaning? Maybe not. I look at types and shadows and patterns more than the average Joe. I personally think the truth of the Bible is tied up in the types, in the definition of human nature.

 

I agree with most of what you say above, End, but, as Ouroboros and others have pointed out, your approach applies equally well to other religious/mythic systems. You could take out the words "Christ" and "Bible" and replace with names of other divine figures and collections of wisdom writing and the gist of your comments would remain and be valuable - even without a divine figure.

[LivingLife]

This perfection in Christ is an oxymoron. It is a title like king is a title. Are all kings noble in the sense of fair leadership and morality? Obviously not.

 

This dissemination of Jesus and Christ is merely a relatively recent spin and some even go as far as a corporate Christ esp. amongst the Unis.

 

The legend of jesus, he was in no way a perfect person taking the gospels at face value. We see there a man/guru with flexible standards. The reason for that, men wrote the gospels with agendas and biases.

 

I appreciate your efforts here, but your words leave me flat......which is my point. Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy your writing as you write well. I believe there is a definition, an explanation that won't leave anyone out. If you have something to share in this department, it would be life giving. Thanks.

Dunno why it should leave you flat? But I will try to expand here.

 

My stance in life actually leaves no one out but some find it offensive. We all aspire to be the best we can, some need guidance and some need mystical experiences. The whole concept of spirituality or following the apparent sayings of age old sages is IMO one of dependency. It is like sex if you will. Something that may occupy the male mind more than religion or philosophy but the deed itself and the amount of time one dedicates to it is really infinitesimal in the bigger scheme of our daily lives. The same goes for religion and perhaps the high one experiences in a 1-2 hour session every Sunday. Life in general goes on quite fine w/o religion or the religious experience. I think we can all agree, religion plays a very small part in our morality and upbringing and the folk that testify here as to the sexual taboos is contrary to nature.

 

So who is the embodiment of Christ other than a label perhaps for self ego or as I mentioned earlier a corporate title. Who really sets the standard we are to follow? Can we really glean that off the bible reading the alleged stories of jesus? Not really. There are too many contradictions and frames of thought in the gospels and they really do not harmonize. The old golden thread meme fails too as this merely is a cute name for cherry picking. The apps like eSword show the harmonies but never highlight the contradictions. If one actually did that, the lists would be as long if not longer.

 

So we sit with this Christ perfection which is not specified and claiming to be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect is also non definable. Looking at the entire bible, the perfection boils down to schizophrenia and that is hardly a perfect role model now is it?

 

This is why perfection in Christ is an oxymoron.

 

OR are we admitting we are fucked up as humans generally speaking and one magical day we shall be perfected? What is the frigging point. What standard do you apply or better yet whose standard, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, John Hagee, Jesse du Plantis, Oral Roberts and so on? All these are leaders of huge ministries and plenty folk listen to them. These role models represent Christ?

 

Remember this Christ is a title.

 

The gospels paint a pic of a ME hippie and these folk above are nowhere near that character. In fact they represent IMO all that jesus allegedly stood against. Even here in SA we see the same crap. These leaders are career preachers and the pinnacle of success is getting your church on Tee Vee and developing a Tee Vee ministry. Our own Ray McAuley leader of Rhema church in SA and partnered to the likes of Kennith Hagin and Creflo Dollar and TD Jakes etc. are all big men of gawd. Ray is divorcing his second wife and hold to the reigns but preaches now to relatively empty church. The folk here realise they were duped and fragmented and IMO most of the old faithful now stay at home tending the Sunday BBQ.

 

Young folk are supposed to look up to elders but in most cases these are the good buddies and close friends of the pastor. I have seen how these folk follow preachers and look up to them.

 

Have problem with pastor, find new church. Even my old pastor stated that pastors need to surround themselves by leaders that support his vision, translated, folk that buy into his shit w/o questioning.

 

You cannot follow a title. The presidency of the US is protected but the man occupying the WH is usually not the all encompassing role model folk expect now is it, does not matter who occupies the WH. Yet the nation will rally behind the president when it comes to sovereignty and patriotism.

 

Church and religion are no different.

 

One cannot have a relationship with a title nor a dead demi/man-god, that relationship is one with yourself. It all occurs in the brain. There is no external force or presence because if there was, EVERYONE would sense it and experience the EXACT same thing. Does this happen? NO!

 

At the end of the day, life pretty much goes on unimpeded without god.

 

The only reason folk hold onto these myths is the fear of death/mortality and the vain hope there will be a continuance after death. They grasp at any NDE OOBE to validate their beliefs but I suspect, deep down folk know, this life is it and when it is over it is over.

[Guest end3]

My stance in life actually leaves no one out but some find it offensive. We all aspire to be the best we can, some need guidance and some need mystical experiences. The whole concept of spirituality or following the apparent sayings of age old sages is IMO one of dependency. It is like sex if you will. Something that may occupy the male mind more than religion or philosophy but the deed itself and the amount of time one dedicates to it is really infinitesimal in the bigger scheme of our daily lives. The same goes for religion and perhaps the high one experiences in a 1-2 hour session every Sunday. Life in general goes on quite fine w/o religion or the religious experience. I think we can all agree, religion plays a very small part in our morality and upbringing and the folk that testify here as to the sexual taboos is contrary to nature.

 

The flavor one chooses to satify the dependency doesn't mean the dependency is not valid nor real, but rather the dependency seems across the board IMO. Politics, moral "evolution" suggest a constant struggle with aspiring to do the best we can.

 

 

So who is the embodiment of Christ other than a label perhaps for self ego or as I mentioned earlier a corporate title. Who really sets the standard we are to follow? Can we really glean that off the bible reading the alleged stories of jesus? Not really. There are too many contradictions and frames of thought in the gospels and they really do not harmonize. The old golden thread meme fails too as this merely is a cute name for cherry picking. The apps like eSword show the harmonies but never highlight the contradictions. If one actually did that, the lists would be as long if not longer.

So with this said, what are the options. The population would be the facts that define the standard......and the dependency seems to rest on a need to be complete and stable. Please note the atomic similarities here. So we have competing accountabliities for need. I thought that was kind of my point in the earlier posts, that they separately exist and all fail to satisfy the others.

 

 

This is why perfection in Christ is an oxymoron.

The perfection exists, IMO, that we could give to or sacrifice to complete the other. Why is this invalid vs reality? Does it not fit wonderfully with "as best we can"?

 

 

OR are we admitting we are fucked up as humans generally speaking and one magical day we shall be perfected? What is the frigging point. What standard do you apply or better yet whose standard, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, John Hagee, Jesse du Plantis, Oral Roberts and so on? All these are leaders of huge ministries and plenty folk listen to them. These role models represent Christ?

Yeah, this goes back to the perfect model, but why do "as well as we can" if in the grand scheme we should just adopt "it's natural" and give up. I don't find completeness in that, nor stability, nor victory, nor freedom.

 

 

You cannot follow a title. The presidency of the US is protected but the man occupying the WH is usually not the all encompassing role model folk expect now is it, does not matter who occupies the WH. Yet the nation will rally behind the president when it comes to sovereignty and patriotism.

Sincerely sir, as opposed to what? This just seems to reinforce my point.....the model is completing vs. the reality.

 

 

One cannot have a relationship with a title nor a dead demi/man-god, that relationship is one with yourself. It all occurs in the brain. There is no external force or presence because if there was, EVERYONE would sense it and experience the EXACT same thing. Does this happen? NO!

If the force changes me in such a way to move me from my normal direction, then how is there not a real relationship?

 

At the end of the day, life pretty much goes on unimpeded without god.

Mostly.

 

The only reason folk hold onto these myths is the fear of death/mortality and the vain hope there will be a continuance after death. They grasp at any NDE OOBE to validate their beliefs but I suspect, deep down folk know, this life is it and when it is over it is over.

 

Maybe so, but how tragic figurative death drives us to this hope.

[LivingLife]

The flavor one chooses to satify the dependency doesn't mean the dependency is not valid nor real, but rather the dependency seems across the board IMO. Politics, moral "evolution" suggest a constant struggle with aspiring to do the best we can.

 

Dependency is not across the board as you infer. Evolution does not form part of my RL conversations, only debating creationists. Even my atheism form no part of my day to day interactions, I need not hide it as no one asks and the chance of being asked here in SA is almost nil. Politics affect most adults but again forms little of the conversations. Here we kinda stick to the rule of not discussing politics and religion with strangers. Even when I was a woo and wore a cross proudly, I never brought up religion. A few folk asked me if I was a catholic and the cross was an empty one, not a crucifix. Few people wear their religion on their sleeves and even the fad of fish on cars is like 1 in 2000 cars. In the 80's it was like 33% fish cars.

 

This crutch is needed for some people and of course I too was a crutch person so it has nothing to do with intelligence or IQ. My life has not really changed for the worse or better since leaving the faith.

 

So with this said, what are the options. The population would be the facts that define the standard......and the dependency seems to rest on a need to be complete and stable. Please note the atomic similarities here. So we have competing accountabliities for need. I thought that was kind of my point in the earlier posts, that they separately exist and all fail to satisfy the others.

Is this a veiled appeal to numbers? Everyone has a crutch so my crutch is thus valid?

 

I do not think this is a good argument either way. Not everyone needs or uses a crutch. I would go so far as to say the majority of folk self identify purely on tradition as few can really man up and admit they do not really believe and are there for the few times they need to go to church for christenings and the like.

The perfection exists, IMO, that we could give to or sacrifice to complete the other. Why is this invalid vs reality? Does it not fit wonderfully with "as best we can"?

Not really, you are simply adding unnecessary baggage. Care and empathy for your fellow human beings like stopping to assist a stranded traveller or scene of an accident requires no god compass, all humans are capable of this, it is how we have evolved as societies.

Yeah, this goes back to the perfect model, but why do "as well as we can" if in the grand scheme we should just adopt "it's natural" and give up. I don't find completeness in that, nor stability, nor victory, nor freedom.

There is no giving up if you are able to dismiss religion, perhaps there is that moment of realisation this is all there is and once you have faced that, life pretty much goes on. You do get over it.

You cannot follow a title. The presidency of the US is protected but the man occupying the WH is usually not the all encompassing role model folk expect now is it, does not matter who occupies the WH. Yet the nation will rally behind the president when it comes to sovereignty and patriotism.

Sincerely sir, as opposed to what? This just seems to reinforce my point.....the model is completing vs. the reality.

This was an example of a title. Do you follow the presidency or the sitting president in the illustration I offered?

If the force changes me in such a way to move me from my normal direction, then how is there not a real relationship?

There is no force. You have made your own decisions based on whatever convictions you perceive to be real. If they made you change for the better, then you ultimately still was the one that made the decision to change, not some holy spirit, that is just another label for coercion. ALL of it takes place in your cognitive abilities.

 

Maybe so, but how tragic figurative death drives us to this hope.

What is tragic about death? Yes it is sad and heart wrenching but it is part of life. You will not be aware you are dead except the last few firing of neurons in your brain at the point of death, then I imagine it will be a fade to black like when you undergo anaesthetic.

[Guest end3]

Dependency is not across the board as you infer.

 

Then you will be happy to join me in my rationale, having no need for yours?

 

Evolution does not form part of my RL conversations, only debating creationists.

 

You have no need for where we have come to as humans?

 

Even my atheism form no part of my day to day interactions, I need not hide it as no one asks and the chance of being asked here in SA is almost nil. Politics affect most adults but again forms little of the conversations. Here we kinda stick to the rule of not discussing politics and religion with strangers. Even when I was a woo and wore a cross proudly, I never brought up religion. A few folk asked me if I was a catholic and the cross was an empty one, not a crucifix. Few people wear their religion on their sleeves and even the fad of fish on cars is like 1 in 2000 cars. In the 80's it was like 33% fish cars.

I don't know the situation there, but different regions would manifest different levels and understandings of relatioships. I will be happy to give examples if you would like.....just tired atm.

 

 

This crutch is needed for some people and of course I too was a crutch person so it has nothing to do with intelligence or IQ. My life has not really changed for the worse or better since leaving the faith.

I am just asking why you don't define your belief as a "crutch" that it might satisfy your dependency for understanding. You debate, so I gather you have a some need.

 

 

Is this a veiled appeal to numbers? Everyone has a crutch so my crutch is thus valid?

Do you know of anyone that doesn't have a "satifying" belief other than children perhaps?

 

 

I do not think this is a good argument either way. Not everyone needs or uses a crutch. I would go so far as to say the majority of folk self identify purely on tradition as few can really man up and admit they do not really believe and are there for the few times they need to go to church for christenings and the like.

 

The way I am defining "crutch" is a personal understanding that allows for happiness. As you said, some folks need different understandings. Certainly I don't need scientific facts to satisfy my belief, my crutch. Quite the opposite, I somewhat despise that rationale based on I literally am a product of that mindset.

There is no giving up if you are able to dismiss religion, perhaps there is that moment of realisation this is all there is and once you have faced that, life pretty much goes on. You do get over it.

I'm not seeing this in that you are still debating.....just teasing. Please don't read comtempt today. Again, I am just tired.

This was an example of a title. Do you follow the presidency or the sitting president in the illustration I offered?

I think we are just looking at it from opposite directions. I don't see any worthiness in the human model, but more in the "presidency". But I think I get your point. I just have faith, regardless of the specifics we are given, that Jesus was that person. Perhaps it is a shortcoming of my assessment.

There is no force. You have made your own decisions based on whatever convictions you perceive to be real. If they made you change for the better, then you ultimately still was the one that made the decision to change, not some holy spirit, that is just another label for coercion. ALL of it takes place in your cognitive abilities.

All I am asking is that if there is no value in my crutch, then define yours to my certainty of knowing. In other words, give me the knowlege of the cognitive mechanisms that will make your understanding mine....producing the completed feeling I need. As I keep saying, if we understand the physiology to this level, certainly there will be a pill I can take to make the torment leave.

[LivingLife]

Then you will be happy to join me in my rationale, having no need for yours?

You mistake me for having a dependency other than my smoking. One does not toss away crutches if you need them, upgrading to another crutch seem futile. Is it perhaps you like this crutch and fear you cannot live w/o it. Enough folk here have testified as time goes on, the miss it less and only community loss is the thing they miss. Perhaps in the US the religiocentric culture makes for a different reality but that does not mean you cannot make new friends.

 

You have no need for where we have come to as humans?

There are many reasons, religion sadly does not have the answer to the question. Science does not either but the evidence science has is far more convincing and addresses a shitload more than the bible ever did and corrects misconceptions like the role of the female in reproduction, I have addressed this a number of times here.

I don't know the situation there, but different regions would manifest different levels and understandings of relatioships. I will be happy to give examples if you would like.....just tired atm.

Yes list them.

I am just asking why you don't define your belief as a "crutch" that it might satisfy your dependency for understanding. You debate, so I gather you have a some need.

B/c it is not a crutch nor a belief. Whatever I believe in has empirical proof devoid of blind faith. I debate b/c I like it.

Do you know of anyone that doesn't have a "satifying" belief other than children perhaps?

I think you are trying to compartmentalise differing opinions and this is really unique to the US or at least more predominant than other places I have been to. Twinkle twinkle little star is adequate cosmic understanding for a 4 yo but at 21, the cosmos just got a whole lot bigger and more awesome. Pretty hard to try and describe a black hole to a child unless they are exceptionally gifted. Do I need to take the analogy further?

The way I am defining "crutch" is a personal understanding that allows for happiness. As you said, some folks need different understandings. Certainly I don't need scientific facts to satisfy my belief, my crutch. Quite the opposite, I somewhat despise that rationale based on I literally am a product of that mindset.

Science cannot explain woo, it can explain why woo happens. Science also has some pretty good data on placebo effects and proves once again, the mind and body is capable of awesome things sometimes. Of course that domain is not yet fully understood but it is diminishing the concept of gods and angels or whatever else folk find in their preferred spirituality.

I'm not seeing this in that you are still debating.....just teasing. Please don't read comtempt today. Again, I am just tired.

 

I think we are just looking at it from opposite directions. I don't see any worthiness in the human model, but more in the "presidency". But I think I get your point. I just have faith, regardless of the specifics we are given, that Jesus was that person. Perhaps it is a shortcoming of my assessment.

Aah you see, we are now back to jesus the alleged person. The title obviously means nothing more than the title. This is the same as the title of Christian or Atheists for that matter. They are broad terms encompassing many differing views. Some atheists still practice some form of spirituality some christians speak in tongues etc. and other don't. Therefore the titles mean little more than a label like Mr, Mrs, Miss, Master. They are not all encompassing to the finite points of belief or disbelief.

All I am asking is that if there is no value in my crutch, then define yours to my certainty of knowing. In other words, give me the knowlege of the cognitive mechanisms that will make your understanding mine....producing the completed feeling I need. As I keep saying, if we understand the physiology to this level, certainly there will be a pill I can take to make the torment leave.

That is a complex request to offer a simple winner takes all solution. It does not exist. All I can do is challenge using rationale and analogies and science real bible history and knowledge. The believer has to make that final decision to surrender to their doubts and start to question.

 

The only way to do this is to really look at the arguments objectively. Learn from others and see just how much the xian faith has duped people, the lies pertaining to how the NT was written. Even the Hebrew bible is based on an equal amount of myth and imports from other pagan cultures. The road out is not an easy one to travel if you have been in the fold a very long time.

 

I think I have already shared my hang up with xmas even at 54 b/c of the childhood knowledge I had at 6-8 that xmas was a pagan (read:evil) concept and lost out on the childhood fantasy of xmas. I will probably die hating the xmas season. Indoctrination is very hard to undo and unravel.