Bloodnfire,
Nice to see you too. All is extremely well with me! Thanks for asking. I'm getting married Wednesday, and I have been happier this past year than at any time in my life.
I asked you about "sinful nature" 'cause I had just read that verse in Romans (believe it or not I actually go to a bible study class now!) and the pastor thinks the same way you do, and I disagreed with him (it's hard to take me out into polite company sometimes!).
Paul does not say we are born with a sinful nature...i.e., that we can't help but sin, because that is our nature....he just says we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Those two aren't the same idea. I think you (and many Christians) are literally reading into the verse an idea that isn't actually there.
12014. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 12:09:13 PM
I don't think your mean at all CalGal. I just suspect your profanity is getting out of control.
PhillipDavid. Congratulations on your upcoming marriage. You are both blessed people. You post..."Paul does not say we are born with a sinful nature...i.e., that we can't help but sin, because that is our nature....he just says we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Those two aren't the same idea. I think you (and many Christians) are literally reading into the verse an idea that isn't actually there".
Whether one is 'born with a sinful nature' or not is moot isn't it, if everyone sins and comes short of the glory of God? The Scriptures also teach that..."The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9. (I checked again incidentally, and the book does say "All have sinned..." and not "Everybody except SnowOwl have sinned...:-).
When the Lord inspired the writer of Acts to put the two verses (8 & 9) into Chapter 13..."And God Who knows the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us:
And put no difference between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.", it points to one of the major effects of redemption, i.e. the 'cleansing' of the 'deceitful & desperately wicked' human 'heart'.
Dirty hearts = dirty language...'That which is down in the well comes up in the bucket'.
(She that hath ears to hear, let her hear).
12015. PelleNilsson - 3/18/2001 2:05:42 PM
CalGal
Save yourself some aggro. It is useless to reason with people who live in a closed, self-referencing belief system, and who don't have the intellectual capability, or honesty, to admit to it.
12016. SnowOwl - 3/18/2001 2:14:37 PM
bloodnfire,
You're the one who made the claim that as a result of your "extensive personal experience" you knew that all human beings were born with flawed characters.
I have asked you to demonstrate this. You haven't and you want to change the subject again. Why haven't you? Because you can't prove your assertion without referring to the Bible where it tells you we all have flawed characters. But reading something in a book is not "personal experience". You are being intellectually dishonest, which is what I've come to expect from you.
12017. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 2:15:14 PM
I feel it's a mistake to judge other peoples' honesty Pelle. Including yours.
12018. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 2:27:27 PM
I'm also tired of personal attacks. I feel no need either to explain or justify my personal spiritual experiences. The cynical, perverted challenges of avowed atheists is boring beyond words, and I am as disenchanted with each of them, as I realize they are with me.
For as long as I am convinced that...'All scripture is given by inspiration of God', and many in this thread are not, don't question me either to explain or justify.
12019. SnowOwl - 3/18/2001 5:07:29 PM
I'm glad you're sick of personal attacks. In that case perhaps you'll stop making them.
As for the rest, they're just weasel words to disguise the fact that you don't care what your god does, he's god so you'll worship him anyway. That's absolutely fine, despite what any of us might think of the morality of such a decision, so why try to pretend that all your words mean anything else.
But don't whine when others' moral values lead them to reject the murderous, lying, petty god that the scriptures reveal to them.
12020. vonKreedon - 3/18/2001 8:01:21 PM
In Message # 12008 Indiana Jones says:
I'm willing to answer questions about what I actually believe is the nature of God, but not to hypothesize absurdities about a God in whom I do not believe. God is good. Whatever sense of goodness we have comes from him. By the mere fact he is God, he is worthy of our worship and when we put up our own intellect/reasoning/conscience and measure it against his, we are being Luciferian.
I have posed the Scripture based hypothetical, see Deuteronomy 20, suppose you are a member of Mose's tribe approaching Canaan and God commands you to destroy everyone who lives in Canaan and to attack the cities in the vicinity and make slaves of those you can. Do you do as God commands or does your own moral compass prevent you from participating in this bit of ethnic cleansing?
12021. vonKreedon - 3/18/2001 8:05:51 PM
On a slightly different topic, in Message # 12002 bloodnfire says:
There is a marked tendency to disobedience in the human heart that is easy to detect at an early age. Flawed character can lead to 'antisocial' self-centered (and self-destructive) behavior.
I have been thinking about creativity and rebellion. Let me pose a hypothesis:
All acts of creativity are acts of rebellion; the creative act rebels against the status quo by insisting that it can be improved and that the actor has a right to create the new status quo. Without the capability to rebel there is no capability to be creative.
What do you all think about this statement?
12022. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 8:21:59 PM
IndianaJones. You post in your Message # 12002...
"when we put up our own intellect/reasoning/conscience and measure it against his, we are being Luciferian."
I agree. Notice how many keep doing it. The very first words recorded out of Lucifer's mouth were
"Has God really said ........." (Gen.3:1)
12023. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 8:24:13 PM
Indi. I actually meant your Message # 12008.
12024. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 8:26:13 PM
Toys.
12025. Jenerator - 3/18/2001 8:27:55 PM
I particularly like the fact that Jen and others will often say, "Suppose you die and you're burning in hell--you'll regret it then!" I don't recall any of you bitching. But surely "Suppose you die and it turns out that God fucks three year olds and wants you to do the same" and sniff, sob, look how meeeaaaaaan you're being.
I thought I heard my name mentioned. CalGal, you really haven't a clue about my belief system, so try as you may to characterize me in a particular way, rest assured you're wrong.
An honest observation, for an "agnostic" you sure get heated up about God, especially any Christian notions about God.
12026. mgleason - 3/18/2001 8:54:49 PM
Are any of you familiar with Ari L. Goldman? Twenty years a New York Times reporter, he is now a member of the faculty at Columbia University's School of Graduate Journalism, and the author of two books I recently finished: The Search for God at Harvard and Being Jewish: The Spiritual and Cultural Practice of Judaism Today.
In 1985, Goldman took a year's sabbatical to study religion at Harvard's Divinity School, resulting in his first book, an account of his introduction to world religions and the affirmation of his own Orthodox faith. It is an absorbing book by a self-confessed religious pluralist, a rare bird in this or any other age.
Being Jewish, his second work, is an excellent introduction for those unacquainted with Judaism. It is at once informative and captivating, as Goldman puts the ancient traditions through their paces.
I recommend both books unreservedly.
12027. Jenerator - 3/18/2001 9:47:09 PM
Maria,
Three years ago, before I got my scholarship to study abroad, I looked into HDS and YDS. Both schools had an interesting mix of theologians. Yale had a dominant mix of feminists and New Agers, whereas Harvard had a stronger mix of Gnostics and Atheistic Jews. (Philip and I have discussed Helmut Koester and Elaine Pagels before...)
I'm not criticising either school (here anyway), but what I do notice is that both process more revisionists than do conservative theological schools. Having spoken to the head recruiter from Harvard, I know that what they seek are students who are interested in creating their own twist on Christianity.
That being said, I have no doubt that Being Jewish is a good book!
12028. mgleason - 3/18/2001 10:10:09 PM
Jen,
Goldman noticed a strong inclination on the part of the Harvard faculty toward teaching religion, especially Christianity, as literary criticism. He also felt that the Div School's students were much more radicalized than America as a whole.
Part of what makes The Search for God at Harvard so interesting is that Goldman kept looking for the joyous affirmation of faith that marked his own spiritual development, and finding precious little among many of those looking to make the ministry their life.
It's just as good as Being Jewish, believe me.
12029. Jamie R - 3/18/2001 10:11:14 PM
While hanging out at the folks this weekend I cracked open Gary Zhukov's latest (I don't even remember the title.) It's been a long time since I've read any new age books, so I'd forgotten how they work.
From the opening sentence on, nothing but a long string of flat assertions about the nature of reality, god, the human soul, morality, our destiny as a race etc. etc. ad nauseam. Not a word defined, not an argument pursued, not a scintilla of evidence presented for anything. I guess we're just supposed to take his word for it.
But it's the generous helping of pseudo-science and some comical punning-as-etymology that really gives it that Oprah feel.
(Fairness obliges me to add that after the first chapter or so I skimmed the rest, saw more of the same, and chucked it. Maybe upon careful reading it's the best damn book ever. He's from Haaaaavuhd, after all.)
12030. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:42:13 PM
An honest observation, for an "agnostic" you sure get heated up about God, especially any Christian notions about God.
Actually, what I find offensive--if generally inevitable--is the fact that so many people are drawn to such an exclusionary and petty God. I have higher expectations of humanity, I suppose.
Moreover, I am the sort of person who takes hypotheticals very seriously, so when I hypothesize the notion that the universe may indeed be run by such a monstrous little Hitler, it makes me rather ill. What a joke life would be, if it's true. Bleah.
I said nothing of your belief system. I said only that you have mentioned how quickly my opinions would change if I were burning in hell. Which you most certainly have said before.
12033. Jenerator - 3/19/2001 7:28:03 AM
Maria,
Part of what makes The Search for God at Harvard so interesting is that Goldman kept looking for the joyous affirmation of faith that marked his own spiritual development, and finding precious little among many of those looking to make the ministry their life.
Honestly, this is why I did not pursue HDS or YDS. I know that I would have been on a one-woman mission. While I am interested in redaction criticism, I would prefer to study under more disciplined or conservative professors. Part of my initial attraction to tose universities was in making a difference and in taking the lead in conservative scholarship (showing that it still exists and is very much desired), but an alumnus told me that it would have been an uphill battle at either institution. Therefore, I decided that should I study theology again someday (which I sincerely hope to do!) I'll attend a university interested in historcal scholarship with a conservative outlook on the discipline.
Still, I am interested in what comes out of Harvard and Yale.
12035. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 8:45:39 AM
Man sort of wants a relationship but doesn't want to live to any standard or have any conscience.
I thought the key to that relationship is acceptance of Christ as personal savior. That crucial criterion has nothing to do with conscience and standards. It has to do only with belief. Would you say Buddhists Monks have "rejected" conscience and standards?
Conscience and standards are even more irrelevant if only those god calls to begin with are able to have a relationship with him.
12037. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 10:56:25 AM
You have now proposed two different, supposedly ridiculous, analogies to "prove" why you shouldn't have to answer.
Not at all. My response was not to prove why one shouldn't have to answer a question. It was to point out to Jamie R that the analogy of hypothetical red shoes was not equivalent. I have already answered the question--as has blood--but you apparently don't like or don't understand the answer.
I have deleted your post 12011 and 12013 and will delete any further references juxtaposing God and that particular subject. You have asked the question once and your repetitious use of such imagery for shock value makes it little more than angry spam. I said I preferred you not do so again and gave my reasons in 11924.
12038. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 10:58:21 AM
von K (12020): I pretty much answered that in response to Jamie in 11930.
12039. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:04:54 AM
Without the capability to rebel there is no capability to be creative.
vonK (12021): What constitutes creativity? Is it more discovery or invention? What about the almost universal notion among artistic geniuses of inspiration?
12040. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:09:23 AM
12031, 12032, and 12036 were moved to the Inferno because of personal rather than thread focus.
12041. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:10:43 AM
12034 was moved to the Cafe.
12042. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 12:59:13 PM
IJ - Your right, you said that if you were in Mose's tribe you would do as commanded and kill all those currently living in Canaan. So, in your cosmology whatever God commands, no matter how repugnant to your own personal moral compass, is by definition morally good.
But the thing is, how do you know even with this starting point that what is being commanded is from God? In Deuteronomy the Hebrews are not being addressed by God Himself, but rather this is a long speech by Moses instructing and inciting the Hebrews prior to their invasion of Canaan. So now you have surrendered your moral compass to another man who claims, with good evidence, to speak for God. Do you still kill children in Canaan?
12043. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 1:00:02 PM
oops, that should be You're right...
12044. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 1:04:46 PM
I am not speaking of creativity as the discovery of something, but creation of something new. Some creators, Michealanglo for one, do speak of simply uncovering what is already there, but I don't buy this.
Inspiration is in interesting twist, does creativity come from outside of the, human, creator? I assume that this line of reasoning would then trace all true creativity back to God, correct? But what about free will and our being created in God's image? Without the ability to create can we really be said to have free will or to be fashioned in God's image?
12045. Jenerator - 3/19/2001 1:58:20 PM
Hi Jamie,
I'm not sure if I've ever interacted with you before unless you had a different name.
Anyway, I said Man sort of wants a relationship but doesn't want to live to any standard or have any conscience.
You responded in Message # 12035:
I thought the key to that relationship is acceptance of Christ as personal savior. That crucial criterion has nothing to do with conscience and standards. It has to do only with belief.
I slightly disagree. There is a moral compelling or a spiritual urge from necessity that one accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is one thing to simply believe He exists, it's another to have Him as Lord and Saviour of your life. There is some sort of inner-knowledge or awareness that takes place that allows us to see ourselves as sinners in the presence of a Holy and Just God. We desire reconciliation because we realize that we need it. This is part of our conscience calling us to obey a righteous God and to live according to a higher standard.
Would you say Buddhists Monks have "rejected" conscience and standards?
No.
Conscience and standards are even more irrelevant if only those god calls to begin with are able to have a relationship with him.
His moral rules only apply to those He called and everyone else is free to live in rebellion? We're all free to live in rebellion (we all do in some way or another) and the rules apply to all. I'd say that those not called, live to their own standards and to their own consciences.
12046. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 2:12:26 PM
Is it possible to believe in a God who is the higher power but at the same time believe Jesus was only a mortal man who was good and wise but not the son of God?
12047. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 2:14:29 PM
I suppose that would be a Jew, right? Are they saved, then?
12048. Jenerator - 3/19/2001 2:37:54 PM
Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Jews believe in God(s) and that Jesus was only a wise man, or a noble person.
12049. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 2:44:15 PM
Judith
That would rather be a Muslim.
I don't think a Christian can hold the view you propose. It is possible, however, to believe that Jesus was a man uniquely inspired by God. That would make you into a Nestorian. You would then also demote Maria from being the Mother of God (Theotokos) to being the Mother of Christ (Christotokos)
Your nearest Assyrian Church can tell you more.
12050. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 2:45:53 PM
X-post with Jen on Muslims. I don't think Jews hold that Jesus was a wise person, rather a false prophet.
12051. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 2:46:49 PM
Hi Jenerator,
I'm a little confused by the language you're using. You said man wants a relationship with god (to some degree anyway) but doesn't want to live up to a higher standard. I understood that to mean that man wants god but not all the moral principles and constraints that some with him.
But in your reply to me it sounds as though by "living to a higher standard" and "conscience" you mean again wanting a relationship with god. Wanting that relationship comes from the conscience pulling at you to be aware of your failings and subsequent need of god.
But if I parse that back in to the original I have something like "man wants a relationship with god but he doesn't want a relationship with god."
Can you explain a little further? I'm clearly missing something.
12052. mgleason - 3/19/2001 2:47:21 PM
There are Unitarian Christians, too.
12053. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 3:37:39 PM
Thanks guys...I guess you can see it's been awhile since I studied comaprative religion and even then, it was just reading on my own. The church I grew up in wasn't too keen on comparing different views, unless negatively.
12054. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 3:38:13 PM
comparative...
12055. Fielding - 3/19/2001 3:56:40 PM
Orthodox Jews hold that Jesus was a well-regarded Rabbi, whose followers took things a little too far.
In addition, some Jews argue that some of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament (Sermon on the Mount, for example) are Jewish theological beliefs dating back a few hundred years before Jesus. They cite the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence supporting this view. I take no position on this debate.
12056. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:01:11 PM
"I don't think Jews hold that Jesus was a wise person, rather a false prophet."
My understanding is that most Orthodox Jews blame Christianity on Saul (St. Paul). My understanding of this view is that it is based on the fact that Jesus did not renounce Judaism during his life, and celebrated a seder (a Jewish ritual passover dinner) shortly before his crucifiction.
Again, this is what I'm told, and I take no position on it.
12057. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:03:58 PM
Jen:
Welcome back. I hope that your honeymoon was spectacular.
"There is a moral compelling or a spiritual urge from necessity that one accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is one thing to simply believe He exists, it's another to have Him as Lord and Saviour of your life."
I'm sure that this question is old hat to you, but what is your position on people who never learn of the existence of Jesus?
12058. mgleason - 3/19/2001 4:23:06 PM
From The Search for God at Harvard:
The Pulnoer Rabbi related this parable: "A Christian king once invited the ambassadors of several countries to a banquet. Among the guests was a Jew. In the theological debate that ensued, the king invited a Mohammedan guest to state his opinion regarding Jesus. The Moslem asserted that Jesus was not the Son of God, but merely a distinguished Prophet. The Jew, when called upon, stated his belief that Jesus was merely a Jew. 'Jesus was one of us,' he said. 'Who, therefore, knows better than ourselves his true nature?'"
12059. Ronski - 3/19/2001 4:29:15 PM
I doubt that without Paul there would ever have been a Christian religion in any way resembling what exists today. Christianity has even been called the religion of Paul, rather than the religion of Jesus.
12060. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 4:38:35 PM
Ronski
I'm in full agreement with that. Paul was to Jesus what Lenin was to Marx.
12061. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:42:15 PM
It's that whole seer vs. doer thing. You find it in many religions. One guy comes along with a cool idea, is very peaceful and loving, open and accepting to all. A while later a doer shows up and says, "What this place needs is a stern hand and some organization."
The Sikhs have this, too. I forget the details now, but they have the equivalent of a Christ and a Paul.
12062. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:42:41 PM
Except that in this regard, Paul was successful and Lenin was a failure.
12063. Ronski - 3/19/2001 4:43:25 PM
Fielding,
Wait.
12064. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:44:44 PM
Lenin wasn't a failure.
12065. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 4:45:42 PM
Lenin was not a failure. Communism was a failure.
12066. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:48:33 PM
Lenin's version of Marxism has become discredited both intellectually and politically. Paul's Christianity has a billion followers. If that means the same thing in CalGal-land, well then who am I to argue.
12067. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 4:48:34 PM
In omparing Paul to Lenin/Christianity to Communism, one would have to say that Paul appears to have been more successful long term, though Lenin was certainly more successful in his own time. But the Vanguard Party concept of seizing the state for the good of the working class may yet make a comeback, though I think it's doubtful.
12068. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 4:49:26 PM
...omparing should be comparing
12069. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 4:52:35 PM
But the Vanguard Party concept of seizing the state for the good of the working class may yet make a comeback
We're working on it. It's not easy to build an aggressive vanguard of the proletariat when you're mostly fishing for membership among the stoners and performance artists.
12070. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:59:16 PM
Fielding,
Pelle has the right of it. Besides, lord knows Christianity has morphed many times since Paul, so do you count every morph as a failure? Shouldn't he only get the Catholics? Or do we say that the Protestants returned to what he intended and count only them?
12071. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:00:40 PM
Cal - I think we go with Paul wanting Christianity to be the most powerful religion in the world. He's a success.
12072. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:04:19 PM
Can I get any discussion on my statement regarding creativity and rebellion, see Message # 12021, Message # 12039, Message # 12044, any interest in this thread of discussion?
12073. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:06:25 PM
I never said he wasn't a success. I was focusing on the "billion followers" and how they are counted.
Besides, has Russia ever been as powerful and as successful as it was during its Communist period? Setting up a government that gets a country to super-power status is no small achievement.
I would never argue that Lenin was as successful as Peter; I just think it is inaccurate to describe him as a failure. BTW, at this point in time, I think more people know what he's done than know about Peter--but I don't know if that will be true 50 years from now.
12074. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:09:54 PM
I disagree that rebellion and creativity are necessarily linked. Certainly rebellion can be a method of conforming, and it can also be a matter of desperation.
I would say instead that original thought is required for both true creativity and true change.
12075. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:10:44 PM
Lenin was a resounding success in his period; Paul's success has endured for millenia. We'll have to check in in a couple thousand years to see how Vladimir Illych fares.
12076. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:12:06 PM
Cal - Isn't original thought a form of rebellion; a refusal to conform to the orthodox way of thinking?
12077. mgleason - 3/19/2001 5:14:36 PM
There are more than a billion Catholics alone, worldwide.
12078. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 5:14:44 PM
I wouldn't say that. The world is not Christian. Christianity itself is fractured into myriads of sects.
12079. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:16:26 PM
No, not all original thought is rebellion.
12080. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 5:17:42 PM
Well, you can get original conclusions using orthodox tools of thought, and these can be stunningly important (like Maxwell's equations. AFAIK that was just good old scientific method with some math thrown in. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Does that count as a refusal to conform?
12081. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:17:56 PM
In fact, thought is just thought. The expression of thought may be rebellion.
12082. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:20:30 PM
Cal - How can orginal thought not be a form of rebellion? Most of us go through life accepting the orthodoxies that our culture presents us with, to do otherwise requires us to rebel against the orthodoxies.
I am not arguing that every Einstein is a Lenin, but that without the willingness to overthrow the orthodox one cannot create something new.
12083. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:20:36 PM
Jamie,
Exactly. I tried to come up with several examples and couldn't think of any clean enough, so I figured I'd just put the statement out there and see what others could do with it.
12084. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:24:43 PM
Jamie - I am not familiar with Maxwell's equations, though I am familiar with Maxwell's Silver Hammer. At any rate, were they in some way a new way of thinking/viewing/interacting with reality? Did they create something new?
There is also the difference between the method and the purpose put to it, Einstein may have been rooted in the scientific method, but his conclusions are routinely refered to as revolutionary.
12085. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 5:31:02 PM
Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
12086. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 5:34:44 PM
At any rate, were they in some way a new way of thinking/viewing/interacting with reality? Did they create something new?
He used them to get a unified treatment of electricity and magnetism and to show that light is an electromagnetic frequency. I'm not a physicist so I can't go too far with this.
And I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question anyway. It was new information about certain physical phenomena and a set of mathematical tools for working with that information. I don't know if that counts as a new way of viewing reality. Reality is a pretty big word.
Are you looking for the distinction between those discoveries that are important and those that are profound? Maxwell's discoveries are important and useful and true. They don't make people go "man, that is fucked up" the way Einstein's do.
12087. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:39:24 PM
Jamie - I'm trying to differenciate between acts that are, as you say, discoveries and acts that are creations. A discovery may reveal what we expected or it may be accidental; a creation brings something entirely new into our consciousness.
How do we catagorize Columbus? He accidentally discovered the New World, while trying to show that the more or less orthodox thinking about the flat earth was wrong.
12088. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:43:15 PM
vK,
But it seems to me that you are bending the meaning of "rebellion" to fit your desires, when it's the other way round. Original thought is not rebellious. It may be the impetus for rebellion, it may require rebellion to be heard, it may require an extraordinary effort of will to overcome the indoctrination of ideas imposed by a conformist society. Or it may not.
An original idea may revolutionize society without the slightest disruption in its day to day life--for example, the computer. Was their rebellion in the computer? No. Now, was their rebellion in the origination of the desktop? No. First desktop was created at Xerox PARC, one of the great experiments in original thought, but with little interest in rebellion.
For that matter, think of China. Lots of original thought (I often refer to Xerox Parc as the China of high tech), little in the way of rebellion.
I'm not sure what context you are asking this in. I don't think that rebellion is needed for creativity. However, I believe that original thought is needed for true change, and most great creativity begins with change. Given that Christianity of Jen and Indy's form punishes much original thought, I'm sure you'll end up at the same conclusion.
12089. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:44:28 PM
I'm trying to differenciate between acts that are, as you say, discoveries and acts that are creations.
That's entirely different from your original point. But in any case, neither creation or discovery requires rebellion.
12091. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 6:56:30 PM
12090 (my own post) was deleted because it was supposed to be on New Features (it's there as 10272).
12092. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 7:26:44 PM
My hypothesis is that an act of true creativity must be an implicit rebellion against the status quo; that to create something new is to rebel against what is/how things have been done.
Let me define my terms:
Creation/creativity: To bring something truely new into the world. This is different from the discovery of something that already exists; e.g., the discovery of sub-atomic particles would not be a creative act, but developing the hypothesis that such particles exist might be a creative act. It is also different from the production of something in understood ways; e.g. I might produce ceramic bowls and each of those bowls might be unique in the history of the world, but my production of such bowls would not be creative under my definition. Similarly, according to Judeo-Christian-Islamic cosmology, God created humanity and since then we have been producing ourselves; with the advent of genetic engineering we approach the capability of creating new life.
Rebellion: The act of rejecting the status quo/orthodoxy. This does not need to be the purpose of the act and it certainly does not have to be political.
Any problems with these definitions?
12093. anomieme - 3/19/2001 11:12:00 PM
VonK,
If I'm reading your definition of creation right, you have eliminated any possibility of creativity. Nothing totally new. Why is a new bowl NOT creative but a new genetic being is?
I can't go anywhere with the definition although I like the rebellion angle to the creative impetus.
12094. anomieme - 3/19/2001 11:21:14 PM
CalGal,
I found your hypotheticals a bit jarring but I certainly understand and agree with your position. I would only say that we don't need the hypothetical. We were all three years-old once. The Christian God hated Esau in the womb--younger than three.
Just asking about their God as they define him is horrible enough.
Christians freely tell you how terrible their God is, and then deny it out of the same mouth. No need for three-year-old pediphelia. The story they actually do tout is worse.
12095. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:27:12 PM
vonK (12042):
In Deuteronomy the Hebrews are not being addressed by God Himself, but rather this is a long speech by Moses instructing and inciting the Hebrews prior to their invasion of Canaan. So now you have surrendered your moral compass to another man who claims, with good evidence, to speak for God. Do you still kill children in Canaan?
In context, these people had seen plenty of miracles as proof of Moses' mission and had been liberated from the Egyptians and slavery. So they had adequate evidence that Moses was speaking for God--not to mention that I don't think given the moral standards of the time they would have had a problem wiping out the Canaanites even without God's direction, provided it was a lucrative proposition. (That is, they sometimes got into trouble for saving women and livestock IIRC in contradiction of God's orders, but not for humanitarian reasons.)
In the context of post New Testament times, I doubt I would ever be convinced secondhand of God's desire that I kill women and children.
BTW, are you a pacifist?
12096. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:47:07 PM
vonK (12044): In terms of free will versus creativity, I particularly liked the metaphor Tolkien used in The Silmarillion (sp?). I forget what he called the beings and since I'm right in the middle of moving I can't check my copy, but he had "God" (Manwe?) be a composer/conductor and all his "angels" (started with a V, I think) be musicians. The devil-type character (Melchior?) was a musician who wanted to expand his part beyond what God had written for him. During the performance, Manwe kept turning Melchior's discordant notes back into the arrangement, giving it more weight, somberness, etc., but making it richer and fuller.
In other words, I think we can have free will in how well we play our parts, but the sheet music is already laid out for us. Of course I don't think that's an exact allegory, but that's a way for me to get a handle on it.
Have you read Tolstoy's "What Is Art?" Many people don't like the conclusions he reached and think that he gave art too narrow a definition, but I sort of agree with him (sort of, not completely).
Rebellion might well have been essential--presumably God knew that both Satan would rebel and human beings would disobey--so that his greatest glory is how he is able to turn evil to good. Was it Shakespeare who was questioned as to why he had to make Lear suffer so and answered "Otherwise there would have been no play"?
Personally, virtually without question the art in all forms that I most appreciate has at its center a mixture of sadness and joy.
12097. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:16:41 AM
vK
I disagree with both your definitions. Rebellion is way off base and creation is extremely limited.
12098. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:18:37 AM
Oh, I just saw Message # 12093. Yes, that's a good bit of why I object to it, too.
12099. SnowOwl - 3/20/2001 2:18:44 AM
anomiemie,
Christians freely tell you how terrible their God is, and then deny it out of the same mouth. No need for three-year-old pediphelia. The story they actually do tout is worse
Because Christians need to believe that God is good (after all, who would admit to worshipping a monster), they have to rationalise the terrible things God does by resorting to the age old, weak tactic of claiming that we puny mortals can't possibly comprehend the nature of God's goodness, justice, mercy etc and that the evil things he does are simply part of his higher purpose and hidden from us. That's simply nonsense. If we can't comprehend the nature of God's goodness/justice/mercy/etc in fact it makes no sense to talk about him as good/just/merciful etc, since the concepts we use really have no meaning when applied to him.
12100. bloodnfire - 3/20/2001 6:30:14 AM
I am so glad that I know Him, this Wonderful One you brand as a Monster. "God is Love" the Holy Spirit proclaims, and your rational humanism just sneers and wants to argue.
I regret that my paltry explanations have only served to aggravate you and those like you in this thread, and have encouraged you all to insult us and blaspheme Him.
I truly wish you well, SnowOwl. You have been most kind to me in other threads, and it is there that I hope we can communicate in the future. In this thread, I feel that I contribute to your delinquency.
Go ahead and reply, and I'll make sure you have the last word.
12101. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 8:45:30 AM
Because Christians need to believe that God is good (after all, who would admit to worshipping a monster), they have to rationalise the terrible things God does by resorting to the age old, weak tactic of claiming that we puny mortals can't possibly comprehend the nature of God's goodness, justice, mercy etc and that the evil things he does are simply part of his higher purpose and hidden from us.
The argument you are ascribing to Christians is wrong, and their actual belief is much more complex. Worshipping a monster: many religions have quite freely admitted to worshipping beings that demanded human sacrifice or even (as I understand it) deities that embodied both good and evil. They had no problem with it. Further, that Christianity does not deny its past is essential to the Christian's valuing of truth as inherently good. Ironically, the triumph of Christian ideals and values in the Western Zeitgeist is what you see as wrong with Christianity. That is, were human beings still living under pre-Christian mores, the disgust/outrage you and others feel with the "Christian God" would not even exist.
Now, as for the evil you and others ascribe to God, let's look at the human race. In some way we are all interconnected--scientists claim that we have an original "Eve" ancestor and an original "Adam" ancestor. Therefore, one doesn't have to believe in original sin to think that as a species we are all inexorably linked by DNA.
Human beings have committed and continue to commit acts like the Holocaust and every other action ascribed to God upthread. As a human being yourself, I assume you see us as individuals and that we should not all be punished for the actions of literally millions of our compadres both in the present and past.
12102. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 8:45:44 AM
(cont.)
Perhaps yours is a valid way to see us, perhaps we are all so interconnected we should be judged as a lump and punished collectively. Regardless of which is true, an alien race stumbling upon us might very well conclude that individuals are of no more consequence than individual cells in a human body and as a whole we are pretty horrible.
You can disagree with their assessment and argue against that, but assuming they don't have perfect knowledge of the situation, they could still reach that conclusion. Don't you think God is at least as complicated as the human race, just as hard to understand, and your knowledge of him every bit as limited?
Alright, so that addresses what you dismiss as the "weak tactic." The significant part you are ignoring, however, is what gives the Christian religion its name: Jesus Christ. No, we cannot comprehend all things about God, but we can try to comprehend those things about him that were embodied in Jesus Christ. Which also addresses another debate point upthread about Jesus and why one cannot view him as just another prophet: his unique existence was necessary to bridge the gap between the mortal and the eternal, between the perfect and the flawed.
12103. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:03:57 AM
SnowOwl,
Yes, it's as though "goodness" and "justice" take on entirely new meanings. I truly don't understand the rationalization.
12104. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:16:20 AM
Indiana,
You make a valiant attempt to explain the mystery of your God, but you completly ignore the fact that your God also demanded human sacrifice on many occasions, and many more humans will be assigned to hell in the future in the culmination of his divine plan.
You also talk about human sin as something he DIDN'T create. Why let him off the hook?
Millions more will spend eternity in the hell your God created. I ask you in all sincerity, what is the correct attitude of the millions who are damned from birth? Why should these individuals who have no control over their hidious fate consider God to be kind and loving? What good could it possibly do to repent and worship? These folks are damned already. Why should they see your God as anything but a monster?
Please do not use the parent/child analogy. I've never known a parent who deliberately created hell.
12105. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:18:06 AM
Indiana, BTW, thanks for hosting, if I haven't said already.
12106. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:46:10 PM
You completly ignore the fact that your God also demanded human sacrifice on many occasions, and many more humans will be assigned to hell in the future in the culmination of his divine plan.
anomieme: I don't think that's quite right. I introduced the story of Isaac into the discussion, and I readily admit that my understanding of scripture is that some will be assigned to hell (perhaps many more than are saved). As for actual human sacrifice, except possibly for the story of Jepthah's (sp?) daughter, I don't know of an instance when God received a human sacrifice. The instances above when the Israelites killed people weren't a sacrifice to him, but in any case I haven't "ignored" that, either.
I ask you in all sincerity, what is the correct attitude of the millions who are damned from birth? Why should these individuals who have no control over their hidious fate consider God to be kind and loving?
I'm not sure such people exist because I'm not positive about predestination, but I do lean toward it more than I used to. If they do, then it would already seem impossible for them to love God and that is the ultimate reason for their condemnation: they are predestined to hell by their own inability to love God.
In fact, one strain of Christian thought is that hell is in and of itself alienation from God and his love. Milton has Lucifer say (paraphrase), "I carry hell inside me."
12107. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:46:19 PM
(cont.)
What good could it possibly do to repent and worship? These folks are damned already.
I think that they can "repent and worship" would indicate they aren't damned. In Ezekiel IIRC the prophet likens God to a potter and we are the vessels he creates. The flawed wind up cast aside by the creator. Those who can be saved are.
Does that seem hard-hearted? Well, explain an alternative to me. Would you prefer that every human being--no matter how they lived their life--be treated the same after death? If not, how would you evaluate who deserves salvation and who doesn't? Would your behavior in this life have any meaning at all if in terms of eternity it was of no consequence?
There are two questions to be answered: 1) does God exist*? 2) if he exists, what is his relationship with human beings? If you answer no to the first, then the second is meaningless. Clearly you cannot take a "bad" answer from the second ("God is mean to us") and reason your way backward to answer the first in the negative.
Conversely, if you answer the first affirmatively, I think the presumption that God exists does have implications for the second question.
*God as a being with a "personality."
12108. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:47:51 PM
BTW, my own belief is that even without eternal life, even if we all die when we die--finite', kaputo--we would still be obligated to serve "the good."
12109. CalGal - 3/20/2001 12:52:47 PM
Would you prefer that every human being--no matter how they lived their life--be treated the same after death?
Sure. Why on earth not? If the universe was created by an ultimately unknowable entity, any selection process would be random. I think it is best that everyone be treated the same.
Would your behavior in this life have any meaning at all if in terms of eternity it was of no consequence?
Absolutely.
Your questions (and the answers you assume everyone will give) reflect your own priorities and demonstrate again that religions evolved to fill common human needs. Lots of humans apparently need a carrot--hence Christianity.
There are two questions to be answered: 1) does God exist*? 2) if he exists, what is his relationship with human beings?
Actually, the questions can't be answered. Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" to the second one is only answering for themselves, not in any absolute sense, and only about their beliefs, not reality. Thus, there is only one truly honest answer to the first, which is "I don't know". The answer to the second question, in that case, can also be "I don't know". At that point, anyone can hypothesize various relationships and their relative value and acceptability. Which is exactly what this conversation is about. Except some folks don't like to hypothesize too far outside their comfort level.
12110. CalGal - 3/20/2001 12:53:32 PM
Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" to the second one is only answering for themselves, not in any absolute sense, and only about their beliefs, not reality
Whoops. To the first question, not the second.
12111. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:57:23 PM
Cal: I'm not ignoring your posts, but since I've posted a fairly high percentage of the recent content, I'll wait a bit to see what others may contribute before responding.
12112. PelleNilsson - 3/20/2001 1:09:50 PM
1) There is no proof either way. But for me the abscence of positive proof is more important than the absence of negative proof, so my answer is "no".
2) If God exists I think he has a relation to the universe rather than to mankind. He need not be absent in the world like Aristitotle's Unmovable Mover but he also does not have a one-to-one relation with every human being.
12113. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 1:15:14 PM
I have this problem with the potter analogy- a human potter makes flawed vessles by accident, because of carelessness or ignorance. He does not deliberately make warped pots, and then smash them to bits saying "that's what you get for being warped."
But surely god does creates just what he intends to create.
12114. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:55:01 PM
Indy,
I mention this only because of claims you made about your God not demanding human sacrifice. Isn't it obvious that he demanded the supreme human sacrifice of Jesus on the cross? How can you just ignore the fact that Christianity is MAINLY human sacrifice...but I won't belabor this point.
What was the lesson of Jepthat's daughter, BTW? Is God a jokester?
And why do you arbitrarily dismiss all other human death and suffering he caused as NOT a sacrifice. Twas done for his pleasure, was it not?
And finally, I'll comment on the fact that you and others speak about the unsaved as though it's their fault on the one hand, and then come down on the side of predestination. Indeed, your last post to me went something like (heavy paraphrasing), people are damned because of their INABILITY to believe. So I ask you again. What is the correct attitude toward God for these lost souls who had no choice in their disposition? And what is (or should be) the Christian message to the unselected -- too bad, God picked me, he didn't pick you?
How could you not query God on such policies? Maybe because he doesn't answer?
12115. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:57:10 PM
Jaimie, Yes you've said it very well. And parents don't send their kids to hell.
12116. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:57:56 PM
Parents being another favorite analogy, if I wasn't clear.
12117. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 10:54:57 PM
I send mine to her room. I'm reserving hell for the teen years.
12118. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 10:59:29 PM
And thanks. I'm still getting used ot the fatc tht you can't fix typso here. I have to post and then quickly look away.
12119. anomieme - 3/20/2001 11:18:32 PM
Jamie, I live in constant shame of spelling and typos. I guess we must have faith.
Teen years...hang on to your wallet and pray.
12120. SnowOwl - 3/21/2001 1:05:10 AM
IJ
Your analogy of the aliens stumbling across the human race and judging it as horrible doesn't make any sense in relation to God and our understanding of his actions. To begin with, the human race does not, as a whole, proclaim itself perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just etc, demand worship, and consign the aliens who don't comply to everlasting torment.
bloodnfire,
In this thread, I feel that I contribute to your delinquency.
I thought you'd given up making personal insults.
12121. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 11:39:52 AM
Your questions (and the answers you assume everyone will give) reflect your own priorities and demonstrate again that religions evolved to fill common human needs. Lots of humans apparently need a carrot--hence Christianity.
Cal: Actually, I also posted "BTW, my own belief is that even without eternal life, even if we all die when we die--finite', kaputo--we would still be obligated to serve 'the good.'" So no, I don't think a "carrot" is necessary. Personally, I've already received enough of a reward by being allowed to exist once and for all the joy that God has given me in this life. Since I've not walked in others' shoes, I can't make that call for them, but it does seem that those who have apparently suffered the most are also often the most godly. Ironically, secondhand observers take a concentration camp as evidence that God is dead, whereas its inhabitants will usually/mostly be devout believers.
What I was getting at rather was the belief of most that "life isn't fair." If we presume temporal existence--that which we know--isn't fair and decide that in the afterlife God treats everyone the same, how does that suddenly make things fair (just)? It appears to me you condemn God for tolerating a Hitler, but also think Hitler is as every bit entitled to eternal bliss as his victims.
12122. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 11:45:17 AM
Actually, the questions can't be answered. Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" to the [first] is only answering for themselves, not in any absolute sense, and only about their beliefs, not reality.
I assume you mean the answers to the questions can't be known, but that there is an actual reality that--whether or not a person knows--since it's a binary question they have some probability of guessing correctly.
Thus, there is only one truly honest answer to the first, which is "I don't know". The answer to the second question, in that case, can also be "I don't know".
Is there any circumstance under which you think a person should be convinced of God's existence? Are you similarly skeptical about scientific knowledge?
For example, do you believe in the Big Bang? Ought one believe in God if the consensus scientific opinion was that God existed?
12123. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 11:54:37 AM
But for me the abscence of positive proof is more important than the absence of negative proof, so my answer is "no".
Pelle: Why? What about love? What is the proof of its existence?
If God exists I think he has a relation to the universe rather than to mankind. He need not be absent in the world like Aristitotle's Unmovable Mover but he also does not have a one-to-one relation with every human being.
Do you think if God exists, he created human beings?
12124. CalGal - 3/21/2001 11:59:14 AM
Indy,
I condemn God for tolerating a Hitler and rejecting a pygmy who lived a good life. I have no issue with a God who accepts everyone.
I can't make that call for them, but it does seem that those who have apparently suffered the most are also often the most godly.
I don't think you'd find much correlation, actually.
If we presume temporal existence--that which we know--isn't fair and decide that in the afterlife God treats everyone the same, how does that suddenly make things fair (just)?
Why is there any need to make things fair or just after death?
Again, I am not bound by your religion. I don't have to "decide" anything about this God, or any other. I can only state the terms under which I would find your God acceptable, using your basis as a starting point. So I have no demand that this life or the next be "fair". I am not complaining about your god because he's unfair, I'm saying that I reject him because he is petty. You can't say "Well, you want X, Y, or Z from God so you're being unreasonable." No, I don't want anything from God. I'm telling God (in this hypothetical) how he can play out this Supreme Being bit and still meet with my acceptance. He's the one who has to measure up. Not me.
Also, I just saw that you deleted my hypothetical. The subject was over, but I expect it will come up again, and so long as anyone makes statements about others rejecting God, I think you'd best not delete it. Because all Gods are hypothetical at this point and the one I posit is just as valid as the one of your Bible.
12125. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:13:27 PM
Jamie R (12113): (Well, I wanted to use the parent analogy, rather than the potter but was asked not to. Heh.)
I can see two explanations, neither of which is totally satisfactory. Either God as the composer and conductor doesn't have total control over what we do (i.e., our freewill) even though he assigns us the parts we play, or we are all working out God's plan precisely as he designed it--that he wanted the music to have both bass notes and treble.
In Genesis God begins creating as though that is his nature, and many have viewed him as a great artist. What sort of art can exist without villains and suffering? Going back to my remark about Shakespeare and Hamlet, we see something terrible in a TV drama and think, "Thank God, it's only TV."
Well, the problem with reality is that we're not so privileged as to see behind the curtain or to know yet what will happen when the camera is turned off. IMO, however, we should still give the performance of our lives.
12126. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:32:48 PM
anomieme (12114): (What is the signficance of your moniker, BTW? I'm sure you've probably posted it before, but I've forgotten.)
Isn't it obvious that he demanded the supreme human sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?
Good point--I just misunderstood what you were referring to. My point about human sacrifice was to counter the argument that people won't admit to worshipping a bloodthirsty god. Again, the values that many use here to "judge" God are a consequence of Christian influence in the contemporary world. In a pre-Christian era, the notion that God shouldn't be blood-thirsty would hardly have come up.
As far as Christ's sacrifice, you have to first answer the question of what do you think was Christ's nature? The nature of the sacrifice in turn hinges upon that.
What was the lesson of Jepthat's daughter, BTW?
It's an old testament story in which a Jewish leader promises to sacrifice the first thing that greets him if God will give him victory, and his daughter shows up first. Apologists have tried to explain it away (it's not explicitly spelled out what happens to her), but such explanations seem IMO arbitrary. I don't have an answer for it, either--though I will say that the continued existence of passages like that ought to be some proof of the sincerity of those passing on the Bible (i.e., if they wanted to cut out things that gave God a bad name, why leave that in?).
12127. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:41:39 PM
You and others speak about the unsaved as though it's their fault on the one hand, and then come down on the side of predestination. Indeed, your last post to me went something like (heavy paraphrasing), people are damned because of their INABILITY to believe. So I ask you again. What is the correct attitude toward God for these lost souls who had no choice in their disposition? And what is (or should be) the Christian message to the unselected -- too bad, God picked me, he didn't pick you?
I think the attitude of each should be the same. We are not to judge because we don't know. If you think your attitude toward God is not right, try reaching out to him. Try sincerely repenting, asking him to come into your heart, and forsaking your alienation from him--that you'll follow his commandments and the teachings of his son. Promise that from now on, he'll be number one in your life and you will do your best to love God with all your heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.
To the extent you can do that, you're reward will be in this life.
As for believing Christians, I like what Maya Angelou said (paraphrasing): she wasn't a Christian yet, but she kept working on it all the time and hoped she'd be one by the time she died.
12128. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:53:29 PM
Snow Owl: It was for illustrative purposes of what lack of knowlege can mean. I don't see that the fact we don't proclaim our worth invalidates it.
Imagine a Borg-like race with a collective consciousness. If this alien race decided to wipe us out because we might someday be a danger to the rest of the universe as evidenced by our genetic diaspora with bloodthirsty ancestors and our sibling contemporaries, they might not understand (what I assume is your belief) that each human being can make individual decisions about how he or she lives. From their limited frame of reference, they might judge us as collectively evil--the say way we, operating from a limited scope, try to evaluate God.
12129. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2001 2:06:48 PM
Indiana
Pelle: Why? What about love? What is the proof of its existence?
I was speaking in a much more restrictive sense. The absence of proof that invisible flying elephants do not exist does not mean that they do exist.
Do you think if God exists, he created human beings?
No, but he created the conditions under which human beings might emerge.
12130. jexster - 3/21/2001 7:22:52 PM
ANIMA Christi, sanctifica me.
Corpus Christi, salve me.
Sanguis Christi, inebria me.
Aqua lateris Christi, lava me.
Passio Christi, conforta me.
O bone Iesu, exaudi me.
Intra tua vulnera absconde me.
Ne permittas me separari a te.
Ab hoste maligno defende me.
In hora mortis meae voca me.
Et iube me venire ad te,
Ut cum Sanctis tuis laudem te
in saecula saeculorum.
Amen.
12131. anomieme - 3/21/2001 9:59:06 PM
Indiana,
Before I forget...anomie is a word I remembered from Psych 101. It means, I think, a a lack of internalized norms. I'm prone to question all norms although I live by most of them, FWIW. Since I posted exclusively in the R&P thread it seemed apt at the time.
12132. SnowOwl - 3/21/2001 10:07:56 PM
Durkheim. I'd almost forgotten him.
12133. anomieme - 3/21/2001 10:15:52 PM
"Try sincerely repenting, asking him to come into your heart, and forsaking your alienation from him--that you'll follow his commandments and the teachings of his son. Promise that from now on, he'll be number one in your life and you will do your best to love God with all your heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.
To the extent you can do that, you're reward will be in this life. "
Indiana,
Try as you might to be compassionate, you must see how futile it is to ask me to repent -- as to entreat the lame to walk and the blind to see. No doubt their life would be better if God had given them the ABILITY.
I think we all know you're trying to answer some tough questions, so I'll give you that.
It would be nice if someone would take a stab at Cal's hypothetical, or speculate what their own attitude would be if they were deceived and were not of the chosen.
Say you get to heaven's gate, and God condemns you. Says you had it all wrong, Indiana. You should have listened to CalGal when you had the chance. Is God so loving and just in that instance?
12134. anomieme - 3/21/2001 10:35:23 PM
Indiana,
To be fair in my comments, I should add that you did make your statements contingent...
"If you think your attitude toward God is not right, try reaching out to him"
So, you were fair enough, IF a man thinks he can see, he should open his eyes.
12135. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 11:36:45 PM
One question I intended to answer before the petty martinet Nilson struck but never got the opportunity was...
Ask Dr. Coltrane
Dear Dr. Coltrane: What model of stereo works best in hell?
The answer is lost to the ages.
12136. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:02:49 AM
SnowOwl, Rings a bell. Yes.
12137. mgleason - 3/22/2001 12:06:54 AM
I always thought you'd adapted the word anomie to your own use.
12138. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:12:46 AM
Mgleason, How so? I guess if you mean I used it in a less complex context, then yes, I suppose.
12139. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:15:22 AM
If I continue to post in some of the other threads, I should probably request a change. It is a bit weird and I think it worries Marshame. Smile.
12140. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:21:37 AM
Curiosity Google search reveals the following:
"Anomie are a kick ass hardcore metal outfit hailing from Moorhead, MN. Visit there official site for news, pictures, mp3s, RA files and more!
Description: Heavy metal group from the Fargo-Moorhead, MN-ND area. News, pictures, and sound files.
Category: Arts > Music"
I think I'll sue
12141. mgleason - 3/22/2001 12:24:59 AM
I meant that you'd transformed it into an identifier, like revolutionary or pirate. The first definition for anomy, a 16th century word, is disregard of law, especially divine. (Anomie, or lack of the usual social standards, came into usage in the middle of the last century.)
12142. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:33:28 AM
Oh, I see. Seems you know more about me than I do. Hmmm.
But really it was a hasty decision on my part based on a vague memory. As I remember, "anomie" didn't take when I tried to register, so I added the "me". It ended up more confusing than I intended.
12143. bloodnfire - 3/22/2001 7:10:15 AM
Anomie = 'Disregarder of Divine Law'
Me = Myself.
Mmmmm. :-)
No insult intended...again
12144. anomieme - 3/22/2001 6:44:09 PM
mgleason, I didn't intend to sound glib. It is interesting how the term developed. I didn't know about its association with divine law - or at least didn't remember. IAC, your info makes it even more apt here.
Blood, None taken.
Divine Law = Natural Law.
12145. bloodnfire - 3/22/2001 8:45:48 PM
Natural Law +
12146. HollyW - 3/22/2001 11:43:36 PM
Wow. The Christians posting here are talking about a Christianity I do not believe in, but I still consider myself a Christian, although a haphazard one.
I don't know exactly where to start to jump in here, please bear with my fumblings.
For me, Christianity contains (expresses, may be the better word) the truth. This has been primarily a visceral reaction, the intellectual teasing out is still ongoing.
I don't expect Christianity to contain the truth for everyone. I can't conceive how it would. I do believe that everyone needs God, but I don't think that everyone needs to believe in God. I think there is a difference. When Christianity speaks to me of salvation and redemption, I feel rejoicing, and when it says that these things are available to everyone, I believe that to be true.
I cannot believe that anyone on this earth was meant to be damned; I see God's hand stretched out to everyone, and everyone with the ability to reach his hand out to grasp God's. Whether one calls it God or not. Some people do not need "God". I do, and I find myself thinking of the world and my relation to it in terms of Him.
I suppose my ideas of salvation and redemption are rather half-baked, then. They are in the language of Christianity, and in the sermons I have heard, the books I have read, I feel a deeper understanding, and a stronger light on my path; but I don't expect anyone else to find clarity where I do.
Would anyone say I am contradicting myself? I don't think I am, but it seems that when the truth can be many things, the ground gets shakier and shakier, and threatens to get dangerously subjective.
12147. HollyW - 3/23/2001 12:40:04 AM
Ha, not to say that when Jesus said, "I am the Way," he meant to say, "I am one of the Ways..."
12148. bloodnfire - 3/23/2001 6:16:46 AM
Nor that when He said "I am the Truth" He meant that He is only part of the Truth.
It's really good to have you with us. We all tend to contradict ourselves as we try to 'work things out' in our hearts and minds.
"I feel a deeper understanding, and a stronger light on my path; but I don't expect anyone else to find clarity where I do."
We each have to find light and clarity for ourselves. The kind of Christianity I personally have been sharing in this thread for about three years or so, is "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory". (Col. 1:27) That is, a personal 'relationship' (as opposed to a 'religion') with the God Who made relationship with God the Father possible.
My understanding from Scripture is that the Holy Spirit either 'indwells' a person, or He does not.(2 Corinthians 13:5). If that person will seek Him with all their heart, in their heart, they will surely find Him.(Matthew 7:7).
That's it. Glorious romance with the God Who is Love.
You will read in this thread posts from those who are 'fixated' on the killing and destruction which God the Father ordered and arranged in the Old Testament as part of the establishment of "The Law". Teaching us all that none of us could keep it.
Then Grace had Him become one of us (with His clean Heart), and die a death that each of us would otherwise have to die.
"Too good to be true" many say. No, "so good it has to be true".
But I honestly don't want to persuade you. If I could, then some other old fool could persuade you that something else is true. When God Himself persuades, one stays persuaded.
Welcome again.
12149. Jamie R - 3/23/2001 11:31:32 AM
"Too good to be true" many say.
"Not good at all" others say.
I'll be very irked if Christianity turns out to be true. Of course, I'll also be in hell, so I imagine I'll have other things to focus on.
Ironically, if atheism is true I'll never know it. That irks me too.
12150. Jamie R - 3/23/2001 11:32:47 AM
I should say, "some visions of Christianity." It doesn't sound like Holly thinks I'm hellbound.
12151. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:06:22 PM
Turn to the Light
A Sermon Delivered at Grace Cathedral by Louis Weil, Professor of Liturgics, Church Divinity School of the Pacific, 3/18/01
requires Real Audio
12152. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:09:36 PM
I'll be very irked if Christianity turns out to be true
1 Corinthians 15
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
14
if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15
We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
17
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19
If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.
12153. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:11:33 PM
Think you've got problems!
12154. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:22:55 PM
Beliefnet is multifaith and independent. Our goal is to help individuals meet their own needs in the realms of religion, spirituality, and morality. Sometimes this means providing information, and sometimes it means providing
inspiration. We will provide you with original, expert analysis from scholars and thinkers and, more important, allow members to gain wisdom,
companionship and strength from each other.
You’ll find reliable, fair, and thought-provoking information at Beliefnet. Our editorial staff is composed of some of the nation’s most accomplished and respected journalists in the fields of religion, spirituality, and morality.
At Beliefnet, you’ll find:
Religion: Information and special features on religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam.
12155. Uzmakk - 3/23/2001 12:29:00 PM
I make the most persiflagenous posts and they are deleted or never show up. Go figure. Must be Moterguists in the form of thread hosts.
12156. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 1:28:00 PM
Holly,
When Christianity speaks to me of salvation and redemption, I feel rejoicing, and when it says that these things are available to everyone, I believe that to be true.
I cannot believe that anyone on this earth was meant to be damned; I see God's hand stretched out to everyone, and everyone with the ability to reach his hand out to grasp God's. Whether one calls it God or not. Some people do not need "God". I do, and I find myself thinking of the world and my relation to it in terms of Him.
First let me say that redemption and salvation cause me to rejoice also!;-) I have a few questions for you. How come you don't think God is capable of creating or has created anyone who will be destroyed? Who does not need God? What is it we are redeemed for and what is it we are saved from? Why is it that God would offer us these if they weren't necessary for all?
12157. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:30:40 PM
I'll be very irked if Christianity turns out to be true. Of course, I'll also be in hell, so I imagine I'll have other things to focus on.
Ironically, if atheism is true I'll never know it. That irks me too.
Lord. This is so me. Can we start a religion based on this belief system?
The Irkedites--No matter what happens after death, we'll be really pissed off.
12158. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 1:44:01 PM
A fascinating and important lesson dealing with sin, salvation and damnation:
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, by Jonathan Edwards.
12159. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:46:06 PM
Lordy, Christians were unpleasant little squirts even 250 years ago.
12161. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 1:47:59 PM
CalGal,
Spend longer than 30 seconds on it, I dare you.
I dare you to read the *whole* thing.
12162. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:52:26 PM
I did. How else do you think I came to that conclusion? The notion that you would find it appealing is, well, not as surprising as it should be.
If God is as this little monster describes, then I'll be in hell and consider it a step up from eternity with folks like Edwards. But I'll also think the world is a cosmic joke, that such a nasty creature could have built it. That's what will piss me off--not hell, but the knowledge that life and all its beauty was created by such a pathetic creature.
12163. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 2:01:20 PM
CalGal,
It's appealing in the sense that it's historical and that the teachings are interesting. This particular sermon was extremely influential in the 18th Century and although I don't personally like four hour sermons on death and damnation, it's one that's important and influential.
Amazing that so many people would be influenced by this sermon, but you, bad-ass CalGal still don't get it.
12164. Uzmakk - 3/23/2001 2:04:57 PM
you go, girl!
12165. CalGal - 3/23/2001 2:05:48 PM
It's appealing in the sense that it's historical and that the teachings are interesting.
Oh, okay to the first. I disagree with the second.
Amazing that so many people would be influenced by this sermon, but you, bad-ass CalGal still don't get it.
Not amazing at all. Most people are astonishingly stupid.
Okay, that's a joke.
Seriously, I've said before that belief is a capacity, not a choice. But I do know that if I had the capacity to believe, I wouldn't believe in an exclusionary god.
12166. SnowOwl - 3/23/2001 2:14:04 PM
What's amazing is that anyone would consider such a creature to be worthy of worship.
12167. mgleason - 3/23/2001 2:56:47 PM
I posted Ambrose Bierce's ironic take on DIES IRÆ in Poetry some time back, but I thought those that frequent this thread might enjoy it, too. Make sure to read Bierce's preface to his 'translation.'
12168. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 3:01:10 PM
SnowOwl,
I tend to look more at myself as the one who's unworthy. Why would God love me? Why, in spite of all I've done to dishonor Him, would He still remain faithful to me? Why, would He offer me so many chances and spare me from so much?
12169. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:31:42 PM
Jen,
That could just the mindfuck you put on yourself in order to feel like part of the group. Religions, particularly proseltyzing ones, draw in those who need and respond to strict rules about who's in and who's out. The only way that works is if the people are made to feel lucky that they're in and everyone else is out. How better to do that than to posit a God who shouldn't love you, but does anyway--but only if you do something really easy, like believe in him.
BTW, Religion regulars, don't forget to enter the Oscar Prediction contest! Cash prizes, and you can win even if you haven't seen any of the movies!
12170. christipeters - 3/23/2001 3:42:04 PM
CalGal - I know your hypothetical was quite awhile ago, but I would reject that God. In fact, I've pretty much already decided that I may believe in God, but not the God of the Christian bible based on the picture of God drawn by the Old Testament.
I believe the Bible is a very informative book written by people. Parts of it relate actual historical events. Parts of it are allegory. Parts of it are very interesting indications of what the writers thought were important.
If the Bible were the exact word of God and God is completely what is defined by the Old and New Testaments as they exist today, then I don't want anything to do with a petty mean inconsistent tyrant like that.
12171. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 3:43:06 PM
That could just the mindfuck you put on yourself in order to feel like part of the group. Religions, particularly proseltyzing ones, draw in those who need and respond to strict rules about who's in and who's out.
OR it could be that I consider myself fairly small when compared to God. (Hint, hint.) Something about Him being GOD and me being only human, makes me feel more reverent.
Oh, and no one recruited me.
The only way that works is if the people are made to feel lucky that they're in and everyone else is out.
But see, I don't know who's out, I can only speculate; which ina ll honesty is not my my job.
How better to do that than to posit a God who shouldn't love you, but does anyway--but only if you do something really easy, like believe in him.
Welcome to the age-old stumbling block that you and the pharisees couldn't get around.
12172. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:44:55 PM
Christi,
Thanks. I find that most non-prosletyzing believers (like you and Holly) are willing to reject that God, because you believe in the essence, rather than the specifics.
12173. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:46:05 PM
Jen,
You miss the point. I am saying that religious beliefs are a reflection of personality. After all, you were talking about your own feelings. I was saying yes, but your own feelings are dictated by your personality, and your personality is reflected in your definition of God.
12174. christipeters - 3/23/2001 3:51:48 PM
That's it, CalGal. The more biology and physics classes I took, the more I believed there was an intelligent force in charge of it all. So I believe in God.
I was raised Christian and I have found that living my life in ways that meet what Jesus required work for me. (BTW, I stick to what is recorded as Jesus' own words. I also make no judgement as to how accurately those words are recorded. I just know that it works for me.)
I believe the human race as a body needs us to care for and reach out to all of those around us as much as possible for fallible humans to do.
I believe that deliberately harming another person is just plain wrong.
I believe that sometimes shit happens and what's important is how you handle it and what you learn from it.
That's just about as specific (give or take a bit) as I get.
12175. SnowOwl - 3/23/2001 3:51:56 PM
Maria,
The Bierce is delightful. You might also like Burns' Holy Willie's Prayer
O Thou that in the Heavens does dwell
Wha, as it pleases best Thysel,
Sends ane to Heaven an' ten to Hell
A' for thy glory.
And no for onie guid or ill
They've done before Thee!
12176. christipeters - 3/23/2001 3:53:25 PM
Further, that's just about as specific as I need to get. I have no great burning desire or need to define God or pin down all the specifics or try to winnow what truth or truths are the big Truth, etc.
12177. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:57:52 PM
Maria,
That's very funny!
Christi,
I think the need part that you describe is very much what religions and spiritual beliefs come down to: what does a person need or desire as a belief system?
12178. mgleason - 3/23/2001 4:00:01 PM
I'd never come across that one, Snow. Thanks!
I find Bierce's DIES IRÆ irresistible because he captures so well the smugness that characterizes many believers:
On that day of lamentation,
When, to enjoy the conflagration,
Men come forth, O be not cruel:
Spare me, Lord--make them thy fuel!
12179. marshame - 3/23/2001 4:03:40 PM
What I find interesting about the Edwards piece that Jen linked is the historical context. Here, the Reverend Edwards focuses on the righteous wrath of God, and how we so justly deserve hell and damnation. I agree that it is a pretty heavy piece. But compare that to today's popular conception of God: all love, righteousness, all forgiving, no judgement. We are as extreme in our view of God today as Edwards was in his.
So, as they say, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.
12180. marshame - 3/23/2001 4:04:25 PM
Oops, that should read: all love, NO rigtheousness, all forgiving, NO judgement.
12181. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 4:12:34 PM
I didn't know that Christipeters was a believer?
12182. Jon Ferguson - 3/23/2001 4:13:09 PM
Great link, Maria.
12183. CalGal - 3/23/2001 4:18:28 PM
So, as they say, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.
No, actually, it doesn't "have to" at all.
Also, I think there is a difference between saying that God is all sweetness light and righteousness and the belief that God is unknowable but probably not interested in whatever we believed while we were here.
12184. christipeters - 3/23/2001 4:25:09 PM
Jenerator - I guess it depends on how you define believer. However, I have stated my beliefs many times, both here and in The Fray.
12185. mgleason - 3/23/2001 4:47:59 PM
Thanks, CG and Jon.
I posted that link for a guy on TT who was throwing a bit too much hell-fire and brimstone my way, and he didn't like it one bit.
Which reminds me that we passed a truck with a load of molten sulfur on the highway last Saturday. I figured it was an emergency order for the next day's sermons.
12186. HollyW - 3/23/2001 9:26:14 PM
Oh, that's funny.
12187. HollyW - 3/23/2001 9:32:14 PM
Then Grace had Him become one of us (with His clean Heart), and die a death that each of us would otherwise have to die.
There's another part I don't believe in. I don't believe in the sacrificial death of Christ. What's more, it isn't necessary to believe that to be a Christian, as it is not necessary to believe in the literal resurrection. I can tell you, I felt like dancing a jig when I found this stuff out.
Christi, nice posts.
Jen, I'm going to answer your questions in a bit, too. It's helpful to think about and articulate where I am coming from, from time to time, although it changes quite a bit as I go along.
12188. wordninja - 3/23/2001 9:53:41 PM
So . . . this male version of God as a father figure, reads like a divorce court summary pertainin' to dead-beat Dads.
I'm told he knowingly put temptation in the paths of his first two children (Adam and Eve), and when they did what kids will do . . . answer the proddin' of curiosity (which is supposed to be the basis for our species dominance on this particular planet) . . . he throws his hands up in the air n' turns the entire species loose to figure things out fur ourselves . . . then takes a typical Dead-beat Dad attitude of leavin' us to our own devices.
Can't ya'll just picture God, sittin' on the *throne*, leafin' thru one of his back issues of High Times, n' shakin' his head at how rotten and sinful his kids have turned out . . .?
12189. HollyW - 3/23/2001 10:03:00 PM
How come you don't think God is capable of creating or has created anyone who will be destroyed? Who does not need God? What is it we are redeemed for and what is it we are saved from? Why is it that God would offer us these if they weren't necessary for all?
The idea of a God who creates us and destroys us according to how much we please him with our obedience to his law repels me. God's omnipotence is a rather recent idea, and frankly I don't hold to it. The God who sustains me would never destroy me, and indeed created this crazy world but has little control over it. I doubt he created me, although I believe he created conditions agreeable to me being here, to a degree. So I guess I'm a bit of a Deist.
CalGal talks of belief as a capacity not a choice, and I'm grateful to her for being able to put into words something I have not been able to...I really think certain conditions, maybe a mix of personality, life experience, culture, whatever, give one a need to believe in God. I can tell you what my belief in God gives me: the strength to live my life rightly. Other people live rightly without asking for his aid. I believe that they do enlist his aid, only they don't know that's what they are doing; they would laugh at me; but who's right or wrong doesn't matter, I believe in God so that's how I see it, they do not so that is how they see it, and God certainly is not keeping a tally on who "believes"--he promised us, he is available to all! And I believe that.
12190. HollyW - 3/23/2001 10:23:31 PM
What are we saved from? Hoo, boy. Hard to pin this down, I know others have probably said it SO much better...but I'd say ourselves, our loneliness, and the deep pain that seems to be our legacy, being human. How are we redeemed? The pain is washed clean, it ceases to matter. We are filled up, we are not alone. How does this happen? As many different ways as there are people, haha...myself, I think of Jesus and am filled with joy. I read C.S.Lewis' Surprised by Joy a few years ago, and related to it quite a bit.
However, another notable thing about that book, he describes the moments of joy at certain times in his life, and his desire to find it or rather let himself be guided by the search for it, and suddenly he arrives at Jesus. How he got there is a big mysterious leap, to the reader, and to him. Not everyone would make the leap to Jesus...someone living in India sure would not, most likely. But their path would not be any less true.
Bloodnfire, mulling over the contradictions has certainly deepened my faith. What I was saying before was, I did not believe I was contradicting myself, although it sure would look like I was. Sorry if I was not clear--it wouldn't be the first time, though!
12191. anomieme - 3/23/2001 11:23:32 PM
HollyW,
I'm very much enjoying your post. It's a refreshing outlook for this crowd. I'm not a Christian but I have a certain respect for personal spiritual experiences and It's always interesting to hear about them. I hope you continue.
12192. Jenerator - 3/24/2001 8:42:38 AM
Holly,
The idea of a God who creates us and destroys us according to how much we please him with our obedience to his law repels me.
It scares me and makes me realize, I have room for improvement!
God's omnipotence is a rather recent idea, and frankly I don't hold to it.
How could he be God then?
The God who sustains me would never destroy me, and indeed created this crazy world but has little control over it.
I don't understand why you think that God sustains you but has little to no control over this world. If He sustains specificaly Holly, wouldn't that imply some sort of special relationship?
I doubt he created me, although I believe he created conditions agreeable to me being here, to a degree. So I guess I'm a bit of a Deist.
He had no idea you were coming and has no control or knowledge of what will happen to you?
CalGal talks of belief as a capacity not a choice, and I'm grateful to her for being able to put into words something I have not been able to...
CalGal likes to talk about things she has no experience or true knowledge in. She can tell you all about belief and God; but bases those opinions solely on her misunderstandings and lack of any real experience. It would be like me telling you what it's like to be a man as a female.
I really think certain conditions, maybe a mix of personality, life experience, culture, whatever, give one a need to believe in God. I can tell you what my belief in God gives me: the strength to live my life rightly.
What do you mean by rightly?
(Cont.)
12193. Jenerator - 3/24/2001 8:46:30 AM
Other people live rightly without asking for his aid. I believe that they do enlist his aid, only they don't know that's what they are doing; they would laugh at me; but who's right or wrong doesn't matter, I believe in God so that's how I see it, they do not so that is how they see it, and God certainly is not keeping a tally on who "believes"--he promised us, he is available to all! And I believe that.
What about those people who reject Him?
What are we saved from? Hoo, boy. Hard to pin this down, I know others have probably said it SO much better...but I'd say ourselves, our loneliness, and the deep pain that seems to be our legacy, being human.
Jesus came to say, "I am here to save you from yourselves."??
How are we redeemed? The pain is washed clean, it ceases to matter. We are filled up, we are not alone. How does this happen? As many different ways as there are people, haha...myself, I think of Jesus and am filled with joy. I read C.S.Lewis' Surprised by Joy a few years ago, and related to it quite a bit.
So we're redeemed how??
However, another notable thing about that book, he describes the moments of joy at certain times in his life, and his desire to find it or rather let himself be guided by the search for it, and suddenly he arrives at Jesus. How he got there is a big mysterious leap, to the reader, and to him. Not everyone would make the leap to Jesus...someone living in India sure would not, most likely. But their path would not be any less true.
So, any andall paths lead to God?
I'm trying to understand the way you think about Jesus, as a Christian. We all have room for growth and we all bring our own perspective to the table.;-)
12194. Jenerator - 3/24/2001 8:49:11 AM
christipeter,
I guess it depends on how you define believer. However, I have stated my beliefs many times, both here and in The Fray.
Are you a Christian now? You'll have to forgive me, but I don't recall you ever stating your beliefs. I remember you saying that your beliefs are personal and that you don't share them. Most likely you were defending your opinions with Vic.
12195. RosettaStone - 3/24/2001 8:56:50 AM
We went to "the Stations of the Cross" last night at our local Catholic church.
Such a powerful symbol of the last hours and death of Jesus.
First time our teenagers did it. The church sponsored a pizza party afterwards for the kids.
I know it sounds outrageous but it worked. Next week the kids want to go again--although no party afterwards.
12196. anomieme - 3/24/2001 10:20:26 AM
Jen, Your questions to Holly betray your belief in innerancy - Baptist version - and sounds like biblical idolitry to me.
Can't someone have a direct relationship with God? Does God need to check in with the innerancy faction before he can relate to someone?
12198. HollyW - 3/24/2001 12:21:04 PM
Jen,
It scares me and makes me realize, I have room for improvement!
Well, okay, then. It would scare me too if I believed that. Fear doesn't motivate me to live closer to God, the peace and joy that results from walking in his light does. So we are different.
How could he be God then?
That is your definition of God, and like I said, a fairly recent definition of him. God is powerful, but is not required to be omnipotent, even in Christianity. I reject your definition. The God I know would not have allowed the horrible things of the world happen if he could help it.
I don't understand why you think that God sustains you but has little to no control over this world. If He sustains specificaly Holly, wouldn't that imply some sort of special relationship?
He sustains me, he does not control me. He reaches out his hand, and I grasp it. He gave me free will. He can't control me. I do have a special relationship with him. As I am sure your relationship with God is special, and personal. I know that you believe Jesus died on the Cross for your sins.
I'm not making this up as I go along, Jen. Christianity is a far from cut-and-dried religion. People who think a great deal more clearly and deeply than I do puzzle over the meaning of his life and death. I am still in the process of exploring their insights.
12199. HollyW - 3/24/2001 12:30:57 PM
He had no idea you were coming and has no control or knowledge of what will happen to you?
Exactly. To a tremendous degree. Free will again.
The comments about CalGal don't refer at all to what I said, only your opinion of CalGal, therefore I won't respond to them.
What do you mean by rightly?
We could go on and on with that one! What is right living? What Jesus taught. But don't you think many people live by what could be called good Christian virtues, but only without the religious belief?
You think of people who reject him as specifically rejecting his name. I think you can have Christ living and active in your heart without naming him Christ.
i have more to say about this, but motherhood calls...
12200. CalGal - 3/24/2001 1:56:07 PM
I believe that they do enlist his aid, only they don't know that's what they are doing; they would laugh at me
Well, I don't know that they enlist his aid, but I do think that, if there is a God who happens to care about what people on earth do (keep in mind there could be a God who doesn't give a damn) then that God would realize how different people are, and look to how they lived, rather than what they believed.
12201. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 2:24:10 PM
It never ceases to fascinate me how so many people can be caught up in this superstitious, irrational, archaic cult called Christianity.
Even among many of the non-believers here, the persistent niggling doubt that is so highly in evidence is truly a marvel to behold.
There is almost no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God. There is even less reason to believe that anything remotely resembling the Biblical God exists. And yet we babble for hours and hours about this fantastic being who belongs with unicorns, goblins, angels and dragons ... in fairy tales.
Many billions of years ago, a few amoeba gained a foothold on Earth. They might have come from interstellar debris, or we might have even been colonized by another civilization much like our own. We are only a few decades from being able to do so if we so desired (there's no reason to colonize a new planet with people, amoeba and time will do the trick nicely.)
After a lot of evolution, here we are. It is not a miracle that everything works as it does, it is exactly what one would expect after billions of years of adaptation. The world is still a very chaotic place as anybody whose head isn't inextricably wedged up their ass would be happy to admit.
There is no God, people. Get over it. There are a brainwashed few who are too far gone to hear this message. But those of you who seem to be wavering need a wake-up call. This was it.
12202. arkymalarky - 3/24/2001 3:31:00 PM
Wow. Glad you cleared that up. Will we change the thread name to just "Philosophy"?
12203. bloodnfire - 3/24/2001 7:34:38 PM
We've put away all of our banners,
Melted down our red kettles for shells,
Put our uniforms out with the dustbins,
and thrown out our wee silver bells...
We've closed down our re-hab-ilitation,
(The centers for making folks 'free'),
Called in all our doctors and nurses
From our hospitals 'over the sea'...
No more helping the homeless or hurting,
Nor comfort those mourning the dead,
If you're hungry or homeless or helpless,
Go see Jonny Furgy instead.
The fact is the 'Ferguson Mindset'
Was rampant when life got its start,
And the trouble has never been 'minds' after all,
The problem has been with the heart...
We worked fourteen decades for Jesus,
No strings, just God's loving outpoured,
And we feel true compassion (not smugness),
For all those who don't know our Lord.
But lurking around this arena,
Can prove wonderfully good for the soul,
For the Christ of the Cross is a 'Motie',
And He can deliver Jon's soul.
Author Unknown.
:-)
12204. RickNelson - 3/24/2001 7:50:20 PM
JAYSUS!
12205. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 9:35:24 PM
Blood
As misguided as you are, I truly believe that you do a lot of good. When reality is so harsh that life becomes unbearable, providing people with a fantasy that gives them hope is certainly not something I can condemn.
But you are, sadly, the exception among those of your faith. And what little good you do doesn't begin to make up for all the atrocities and other acts of lunacy committed over the past two millennia in the name of Christ.
Thanks for the poem, though. Cute.
12206. wordninja - 3/24/2001 11:17:14 PM
*Talkin' to yurself in public and not havin' to worry about lookin' like yur on dope . . .*
12207. ee - 3/24/2001 11:17:37 PM
264. God - 9/15/99 9:33:28 AM
Oh, and if you get bored, kill a bunch of non-believers for me. And if history looks unfavorably on what you do, make up some dumb excuse about how even though the leaders of this movement have been kooks from day 1, that still doesn't mean that the movement is kooky.
same conversation as 800,462 minutes ago
12208. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 11:42:08 PM
ee
Ain't that the truth. Good to see you.
12209. HollyW - 3/25/2001 1:02:00 AM
Hee.
Good poem, bloodnfire, and that kind of thing usually annoys me.
Hey Jon! Was that you trying to mix it up in TT last month, on an MWT thread?
12210. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 1:04:54 AM
Hi Holly
I don't post on TT, other than to change my tag-line occasionally (I 'host' (if that's the right word) the Mote Café over there.)
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what's MWT?
12211. bloodnfire - 3/25/2001 5:20:29 AM
Jon, thanks for your smiling acceptance of my 'tongue in cheek' doggerel.
You post..."what little good you do doesn't begin to make up for all the atrocities and other acts of lunacy committed over the past two millennia in the name of Christ."
Let's forget everything and anything 'good' that's done in the name of Christ. I acknowledge the countless attrocities and acts of lunacy also done 'in His name'. It seems to me that what we are looking at is the difference between love and hatred.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, any loving act done in His name is 'genuine' Christianity. The other nightmarish behavior reflects self-centered 'religiosity' and is the reason He came to die in the first place.
I appreciate your kind spirit.
12212. bloodnfire - 3/25/2001 5:29:01 AM
"Many billions of years ago, a few amoeba gained a foothold on Earth"
"Such brilliant amoeba, how fortunate they came,
Sent here by The Creator, to start a lovely 'game'
A game called "Love's Salvation",
In which folk, like you and me,
First getting 'lost' then being 'found'
At last can be made 'free'.
Thank God for those amoeba,
Summer, Winter, Spring and Fall...
Without them I'd have never met.....
Jon Furgeson at all!"
I promise this is my last epic poem, at least in this thread, for a long while! :-)
Thanks Indy for your patience.
Jon, I care for you, and truly wish you well.
12213. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 9:22:43 AM
Could someone post a quotation from the bible in which "the mote in Gods eye" is mentioned? I think it starts "It is better to remove..." something something; I need to be able to quote it verbatim rather than just guess at it.
12214. mgleason - 3/25/2001 9:28:57 AM
Matthew 7:1-5 (King James Version):
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
12215. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 9:37:33 AM
Thanks, Maria...can you explain to me how someone could see the word "beam" and take it to mean "log" or "piece of lumber" in the context of those verses?
I assumed it meant a ray of light or a gleam of something like understanding, lust, envy, whatever. This lady I know took it another way.
12216. mgleason - 3/25/2001 9:46:28 AM
Judith,
In the later tranlations 'plank' or 'log' is usually substituted for 'beam,' as 'speck' (of sawdust) is for 'mote.'
The passage refers to a fault observed in another person by a person who ignores a greater fault of his or her own, so the comparison is as between a log and a splinter, for example.
12217. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 9:55:46 AM
Thanks, Maria...I suppose she has a later translation.
12218. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:05:00 AM
Furiously biting tongue. (g)
12219. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 10:07:35 AM
Don't hold back, Jon...but might I suggest you take your little put down to the Inferno?
12220. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:09:28 AM
Thanks for the kind words, Blood (not that I would ever expect otherwise from you.)
12221. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:10:11 AM
Now Judith, you're being catty again. Please desist. Thanks, Sweetie. (g)
12222. wordninja - 3/25/2001 10:30:37 AM
Does not the "mote", as referred to, conjur a mental image of a tiny mote of dust, that one may detect lazily floatin' in the radiance of a "sunbeam" shinin' thru a window?
I oft times think that we are too busy tryin' to look for the "mote" that mars the radiance of the life-beam shinin' out from the eyes of others, which in turn, befouls the perfection of our own image, as we beam it outward to *enlighten* the world with the lasers of our egos . . .
.. . 'course that's just the opinion of this ol' secular humanist
12223. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 10:52:32 AM
Thank you, kind sir...you should write a book!
That was what I thought when I first read the quote: motes on beams of light.
12224. PelleNilsson - 3/25/2001 12:25:54 PM
Ferguson's Message # 12201 confirms his level of emotional development.
Teenager Discovers "Truth" and Decides to Confront Elders with Revolutionary Message.
12225. RickNelson - 3/25/2001 4:31:02 PM
Dear bloodnfire, I insist you take a moment of your time over to the Poetry thread and read Maria's limricks.
12226. bloodnfire - 3/25/2001 8:19:26 PM
I did Rick. Always enjoy Maria's posts, especially in your thread.
12227. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:38:25 PM
Holly,
Well, okay, then. It would scare me too if I believed that. Fear doesn't motivate me to live closer to God, the peace and joy that results from walking in his light does. So we are different.
Fear is the beginning of wisdom. Don't you think that it is only natural that we fear God in some ways? Read Psalm 103, read Ephesians. What say you?
I then comment on your rejection of omnipotence and you say:
That is your definition of God, and like I said, a fairly recent definition of him.
I never gave a definition.(?)
God is powerful, but is not required to be omnipotent, even in Christianity.
If he knows the past present and future, how is he NOT omnipotent?
I reject your definition. The God I know would not have allowed the horrible things of the world happen if he could help it.
If he couldn't help it, he wouldn't be a God. Besides, he has done acts of vengeance and destruction.(the flood, Sodom, etc.)
We could go on and on with that one! What is right living? What Jesus taught. But don't you think many people live by what could be called good Christian virtues, but only without the religious belief?
He taught that He was the way, the truth, the light and that *no one* would come to the Father but by Him. How do people who consciously reject Him, come to Him??
12228. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:41:37 PM
Jon,
Message # 12201
Your wake-up call was weak, very weak. I'm sorry to break this to you, but Christianity has been around longer and influenced more lives that you will ever have. Christianity will also be around longer than your own legacy ever will be.
12229. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 9:49:07 PM
Jen,
If he knows the past present and future, how is he NOT omnipotent?
Sweetie, that would make him omniscient, not omnipotent.
Christianity will also be around longer than your own legacy ever will be.
So will syphilis and cockroaches.
12230. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:51:44 PM
Knowledge is power, sweetie.
12231. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:53:15 PM
I've created the heavens and the earth and everything in between. I know the past, present and future. I am passionately woven into all of creation, I'm just not omnipotent.
Yeah, okay.
12232. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 9:57:35 PM
Oh, we're talking about you. Well why didn't you say so?
Of course it's a given that you're omnipotent, Jen. (g)
12233. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 9:58:51 PM
And at least you and Pelle can agree on something.
Isn't it beautiful how I bring people of opposing beliefs together like this? (g)
12234. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 10:01:16 PM
Jon,
I don't understand you sometimes. You're very supportive of religion (yes, including Christianity) and you've said wonderful things about what it has done for it's believers. Then, for some unkown reason, you go on these binges and insult Christianity and it's followers.
Your announcement was incredibly condescending. I didn't think you'd say that stuff.
12235. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 10:02:21 PM
I have to go. I hope you win the Oscars sweep!;-)
12236. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:14:10 PM
Jen,
You've always known that I'm an atheist. I've often told you that your judgmental streak bothers me. You see me as condescending. Do you think I'm the only one being condescending?
Christianity can do wonderful things for a select few who use it as a tool to bring love, hope and meaning to their lives. Most use it as a club to condemn others with. Either way it is, at its root, a mythical cult. But if used for good, I don't have much of a problem with it.
10-4 with the majors to go. The only really stupid choice I made was Gladiator for Cinematography instead of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
12237. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 10:18:45 PM
My goodness what is Sigourney Weaver wearing??
Jon,
All of us are judgmental in ways, including yourself. Did you stop to think of how judgmental your rant against Christianity was??
12238. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:36:55 PM
Haven't noticed Sigourney.
Just lost another Gladiator pick to CTHD, this time best score. Crap.
My opinions are just that, Jen, my opinions. People can take them or leave them. And yes, most people leave them.
I don't try to back them up with torture, or fire and brimstone. I don't try to coerce people into believing as I do or try to impose my views on others. That's the difference. Well, that and my beliefs are based on science and rational thought (if you want to nitpick.)
But I don't really want to debate with you. As I mentioned, there are a few people who are too brainwashed to hear me. But imagine what you'd do if a friend of yours was trapped in a religious cult and you can begin to imagine how I feel when I see what you've immersed yourself in.
12239. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 5:29:29 AM
Oh Oh, what's happened ? All I get is a blank page.
12240. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 5:34:06 AM
All better now. Good morning everyone...
12241. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 12:08:52 PM
Good morning bloodnfire.
I'm reading If Not For The Grace of God, and it's quite nice.
12242. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 12:13:10 PM
But imagine what you'd do if a friend of yours was trapped in a religious cult and you can begin to imagine how I feel when I see what you've immersed yourself in.
Weird that you don't always think that way. I can recall many nice things you've said to me about my faith in Christ.
Secondly, I have feelings and thoughts about your staunch atheism at times, but I don't try to insult you with condescending announcements on how brainwashed you are. Nor do I compare your outlook with a cult; which I could do.
12243. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 1:38:11 PM
I can recall many nice things you've said to me about my faith in Christ.
Well, context certainly played a role in that, Jen.
How can you claim I'm 'brainwashed' when I came to atheism entirely on my own, Jen? As you know, but may have forgotten, I was raised Anglican Protestant, carried the cross in church, etc.
I didn't know a single atheist (at least, not one who shared his/her views with me.) Or did I 'brainwash' myself? (g)
I'd be interested to hear how you could possibly compare my outlook with a cult. Please elaborate.
12244. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 2:25:06 PM
Jen. Hi. Great subject "Grace". I don't seem to be able to make your link to the book you're reading work. Can you try again please ? Or is it only I who am having this problem ?
12245. SnowOwl - 3/26/2001 2:29:40 PM
That is not a link. It is simply underlined to show that it is a book title.
12246. mgleason - 3/26/2001 2:32:12 PM
It's not a link; she underlined the title.
BTW, have you read Blood and Fire : William and Catherine Booth and the Salvation Army?
12247. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 3:43:47 PM
Jon,
People who think that Christians become brainwashed when they become Christians really don't understand what it's like to be Christian! I didn't surrender my thought processes when I became a believer, and if anything I'm faced with more choices than before.
The WWJD bit is overdone, but as a Christian, I do have to think about things not only in my own terms according to my own conscience but by the standards of my faith. I fail miserably sometimes, too. But, I am never on automatic pilot!
You mentioned the word "cult" first and since you used it loosely, I used it it right back on you. Had I responded in kind, I would have said that you had been brainwashed by the liberal media and the secular community and that you are a faceless member in the cult of self. (But I didn't!)
12248. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 3:49:41 PM
Bloodnfire, 
12249. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 6:35:34 PM
Main Entry: cult 12250. CalGal - 3/26/2001 6:39:18 PM Well, atheism could be a cult. Put another way, a group of people who are atheists could form a cult around atheism. You could say that this is what MMOH did, in fact. But there is no way that atheism itself could ever be a cult. 12251. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 7:32:26 PM Thanks Jen. I'll look into it (both figuratively and probably physically...:-). 12252. Indiana Jones - 3/27/2001 8:44:09 AM anomieme (12133):
Pronunciation: 'k<
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Given that definition, I don't see how you can identify atheism as a cult. Christianity certainly qualifies, though. We'd just disagree on how many sub-definitions apply.
If I was Christian, though, you'd never hear me say 'the WWJD bit is overdone.'
It's frustrating to talk to wayward Christians. Part of me wants to try to convince you that you've been completely bamboozled. Part of me wants you to act more in accordance with your purported beliefs. And part of me just wants to walk away and let you muddle through on your own.
The last course of action is probably wisest.
Christianity, on the other hand, is a cult. The only thing that transforms a cult to a religion is respectability--usually indicated by popularity.
Maria thank you too for the thought about the book concerning William and Catherine Booth. How about that title ? "Blood and Fire". Now that would make a pretty good Moni......nah!
Try as you might to be compassionate, you must see how futile it is to ask me to repent -- as to entreat the lame to walk and the blind to see. No doubt their life would be better if God had given them the ABILITY.
God through Jesus commanded Christians to evangelize the world. Therefore my faith is that this task has some meaning to it. Yet at the same time, I don't think that we are saved except by the grace of God. How those two th