What Religion Is Supposed To Be

[David Sklansky]

To be religious ought to simply mean that-

1. You think that it is reasonably possible that there exists a God who is paying attention to you and other humans.

2. You believe that if such a God exists, he is interested in the human race as a whole and therefore wants people to sometimes act in a way that might not appear to be in their individual short term interests.

3. You also believe that if such a God exists, he will sometimes use his powers, perhaps after death, to reward or punish those who defy his wishes regarding #2.

What religion isn't supposed to be, in my view, is-

1. A blind certainty (or feigning certainty) in details about God, including even his existence, when it is obvious that there is no good reason for that certainty. Notice that if God is merely interested in your obeying #2 he only requires that you ASSUME he exists. In fact even that isn't necessary, as far as he is concerned if you are the type of person who naturally follows #2

2. A belief that #2 is NOT God's main concern, or worse yet that it is barely his concern at all (as opposed to your worshipping him.) Of course such a belief gives comfort to those who know they are incapable of doing a decent job following #2. Which is why it is so prevalent.

How can all this not be obvious?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
How can all this not be obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. And I submit the answer should be either very long and involved, or sweetly short.

I eagerly await Chezlaw and NotReady to respond. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can all this not be obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. And I submit the answer should be either very long and involved, or sweetly short.

I eagarly await Chezlaw and NotReady to respond. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is my very short hopefully sweet response.

3) seems misguided.

chez

[Subfallen]

It's very far from obvious because it assumes religion is basically altruistic, which is incorrect. If anything, religion is basically discriminatory. It prescribes tribal values (amity among "us"---enmity towards "them"), mind-closing faith, abject worship of authority, etc, etc.

Read any monotheistic theologian and this is completely clear. Yes, we love and forgive(!?) unbelievers, but we also deem it just to torture them for eternity.

[cambraceres]

This either needs to be rewritten or thought out.

Why have number three in the "What religion should be" list?

To give efficacy to the moral framework, is that it?

to say that a creative power one could call god, [ QUOTE ]
will sometimes use his powers, perhaps after death, to reward or punish those who defy his wishes regarding #2

[/ QUOTE ] is just a way to impose a valid system, of morality.


To qualify, your belief in number three is simply a way to say that your actions have consequences, and in the elucidation of those consequences to define the purpose of life. The purpose would be the only objective thing to look forward to. In this case, judgement. After declaring one's belief in judgement, it is only a short skip to saythat this is our tangible reason for existence, and then we have quite the familiar situation don't we.

Try again

Cam

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can all this not be obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. And I submit the answer should be either very long and involved, or sweetly short.

I eagarly await Chezlaw and NotReady to respond. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is my very short hopefully sweet response.

3) seems misguided.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

#3 is almost certainly wrong. But what's the point of being religious if you don't think it might be true? You do realize when I said my post was obvious, I meant that obviously this is how religion ought to be. Not that the things I enumerated were obviously true.

[TheEkim]

Really the problem here is one of semantics. Your points seem outline what faith should be... and often is. Faith is a flexible and personal thing, religion is organized, codified and structured to be shared in groups. Definition from wikipedia "The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."

So religion almost requires the very things you would demand religion not contain, and personal faith is everything you would want from religion.

[amplify]

To be religious ought to mean:

1. That one believes that not everything can be counted, weighed, measured or reduced to its constituent elements.

2. That though there are physical correlates to states of consciousness, and a physical brain correlating obviously with a mind, the mind is not merely a physical brain, but transcendent of it. For example, you can measure my brain waves, but no such measurement will tell you what I am thinking.

3. That subjective exploration of consciousness is as meaningful as objective physical science, but can be studied only by an individual actually looking at the contents, structure, and evolution of one's own mind.

4. That there is a long contemplative history and record of individuals who have performed this sort of exploration, a large percentage of whom report extraordinarily similar findings, especially when semantic and terminological differences are ignored or synthesized.

5. That this interior cognitive reality that we all seem to share is what is generally referred to as spirit, God, Buddha-Nature, Brahman, Christ Consciousness, and so forth.

6. That those who wish to know for themselves, must contemplatively investigate their own consciousness. Techniques which historically have aided such investigations include: Vipassana, deity devotion (bhakti yoga, Christ/God worship), breath awareness, zazen, selfless service, pharmacological aids such as hallucinogens, other various yogas including kharma yoga, jnana yoga, raja yoga, meditation on the identity of the self, and on and on.

7. Pick one and let us know what you find.

[soon2bepro]

What do you mean, "what religion ought to be"? What it ought to be with what purpose in mind? Maximizing happiness? Maximizing the numbers of idiots that follow it? Maximizing the chances it's true? What?

[GoRedBirds]

Religion ought to be optimistic agnosticism?

[Subfallen]

I should have mentioned Luke 12:51-53 in my earlier post: <font color="red">"51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."</font>

Dogmatic, specific belief is the hallmark of religion. Not a spiritual commonality shared by all men.

[amplify]

I thought of a better answer:

It's supposed to be fun.

[diondublin2]

You sound like a 'theological negative' to me.

Have you read the latest 'Ra' material? It's on the net.

Remember, theological negativity does not require one to deny the validity of certain ideas, identifications or understandings of God - merely an admission that one cannot KNOW - here and now - 'his' nature.

Thusly, one might extend, for a professed theological negative to rule out or seek to rule out any individual possibility or theory as to 'his' nature is wrong, because one also cannot know what it (God) is NOT.

Thusly, a true 'theological negative' is calm and unassuming regarding theories as to what God is. He is unlikely to be able or willing to rule any out, or he probably is not what he pretends to be!

Adrian Mark Armstrong

Teign View House (name obscured partially by ivy)
56 Teign View Road
Bishopsteignton
Devon
TQ14 9SZ
United Kingdom

Tel: (+44) 1626 775454

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have mentioned Luke 12:51-53 in my earlier post: <font color="red">"51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."</font>


Dogmatic, specific belief is the hallmark of religion. Not a spiritual commonality shared by all men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true?

[Phil153]

Yes. That text is from the New International Version, a plain English version of the bible, but it's the same as the King James:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012%20;&amp;version=9;

There's some interesting stuff in there. The very next chapter, Jesus claims that Satan was responsible for a woman's crippling (which he heals). No wonder people thought the sick were wicked and infested by demons.

13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

You should read the bible David, and you'll realize that even the liberal Christians you like so much are actually a bit funny in the head.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should have mentioned Luke 12:51-53 in my earlier post: <font color="red">"51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."</font>


Dogmatic, specific belief is the hallmark of religion. Not a spiritual commonality shared by all men.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading those kinds of passages from this perspective:
-------------------------
God is Love, Jesus is human-and-Love and always spoke in a spirit of Love. When we die, God will meet all of us in a loving embrace.

The opposite of Love is Hate. So Jesus spoke for Love and all its attributes. He also opposed Hate and all its attributes. Many people are filled with the attributes of Hate. Many people embrace Hate, teach it to their children, and consider anything else to be weak and undesirable. They live by the code of vendetta. They have no regard for others except for how they can gain advantage from them. They Fear Love. They Fear what Love will do to their life of Hate.

Their Family is a family of Hate. When Love enters that family it is divisive. Those who hold on to their Hate become seperated from those in their Family who embrace Love.

What happens to people who live on Hate? Their Hate consumes them. It is like a fire within them that energizes them briefly but eventually destroys them and their Family.

What happens to societies that live on Hate? In the broad sweep of history they do not succeed. They may briefly build empires and look successful, but in the long run they do not last.

For those of us who want to live in Love, how are we to view the success of those around us who live on Hate - remember the times of Jesus and before him. Should we lose Faith in Love? Or should we have Faith that Hate will eventually lose out? What do we want to see happen to Hate? We want to see it destroyed forever. But what is our view of the people who live on hate? Do we want to see them destroyed? In an Historical Sense, yes. We want History to see them dwindle in numbers until they are extinguished. But on a personal level, we don't Hate the Haters. Jesus taught us just the opposite, to Love our enemies. We want to counquer Hate with Love. And see those who live on Hate find the Good News of the Life of Love in the Here and Now.

Heaven and Hell are States of being which we experience in the Here and Now. Heaven is the life of Love. Hell is the Life of Hate. But Hate consumes itself. It burns itself out. And our hope is that All Hate will eventually see final extinction in it's own fires. Thus leaving ALL OF US to Live in Love. People are met by God after death in a loving embrace. In History, Hate filled Societies, Families, and Individuals will vanish from History.

Also remember that people made up stories back then. Stories that involve supernatural events conflicting with common sense should be seen as just that. Stories. They were meant to convey some message or dramatize some remarkable but natural event.

Also remember that a lot of the language is metaphoric or symbolic.
---------------------------

These are the kinds of things that seem obvious to me.

PairTheBoard

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
When we die, God will meet all of us in a loving embrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'</font>
- Matthew 7:17-23

<font color="red">6 I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.</font>
- John 14:6

<font color="red">19 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' </font>
- Luke 16:19-24

There is nothing "big picture happy" about Christianity. The big picture is the vast majority of people being tortured forever. It's not useful to pretend otherwise; try reading some St. Augustine, etc.

I know this is not your vision, PTB, but according to 21 centuries of Christian theologians, it was definitely Jesus' vision.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
#3 is almost certainly wrong. But what's the point of being religious if you don't think it might be true?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you actually believe in a God who wants you to behave in a certain way there may well be a duty to try and do that (out of respect if nothing more) quite irrespective of whether you will be punished/rewarded or not.

I always considered myself religious (as do members of my church, including the minister) even though I have never believed anyone is punished after death.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this true?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read The Dude's conversion to atheism thread in Diablo's forum?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
I should have mentioned Luke 12:51-53 in my earlier post: "51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."


Dogmatic, specific belief is the hallmark of religion. Not a spiritual commonality shared by all men.



Is this true?


[/ QUOTE ]

It would be better to have some comprehension of what this passage mens in light of that time in the history of mankind. In the Hebrew way the people were connected through the BLOOD and in this sense there was a distinct sense of being part of the Hebrew people such that their Egos were more of a group ego. The idea of an individual ego was not known by not only the Hebrew people but there were commonalities of Egos in the peoples of the ancient world. The ancient Hebrew could say "Abraham and I are One" and in this he could clairvoyantly experience himself as a part of the Hebrew people and did indeed live in this common ego.

At that time there was only a prehension of the individual ego. Christ Jesus came into the world and these bonds were to be broken in that the INDIVIDUAL EGO of each man was to become manifest. The old ties of blood were to be broken and each man would by nature develop his own individual ego. This passage was not a call to war against ones family but a understanding that in order to develop as a full human being the old ties would be broken.

Examples of this egocentricity are definitely manifest in the world and of course on this forum. The Christ incarnated in the bodies of Jesus of Nazareth, died on the cross, and entered into the hearts of men as the way to transcend the egotism which is the dark side of the individual ego. As Paul said, "Not I but the Christ in me". HE is the guide who sits in the hearts of ALL MEN.

I will repeat again that this development of the ego will not be accomplished in one life. The movement of the individual ego is such that all of mankind is involved in the LOVE which manifests in ALL MEN. One can see that the individual ego will come to the point of selfless love for all of humanity and will not settle until the thought of one lost human in this journey is anathema to him(talking of human beings here).

[Subfallen]

Ok, let's try this again. JOHN 3:16!

<font color="red">For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.</font>

(Emphasis mine.) How easy would have been for Jesus to say, "That whoever loves as he does?" Very easy. But that's not what he said, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY.

The heart of Christianity is the specific belief that Jesus was God Incarnate. Believing that---truly believing it!---is perhaps insurmountably difficult, but the Christian premise is that all spiritual virtues flow from the outliving of that belief.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When we die, God will meet all of us in a loving embrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'</font>
- Matthew 7:17-23

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what happens in History. Families, subcultures, and societies built on Hate will bear the Fruit of Hate. They will be known by that fruit. When the fullfillment of History comes We will All live in Love. Those elements of the human family whose spiritual ethos was one of Hate will be gone. History will see them Fail, be cut down, and ultimately eliminated. Some of these Strains of Hate actually promote themselves as followers of Jesus. I think a good example is the established theology of a Hell of Eternal Torture for individual children of God. There's really a subculture with atributes of Hate there masquerading as promoters of Love. But those attributes of Hate do not know Love and Love does not know them. That subculture will Fail and be Cut Down in History just like those which openly declare for Hate.

That's what happens in History. The individuals involved remain loved by God and will be met by his loving embrace upon death.

Love does not punish individuals. Individuals can only benefit from Love. But the Culture of Hate which individuals belong to will ultimately Fail and be Cut Down in History.

Why is this so hard to understand? It's so obvious. Is it possible so many primitive theologies had it wrong because they were still so embedded with strains of Hateful attributes from our primitive past? Is the reason this language was used by Jesus because he knew this progression of understanding had to take place?





[ QUOTE ]

<font color="red">6 I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.</font>
- John 14:6

[/ QUOTE ]

Love is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the source of Love except through Love. IOW, you can not reach the source of Love through Hate. If you find Love, you've found Jesus.


[ QUOTE ]

<font color="red">19 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' </font>
- Luke 16:19-24

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, this is an allegory for History. The Rich Society built on Hate ends up Failing and figuratively thrown on the Trash Heap of History - Recall the word for Hell stood for the Burning Trash Dump outside Jeruselum. Meanwhile, the Cultures of the Meek inherit the Earth and end up in the Fullfillment of History as the victors.

It's a History Lesson. Did you really try reading these from the perspective I suggested?


[ QUOTE ]

There is nothing "big picture happy" about Christianity. The big picture is the vast majority of people being tortured forever. It's not useful to pretend otherwise; try reading some St. Augustine, etc.

I know this is not your vision, PTB, but according to 21 centuries of Christian theologians, it was definitely Jesus' vision.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a wonderfully Happy Big Picture if you open your mind a little and look at it the way I suggest. I suspect the reason Theology has proceeded the way it has is because it had to speak to so many people who were NotReady to take the Reality of the Spirit seriously. John told them that God is Love. Jesus told them that the Reality of Love is Immediatly Accessable. They could glimpse this. It touched their hearts. They were moved by Love. But they were not ready to take this Reality of the Spirit of Love completely seriously. The familiar attributes of Hate, vendetta, revenge on their enemies continued to curse their understanding.

We may still be in the early stages of the Historical Process whereby the Reality of the Spirit is taken seriously. Then again, we might be ready to wake up to it at any time.

PairTheBoard

[Subfallen]

Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of not as a departure from, but a Fullfillment of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of not as a departure from, but a Fullfillment of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So did all the other heretics they burned alive.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's try this again. JOHN 3:16!

<font color="red">For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.</font>

(Emphasis mine.) How easy would have been for Jesus to say, "That whoever loves as he does?" Very easy. But that's not what he said, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY.

The heart of Christianity is the specific belief that Jesus was God Incarnate. Believing that---truly believing it!---is perhaps insurmountably difficult, but the Christian premise is that all spiritual virtues flow from the outliving of that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Heart of Christianity but not for the reasons you think. This is the Unique aspect of Christianity among all the other World Religions which speaks to the age old complaint against God which our good friend MidGe reminds us of over and over.

The problem is this. How can God love us? How can he really know what it is to be human? If he loves us so much, why doesn't he try walking a few miles in our shoes. You might think a General who gives an inspiring speech to his troops before the battle cares about them. But a General who marches to the front lines and jumps in the foxhole right next to you and fights the enemy right alongside you as the bullets whistle past your heads; Who jumps to your defense and even takes a bullet just like you might! That's a General you can really Believe Loves you.

That's how people understood Jesus. To believe in Jesus is to take God's Love seriously. To believe in Jesus is to Reject MidGe's complaint. To believe in Jesus is to really believe in the Power of Love. To Believe in Jesus is a Spiritual State of Commitment to Love. If you find a Life of Love you have found a Life with Jesus. You have become his friend. If you grow into that Spiritual State of Commitment to Love you have grown into a belief in the Spiritual Reality of Christ. That Life of Love is Infinite Life Right Now. It is Eternal Life Right Now.

Hate and the suffering it produces is finite. There is no life in Hate. It consumes itself and eventually destroys itself. <font color="purple">Hate and suffering is a set of measure zero compared to the Infinte Eternal Life of Love </font>

All that is for Right Now. Remember, the Good News Jesus preached is that this Infinite Eternal Life of Love is immediatly accessable, available, and something to experience Right Now.

What happens after death? "Let the dead bury the dead". God will meet us all in a Loving embrace. Leave the rest up to him. That's God's concern. Our concern is Right Now.


PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of not as a departure from, but a Fullfillment of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So did all the other heretics they burned alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the fate of Jesus as well. Remember they complained about his treatment of the Law. He said he did not come to discard it but to fullfill it. It can be a dangerous thing to say. That doesn't make it incorrect.

Let's hope I am safe from Inquisitions.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of not as a departure from, but a Fullfillment of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So did all the other heretics they burned alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the fate of Jesus as well. Remember they complained about his treatment of the Law. He said he did not come to discard it but to fullfill it. It can be a dangerous thing to say. That doesn't make it incorrect.

Let's hope I am safe from Inquisitions.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are sort of making the "Thats what they said about Galileo" mistake that all the tin-foil-hat wearers make. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thats what they did to Jesus, true, but its also what they did to a thousand other idiots who are now dead and forgotten.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I always considered myself religious (as do members of my church, including the minister) even though I have never believed anyone is punished after death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in life after death?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of not as a departure from, but a Fullfillment of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So did all the other heretics they burned alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the fate of Jesus as well. Remember they complained about his treatment of the Law. He said he did not come to discard it but to fullfill it. It can be a dangerous thing to say. That doesn't make it incorrect.

Let's hope I am safe from Inquisitions.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are sort of making the "Thats what they said about Galileo" mistake that all the tin-foil-hat wearers make. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thats what they did to Jesus, true, but its also what they did to a thousand other idiots who are now dead and forgotten.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if your argument is that the things I'm saying are the ramblings of an idiot, I guess my only retort is, I disagree.

PairTheBoard

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of not as a departure from, but a Fullfillment of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualify this statement, I'd love to hear it.

The question is, why?


Why beleive it, we all know you CAN, but WHY?

Cam

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if your argument is that the things I'm saying are the ramblings of an idiot, I guess my only retort is, I disagree.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Do either of you happen to know the name for that fallacy?
"They laughed at the Wrights, too".
implied - they're laughing at me, therefore I could well be right too.

Seeing that PTB's will make the 666th "real version of the truth of the bible" I've ran into since signing on to 2+2 I don't really have an opinion on it ( I don't want to pissoff 665 posters). So I don't know if PTB was just using the soft version. "...therefore being laughed at doesn't mean I'm wrong." Actually most people use it somewhere in Between those two.

carry on, luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if your argument is that the things I'm saying are the ramblings of an idiot, I guess my only retort is, I disagree.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]



Do either of you happen to know the name for that fallacy?
"They laughed at the Wrights, too".
implied - they're laughing at me, therefore I could well be right too.

Seeing that PTB's will make the 666th "real version of the truth of the bible" I've ran into since signing on to 2+2 I don't really have an opinion on it ( I don't want to pissoff 665 posters). So I don't know if PTB was just using the soft version. "...therefore being laughed at doesn't mean I'm wrong." Actually most people use it somewhere in Between those two.

carry on, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really puzzled by vhawk's original comment. You said that my view was a radical departure from established Christianity. I pointed out that the source of Christianity was itself a radical departure from the establishment of its time. My point being that there's something fundamentally radical about Christianity to begin with. So maybe I'm not so out of line. vhawk then pointed out that established Christianity has killed radical departure from it in the past. I responded, yes that's what establishments sometimes do.

But I don't really see the point to that line. After all, the OP topic is, "What Religion Is Supposed To Be". I can't help it if that's a radical departure from what Religion is. You guys have been hating on the Christian Establishment up and down the street. Does a solution to it threaten your Hating Party? Is the Christian Establishment like an old dog you don't want to get rid of because you enjoy kicking it so much?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, I like your interpretations much better, and thank you for sharing them! It is unnerving to think I heard scripture preached for so long without anyone suggesting such altruistic and hopeful considerations. Crazy.

Nonetheless, one cannot interpret scripture in this fashion without making a profound departure from Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of not as a departure from, but a Fullfillment of Christianity.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualify this statement, I'd love to hear it.

The question is, why?


Why beleive it, we all know you CAN, but WHY?

Cam

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a fullfillment of Christianity? Because I think it is the obvious interpretation of scripture based on the fundamental statement which fullfills scripture. That being "God is Love". It's an interpetation that makes sense. Unlike the established ones which have been endlessly and justifiably criticized here on the basis that they are simply not humane.

Why should you believe it? You don't have to. You don't have to understand it and you don't have to believe it. But I think you do know what Love is. Whether you call it that or something else. What matters is your relationship to that. My view is that if you embrace that you are embracing Jesus. But that doesn't have to be your view. And I don't want to insult you by insisting on it. What matters is your relationship to Love. My view of what that means is my concern, not yours if you don't share it.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it a fullfillment of Christianity? Because I think it is the obvious interpretation of scripture based on the fundamental statement which fullfills scripture. That being "God is Love". It's an interpetation that makes sense. Unlike the established ones which have been endlessly and justifiably criticized here on the basis that they are simply not humane.

Why should you believe it? You don't have to. You don't have to understand it and you don't have to believe it. But I think you do know what Love is. Whether you call it that or something else. What matters is your relationship to that. My view is that if you embrace that you are embracing Jesus. But that doesn't have to be your view. And I don't want to insult you by insisting on it. What matters is your relationship to Love. My view of what that means is my concern, not yours if you don't share it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your view of what that means is your concern, unless it distorts/contradicts the reality of both. what I read in the bible, and what I experience and see in the world. In this case, your view is positively Orwellian, and can be, and has been, and is, the cause, or the facilitator, of abominations done in the name of "Love".

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the Christian Establishment like an old dog you don't want to get rid of because you enjoy kicking it so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us need our revenge. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But, seriously, I think your thoughts on Christianity are well-aligned with your emphasis on subjective experience. Certain Christian aphorisms are incredibly deep guides to living meaningfully. ("Love your neighbor as yourself" comes to mind.)

So your idea of religion appeals to me as a huge freeroll. It gives even deeper reason to embrace the existential power of Christian principles, WITHOUT requiring one to accept the strictures of its morally depraved, intellectually impoverished dogma! And, to top off the bargain, 8 or 9 billion people avoid eternal conscious torment.

So I'm really kind of baffled why luckyme/MidGe are actively attacking your position. There's no downside to believing as you do, as far as I can tell. Certainly different people would derive different amounts of value from the belief; but how could it possibly hurt?

Personally, I'm quite sure I would be at least a more compassionate person if I had such beliefs.

[Ben K]

PTB.

Thing is, someone can accept all your talk about love and believing in love and acting in love, and can do so for the whole of their lifetime without once ever dropping rationality and believing there is a god, or that jesus is also god.

I happen to agree with most of what you write but when you suddenly change a word like love for god, you're just making it up. Living a life of love with respect to others will make your life better because of the improved reaction of them to you, (and your own feelings about your behaviour) not because some figment of imagination is having an influence.

This is the problem with christianity. There are a few sound principles there but it is surrounded by rigid dogma that fails to improve over time. It's the problem with all religions. Religion is evil. Love is fantastic. You can have love without religion or god.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to agree with most of what you write but when you suddenly change a word like love for god, you're just making it up. Living a life of love with respect to others will make your life better because of the improved reaction of them to you, (and your own feelings about your behaviour) not because some figment of imagination is having an influence.


[/ QUOTE ]

The LOVE to be spoken of here is that of self sacrificing love. The type of love that is selfless. the love you speak of is barter love of intellectually common usage due to the preponderance of the economic spirit especially in the USA.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Thing is, someone can accept all your talk about love and believing in love and acting in love, and can do so for the whole of their lifetime without once ever dropping rationality and believing there is a god, or that jesus is also god.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah...
[ QUOTE ]
I happen to agree with most of what you write but when you suddenly change a word like love for god, you're just making it up. Living a life of love with respect to others will make your life better because of the improved reaction of them to you, (and your own feelings about your behaviour) not because some figment of imagination is having an influence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Christians say God is love because they believe he is the source of all good.
[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem with christianity. There are a few sound principles there but it is surrounded by rigid dogma that fails to improve over time. It's the problem with all religions. Religion is evil. Love is fantastic. You can have love without religion or god.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Christian argues that you couldn't have love without God - for God is the source of your very ability to love - it's like cutting off the branch your sitting on.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
But I don't really see the point to that line. After all, the OP topic is, "What Religion Is Supposed To Be". I can't help it if that's a radical departure from what Religion is. You guys have been hating on the Christian Establishment up and down the street. Does a solution to it threaten your Hating Party?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your argument, then, that every individual is supposed to just make up their own definition of Christianity? Or should everyone just follow yours?

I can easily go on an internet forum and say, "The religion of Islam as it's being practiced and preached is wrong. It's really just about love. If all Muslims simply love, then we will all be in the loving Allah's embrace..." etc. etc.

And it all sounds very nice and happy and unfortunately it has no basis in reality beyond your own opinion. You might as well throw out the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, and start your own new religion. Because that's what you're doing.

And if we can just create our own idea of god to please our own preferences of what religion SHOULD be - then what does that say for god? Did he create us or is it the other way around?

Again I think your sentiments are admirable but you're really making it all up. Which I guess is what the Bible authors did but even so why should I trust you more than them?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian argues that you couldn't have love without God - for God is the source of your very ability to love - it's like cutting off the branch your sitting on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or have toenails.
After 2000 years are listeners supposed to say, "woah, whatja saying dude... god is the source for what's here on earth? who'd a thunk."
I suspect (hope) PTB is saying something a bit more than than or else he's used up his years supply of letters over a triviality.

luckyme

[godBoy]

I'm not too sure what you just said, whatja saying wierdo?

I'm just a simple person.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not too sure what you just said, whatja saying wierdo?

I'm just a simple person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was giving PTB credit for saying more than your interpretation of it
[ QUOTE ]
... for God is the source of your very ability to..

[/ QUOTE ]
which of course is the base claim for god-did-it religions. Whatever he is saying.

luckyme

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it a fullfillment of Christianity? Because I think it is the obvious interpretation of scripture based on the fundamental statement which fullfills scripture. That being "God is Love". It's an interpetation that makes sense. Unlike the established ones which have been endlessly and justifiably criticized here on the basis that they are simply not humane.

Why should you believe it? You don't have to. You don't have to understand it and you don't have to believe it. But I think you do know what Love is. Whether you call it that or something else. What matters is your relationship to that. My view is that if you embrace that you are embracing Jesus. But that doesn't have to be your view. And I don't want to insult you by insisting on it. What matters is your relationship to Love. My view of what that means is my concern, not yours if you don't share it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you describe is not Christianity - that's not the message of Christ and Paul.

Perhaps you can clarify this - but you seem to be confusing the simple(yet strange) message of Christianity that is..

Our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear the punishment instead of us. How do we get let off ptb?

[godBoy]

You would give me credit also for disowning Jesus Christ - so I will do without your credit just fine and dandy.

I don't want to confuse or pervert the truth of the message - keep things simple, unless they need to be something more.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the Christian Establishment like an old dog you don't want to get rid of because you enjoy kicking it so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us need our revenge. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But, seriously, I think your thoughts on Christianity are well-aligned with your emphasis on subjective experience. Certain Christian aphorisms are incredibly deep guides to living meaningfully. ("Love your neighbor as yourself" comes to mind.)

So your idea of religion appeals to me as a huge freeroll. It gives even deeper reason to embrace the existential power of Christian principles, WITHOUT requiring one to accept the strictures of its morally depraved, intellectually impoverished dogma! And, to top off the bargain, 8 or 9 billion people avoid eternal conscious torment.

So I'm really kind of baffled why luckyme/MidGe are actively attacking your position. There's no downside to believing as you do, as far as I can tell. Certainly different people would derive different amounts of value from the belief; but how could it possibly hurt?

Personally, I'm quite sure I would be at least a more compassionate person if I had such beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aho Mitakuye Oyasin

PairTheBoard

[Ben K]

It only different in the sense that christians sacrifice their critical thinking (in this one area).

Otherwise, I mean by love what you mean except for the god bit.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Thing is, someone can accept all your talk about love and believing in love and acting in love, and can do so for the whole of their lifetime without once ever dropping rationality and believing there is a god, or that jesus is also god.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to agree with most of what you write but when you suddenly change a word like love for god, you're just making it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

"God is Love" is a Spiritual Proposition. I offer it to you as a gift. You can take it or leave it with no condemnation implied by me if you leave it. So what's the problem? Others may want to take the gift. Do you object to that? Why is that your concern?

Also, I personally did not just make it up. It's been part of Christian scripture for 2000 years.

[ QUOTE ]
Living a life of love with respect to others will make your life better because of the improved reaction of them to you, (and your own feelings about your behaviour) not because some figment of imagination is having an influence.


[/ QUOTE ]

You say it's the love that's the influence. I say it's the love that's the influence. Is it ok if we have a different subjective experience of what that means?

[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem with christianity. There are a few sound principles there but it is surrounded by rigid dogma that fails to improve over time. It's the problem with all religions. Religion is evil. Love is fantastic. You can have love without religion or god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm providing that improvement and you're complaining. Then you complain there's never any improvement. Do you complain when you hit the lottery by saying, damn I never hit the lottery?

PairTheBoard

[Ben K]

I see where you're coming from but christians saying you can't have love without god doesn't make it true.

The science of our brains is still quite young but we already know love provokes certain chemical changes and that certain chemicals can make us feel love. It's just a matter of time before we can explain this without reference to the supernatural. One less gap, I guess.

[Ben K]

I have no problem with your gift. It's one I accept with thanks. But if god is love then really, you don't need the word god as it's encompassed by the word love.

Your idea of god is probably the best I've ever seen and I have no complaint with this definition. I do have complaints with religious dogma.

I was hoping to provide as much agreement with you as I could, but clearly I rushed my post and it came out wrong. I apologise.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I don't really see the point to that line. After all, the OP topic is, "What Religion Is Supposed To Be". I can't help it if that's a radical departure from what Religion is. You guys have been hating on the Christian Establishment up and down the street. Does a solution to it threaten your Hating Party?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your argument, then, that every individual is supposed to just make up their own definition of Christianity? Or should everyone just follow yours?

I can easily go on an internet forum and say, "The religion of Islam as it's being practiced and preached is wrong. It's really just about love. If all Muslims simply love, then we will all be in the loving Allah's embrace..." etc. etc.

And it all sounds very nice and happy and unfortunately it has no basis in reality beyond your own opinion. You might as well throw out the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, and start your own new religion. Because that's what you're doing.

And if we can just create our own idea of god to please our own preferences of what religion SHOULD be - then what does that say for god? Did he create us or is it the other way around?

Again I think your sentiments are admirable but you're really making it all up. Which I guess is what the Bible authors did but even so why should I trust you more than them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my posts explaining those passages of scripture which people argue make my view incompatible with "real" Christianity. I'm willing to do that with every passage in Scripture you want to talk about. One at a time if you don't mind. So my view is not just coming from out of the Blue. It speaks both to Christians and to non Christians. I believe it is the view that was originally intended by Jesus. And I don't think I am alone. Although I've not read his books I suspect it is close to Sullivan's view - of the Harris-Sullivan debate discussed here recently. Also, if you read some modern theology I think you'll see it's not too far removed from a lot of thinking going on these days even within the Christian Establishment.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Christian argues that you couldn't have love without God - for God is the source of your very ability to love - it's like cutting off the branch your sitting on.

[/ QUOTE ]



Or have toenails.
After 2000 years are listeners supposed to say, "woah, whatja saying dude... god is the source for what's here on earth? who'd a thunk."
I suspect (hope) PTB is saying something a bit more than than or else he's used up his years supply of letters over a triviality.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


"God is Love". Take that seriously Christians. So to say, "you can't have love without God", it's the same as saying, "you can't have love without love". Is that a trivial statement?

No. It speaks to the point carlo made when he said,

[ QUOTE ]
carlo -
The LOVE to be spoken of here is that of self sacrificing love. The type of love that is selfless. the love you speak of is barter love of intellectually common usage due to the preponderance of the economic spirit especially in the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]

People DO understand this kind of Love naturally. You can see it in most any Mother in Her love of Her child.

This is what Jesus was talking about when he said, "you can't come to the Father except through me".

You can't reach the source of Love except through Love. What kind of Love are we talking about? The kind of Love Jesus lived as an example to us for what it is. Do you have to "believe in Jesus" to know that Love? No. People know what it is naturally. It pops up all over the place. In fact, there are a lot of Non-Christians who know it a lot better than a lot of Christians. Christians should have some humility about that and be willing to take lessons from others. Once again, that's what Jesus was talking about when he said there would be people proclaiming his name who he did not know. In other words, "Christians" who are offbase on Love.

I think a good example is the attitude a lot of Christians have toward gays. When two gay people love each other and express that love physically, God is there. Love is there. When Christians are blind to that they are blind to Love. They are blind to God. They put themselves in the category of those Jesus spoke so vigorously against when he chastized some of the Pharisees of his time. They become those who proclaim the name of Jesus but who Jesus "does not know".

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it a fullfillment of Christianity? Because I think it is the obvious interpretation of scripture based on the fundamental statement which fullfills scripture. That being "God is Love". It's an interpetation that makes sense. Unlike the established ones which have been endlessly and justifiably criticized here on the basis that they are simply not humane.

Why should you believe it? You don't have to. You don't have to understand it and you don't have to believe it. But I think you do know what Love is. Whether you call it that or something else. What matters is your relationship to that. My view is that if you embrace that you are embracing Jesus. But that doesn't have to be your view. And I don't want to insult you by insisting on it. What matters is your relationship to Love. My view of what that means is my concern, not yours if you don't share it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you describe is not Christianity - that's not the message of Christ and Paul.

Perhaps you can clarify this - but you seem to be confusing the simple(yet strange) message of Christianity that is..

Our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear the punishment instead of us. How do we get let off ptb?

[/ QUOTE ]

luckyme made the same objection and provided several passages from scripture which he thought were slam dunk contradictions to my view. I explained them. I think my explanation makes a lot more sense than the interpretations many other people insist are the proper ones. Their interpretations contradict Love. Mine do not.

So I'll make the same offer to you that I've made to others. I'll try to explain any passage from scripture you want me to. Just bring them one at a time.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear the punishment instead of us. How do we get let off ptb?


[/ QUOTE ]

My view does not ignore the Hook. But the hook is not what happens when we die. The hook is right now. Hate is the Hook. Hell is the State of Being during our life right now that results from a life of Hate. That's the Hook we need salvation from. The Good News of Jesus is that a Life of Infinite Eternal Love is Immediatley Accessable, Available, and Applicable for us Right Now. That's the Salvation Message. We have been Hooked on Hate. Jesus is God's intervention for that addiction. Love is God's Intervention for that addiction. You don't have to believe in anything to get off that Drug. Just give up that Drug. The way you give it up is by replacing it with Love.

PairTheBoard

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]

People DO understand this kind of Love naturally. You can see it in most any Mother in Her love of Her child.

This is what Jesus was talking about when he said, "you can't come to the Father except through me".


[/ QUOTE ]

um, not to be condesending, but that is nowhere NEAR what Jesus is talking about.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
luckyme made the same objection and provided several passages from scripture which he thought were slam dunk contradictions to my view. I explained them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it matters but I not sure I've ever quoted scripture on this forum, never mind this thread, but I do still take the odd swig so perhaps. np, you've been busy.

I actually don't see much point to it once it's metaphorical, who would care what the words actually are and how would I rebut your interpretive claim or the other 665?
That not the part of religion that interests me. ( the "see, that means X".
I was off on a 'logical name' tangent and barely following along with the 'he said - she said' part.
I can wait for next week and get another version of 'roll your own god' from the next new authority on scripture that'll be popping in here. We get a stream of them. god bless'em.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with your gift. It's one I accept with thanks. But if god is love then really, you don't need the word god as it's encompassed by the word love.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept that you don't need the word god. And I respect that. But for others it can convey additional meaning which they find value in. Loosely speaking, I think it conveys the Spriritual Proposition that not only is Love possible in our lives, and the solution to our lives; But that Furthermore the very Source of Our Existence is Love. I realize this probably sounds mystical and unnecessary to you. But many people find meaning in it. It is a Settling Insight for them.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People DO understand this kind of Love naturally. You can see it in most any Mother in Her love of Her child.

This is what Jesus was talking about when he said, "you can't come to the Father except through me".


[/ QUOTE ]

um, not to be condesending, but that is nowhere NEAR what Jesus is talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus talked about that kind of Love in the Sermon on the Mount. He explained it in the Golden Rule. People certainly understand the Love of a Brother willing to sacrifice his own life for our benefit. Jesus knew that Hate tries to kill Love. People lose faith in love because they see this happening all the time. His death and resurrection proved that Love cannot be killed by Hate. He was willing to be crucified in order to provide us that proof. That gift to us.

PairTheBoard

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People DO understand this kind of Love naturally. You can see it in most any Mother in Her love of Her child.

This is what Jesus was talking about when he said, "you can't come to the Father except through me".


[/ QUOTE ]

um, not to be condesending, but that is nowhere NEAR what Jesus is talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus talked about that kind of Love in the Sermon on the Mount. He explained it in the Golden Rule. People certainly understand the Love of a Brother willing to sacrifice his own life for our benefit. Jesus knew that Hate tries to kill Love. People lose faith in love because they see this happening all the time. His death and resurrection proved that Love cannot be killed by Hate. He was willing to be crucified in order to provide us that proof. That gift to us.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

what you just wrote has no whatsoever to Jesus saying "you can't come to the Father except through me". But its pretty clear your mind has been made ... i would recommend reading the Old Testament. Anyone saying that Christianity only needs the New Testament does not understand the true purpose behind Christ and his death.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
luckyme made the same objection and provided several passages from scripture which he thought were slam dunk contradictions to my view. I explained them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it matters but I not sure I've ever quoted scripture on this forum, never mind this thread, but I do still take the odd swig so perhaps. np, you've been busy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry luckyme. I had you confused with Subfallen. There's no reason for you to be bothered by anything I say about scripture. I do not try to impose it on anybody as authority if they are adverse to it. But when people claim my view of Christ's Message is contradicted by scripture I have to respond to it. The view I'm giving Is a view of Christ's Message after all. But you might notice that within that view there is no condemnation of someone like yourself who would rather do without all the Christ talk. The only thing my view condemns is Hate and its attributes. If you share that condemnation we have common ground.

[ QUOTE ]
I can wait for next week and get another version of 'roll your own god' from the next new authority on scripture that'll be popping in here. We get a stream of them. god bless'em.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to be any authority. I'm not claiming a "revelation from God". I did say my view is the obvious one to me. But I have a reason to say that. It's the only view I see that does not contradict Love. It's the only "Humane" view that I can see. If the message of Jesus is anything it has got to be "Humane". Do those other 665 intpretations satisfy that? Do they make sense? God went to all the trouble of living as a human being without ever learning what it means to be "Humane"? Does that make sense to you?

Why do you need some "authority" to make a judgement of your own? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing you rail against as a criticism of Religious Dogma? Yet when someone bypasses Authority you ridicule them.



PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People DO understand this kind of Love naturally. You can see it in most any Mother in Her love of Her child.

This is what Jesus was talking about when he said, "you can't come to the Father except through me".


[/ QUOTE ]

um, not to be condesending, but that is nowhere NEAR what Jesus is talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus talked about that kind of Love in the Sermon on the Mount. He explained it in the Golden Rule. People certainly understand the Love of a Brother willing to sacrifice his own life for our benefit. Jesus knew that Hate tries to kill Love. People lose faith in love because they see this happening all the time. His death and resurrection proved that Love cannot be killed by Hate. He was willing to be crucified in order to provide us that proof. That gift to us.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

what you just wrote has no whatsoever to Jesus saying "you can't come to the Father except through me". But its pretty clear your mind has been made ... i would recommend reading the Old Testament. Anyone saying that Christianity only needs the New Testament does not understand the true purpose behind Christ and his death.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty clear that your mind is made up too. But just repeating the phrase, "...has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus saying 'you can't come to the Father except through me' " , is not an argument. Repeating it over and over again is just propaganda.

I have read the Old Testament. And I'll make you the same offer I've made others here. If you think that my view contradicts scripture I will respond to any passages from scripture you want to provide. One at a Time. But I suggest you be willing to contribute something more than just, "what you just wrote has no whatsoever to do with the scripture in question" over and over and over again.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not claiming to be any authority. I'm not claiming a "revelation from God". I did say my view is the obvious one to me. But I have a reason to say that. It's the only view I see that does not contradict Love. It's the only "Humane" view that I can see. If the message of Jesus is anything it has got to be "Humane".

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I follow that -
1) the message from jesus has got to be "Humane"
justification .. obvious to PTB.
2) therefore any reading of the scripture must fit that criteria, other interpretations can be discarded.

Go for it. Not how I would approach a subject.
I'd start with "I wonder what the message from jesus is?" and then read through the sources and let it lead me where it leads me. No need to do the reading if I already know the answer.
I'm sure I could read Moby Dick in a way that has a message about leading a successful gamblers life. You can pick every sentence and I'll tell you how it pertains to that.

luckyme

.

[dknightx]

PTB, your whole arguement of "LOVE IS THE ANSWER" does not mesh well with the entire Old Testament, and the necessity of a messiah.

finally, "you can't come to the Father except through me" has nothing to do with your whole "You can't reach the source of Love except through Love", because then the design of the temple (in Old Testament times) makes no sense. That was my point, and if you would like, please explain how your theory is supported by the bible holistically. thanks.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not claiming to be any authority. I'm not claiming a "revelation from God". I did say my view is the obvious one to me. But I have a reason to say that. It's the only view I see that does not contradict Love. It's the only "Humane" view that I can see. If the message of Jesus is anything it has got to be "Humane".

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see if I follow that -
1) the message from jesus has got to be "Humane"
justification .. obvious to PTB.
2) therefore any reading of the scripture must fit that criteria, other interpretations can be discarded.

Go for it. Not how I would approach a subject.
I'd start with "I wonder what the message from jesus is?" and then read through the sources and let it lead me where it leads me. No need to do the reading if I already know the answer.
I'm sure I could read Moby Dick in a way that has a message about leading a successful gamblers life. You can pick every sentence and I'll tell you how it pertains to that.

luckyme

.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I don't just pull that criteria out of the air. I read the book first. I see that towards its conclusion it says that "God is Love". That wasn't always clear upon first go through of the book. So I wonder. Is the book contradicting itself with that conclusion. So I read through it again to see if anything in it contradicts that conclusion. Reading it in light of the cultures of the times when parts where written and taking into account the kind of story telling, metaphoric, symbolic, and allegoric language they were using I concluded that everything could be undertsood in a way that confirmed that conclusion rather than contradicted it. Since I like that conclusion I accept that understanding of the earlier parts of the book. At least that makes it a consistent Religion. I reject those interpretations that do not make it a consistent Religion. I therefore find the consistent version of the Religion attractive because I am attracted to Love.

For those of you who would rather maintain your relationship to Love without all the Religious hoopla there's nothing in my view that condemns you. We are on common ground.

So what's the problem? I'm not trampling on your garden. Is it wrong of me to ask that you don't trample on mine?

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB, your whole arguement of "LOVE IS THE ANSWER" does not mesh well with the entire Old Testament, and the necessity of a messiah.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it meshes very well. The Old Testament provides an account of a people coming to terms with God. That is, coming to terms with Love. They were not perfect people. Their history is replete with examples showing people under the influence of hate and its attributes. But they were trying. They knew they wanted something better. Their rituals, laws, temple, stories, allegories, sometimes tainted descriptions of a God they were just beginning to understand, show their struggle to find that "something better". They developed an anticipation of the fullfillment of their struggle, which they called their Messiah. Although they anticipated what he would accomplish, they could not anticipate how he would do it. Jesus was that fullfillment. Some of them saw that. Some of them didn't. Many people still don't understand how Jesus provides that fullfillment to the human struggle against Hate and For Love.

[ QUOTE ]
finally, "you can't come to the Father except through me" has nothing to do with your whole "You can't reach the source of Love except through Love", because then the design of the temple (in Old Testament times) makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to explain that further. I don't see the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
please explain how your theory is supported by the bible holistically. thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holistically, it provides a consistent view of the Bible based on the Bible's own conclusion that "God is Love". It takes that conclusion seriously. I don't see how others do.

If you want to look at specifics you'll have to provide them.

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB, your whole arguement of "LOVE IS THE ANSWER" does not mesh well with the entire Old Testament, and the necessity of a messiah.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth there is a difference between the Old and New Testament which in Christian exegesis becomes the fulfillment of the Old.

I'd offer the presentation of Aquinas in which the Old Testament is about "Pedagogy" or another word used by him is "Timor". He relates the New Testament to Love but never does he disconnect the two.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
My view does not ignore the Hook. But the hook is not what happens when we die. The hook is right now. Hate is the Hook. Hell is the State of Being during our life right now that results from a life of Hate. That's the Hook we need salvation from

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not misreading you then - you think that if people are loving then Jesus has paid for their sin. Is there a threshold of love that someone has to embrace to become saved? And where do you get off suggesting who is saved and who isn't? Jesus was the only person alive who could possibly have this authority.

However, just skimming across some pages of the new testament it's really easy to see where you are coming from with relation to Jesus. I'll think about this one some more.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not misreading you then - you think that if people are loving then Jesus has paid for their sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing in my view about Jesus paying for sins. Love does not pay for Hate. Hate is its own collection agency. People who live in Hate right now are paying for it Right Now. Hate is a cash and carry business. Their only way to stop paying for it is to come out of the life of Hate. Making sacrifices in the Temple does not take them out of their Life of Hate - although it might help. Following the Law does not take them out of their life of Hate - although it might help. The only thing that truly takes them out of a life of Hate is replacing it with a Life of Love. The Good News of Jesus is that a Life of Love is possible, and immediately available to them. What Love needs is not Sacrifice or the Law. What Love needs is a Heart turned to It. How does one do that? Jesus showed the way.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing in my view about Jesus paying for sins.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why people are arguing that your view is not Christianity. They're right.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing in my view about Jesus paying for sins.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why people are arguing that your view is not Christianity. They're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Jesus would disagree.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Hasn't this ever bothered you godboy? What was the Gospel-Good News that Jesus Preached? The Gospel he preached was that, "The Kingdom of Heaven is Near". That sounds like Good News and that's the Gospel Jesus preached.

Can you find anywhere in the scriptures where Jesus said the following:
"Go tell people the Good News that they have inherited Sin from Adam. That they are sinners and because of that sin they owe a debt to God which God is going to collect by Torturing them for all Eternity when they die. The sacrifices they've made in the temple have not satisfied the debt they owe to God for the Sin of Adam. But I am the Son of God and if I am slain it will count as a Sacrifice to God that will pay the debt of your sin so that God will not have to collect that debt by torturing you for all Eternity when you die. However, if you don't believe this, if you don't believe that my death is that perfect sacrifice God demands then it won't count for You, and God will still collect the debt you owe for Adam's sin by torturing you for all Eternity when you die".

Was that what Jesus said? Where does scripture quote Jesus as ever saying that was the "Gospel"? Yet that is what gets preached as the "Gospel" by "bonofide" Christians today.

Which Gospel was preached by Jesus? Which Gospel actually sounds like Good News? Whose view of Christianity is more consistent with the Gospel Jesus actually preached and with the Scripture that says, "God is Love"?

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can all this not be obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. And I submit the answer should be either very long and involved, or sweetly short.

I eagarly await Chezlaw and NotReady to respond. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is my very short hopefully sweet response.

3) seems misguided.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

#3 is almost certainly wrong. But what's the point of being religious if you don't think it might be true? You do realize when I said my post was obvious, I meant that obviously this is how religion ought to be. Not that the things I enumerated were obviously true.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does that even mean, "ought to be"? According to you? You are so sickly arrogant it's disturbing. As an atheist, I wish you would convert to some religion or other, so that you'd quit making 'arguments' for 'our side'.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't this ever bothered you godboy? What was the Gospel-Good News that Jesus Preached? The Gospel he preached was that, "The Kingdom of Heaven is Near". That sounds like Good News and that's the Gospel Jesus preached.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right in saying that "The Kingdom of Heaven is Near" is exactly what the 'good news' is. Your interpretation of what this means though is a perversion of the message.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you find anywhere in the scriptures where Jesus said the following:
"Go tell people the Good News that they have inherited Sin from Adam. That they are sinners and because of that sin they owe a debt to God which God is going to collect by Torturing them for all Eternity when they die. The sacrifices they've made in the temple have not satisfied the debt they owe to God for the Sin of Adam. But I am the Son of God and if I am slain it will count as a Sacrifice to God that will pay the debt of your sin so that God will not have to collect that debt by torturing you for all Eternity when you die. However, if you don't believe this, if you don't believe that my death is that perfect sacrifice God demands then it won't count for You, and God will still collect the debt you owe for Adam's sin by torturing you for all Eternity when you die".

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee, you've fallen right off the horse PairTheBoard - this is the christian-hating view that is not uncommon among atheistic circles such as these. I suggest you perhaps take some time off from the circles where this kind of crap is spoken repetitively and spend more time with those who love God.

Christians and indeed Christ - do not speak any of those things and that's not at all what I am suggesting.
However, Christ said some really controversial and 'unpleasant' things that weren't in and off themselves the good news.

The bad news of Christ - You are separated from God - and you are incapable of getting close to God on your own. ...No-one gets to the Father except through me.
This has nothing to do with the sin of Adam - it is because your own shitfullness that has separated you from God. No-one is without sin.

The good news - Christ has paid your debt, when you get to heaven and he knows you - firstly acknowledged him and you've helped the least of men and sought to serve him - then he'll welcome you with open arms.
If not - you do need to pay your own way - yes Christians believe hell is a real place, but not as you describe - You will only be tortured because you will be lost - and not where you were designed to live. I don't believe there is fire and brimstone, just nothingness.

[ QUOTE ]
Which Gospel was preached by Jesus? Which Gospel actually sounds like Good News? Whose view of Christianity is more consistent with the Gospel Jesus actually preached and with the Scripture that says, "God is Love"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus was a radical who preached truth - it wasn't always nice or what people wanted to hear - but it was all good. I'm just saying be careful with how far you take those three words 'God is Love' - I wholly agree with them - but they are not all you need to know about God. Three words can a mean a lot to a lot of different people so you need to learn how all the pieces fit together.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with the sin of Adam - it is because your own shitfullness that has separated you from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you have the nerve to call PTB's quote Christian-hating? You're the one rejecting the authority of the Councils of Orange and Trent, which unanimously condemned any denial of original sin. The definition of Trent is that sin is transmitted to all by generation, not by imitation.

NOT to mention, you are getting borderline heretical with your treatment of hell, while PTB's treamtent stands in the solid company of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Second Clement, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Mathetes, etc, etc, etc x infinity.

In fact, I suspect your beliefs are so thoroughly anathema that Jesus will be forced to lump you in with the "I never knew ye" crowd. See you in hell!

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't this ever bothered you godboy? What was the Gospel-Good News that Jesus Preached? The Gospel he preached was that, "The Kingdom of Heaven is Near". That sounds like Good News and that's the Gospel Jesus preached.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right in saying that "The Kingdom of Heaven is Near" is exactly what the 'good news' is. Your interpretation of what this means though is a perversion of the message.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you find anywhere in the scriptures where Jesus said the following:
"Go tell people the Good News that they have inherited Sin from Adam. That they are sinners and because of that sin they owe a debt to God which God is going to collect by Torturing them for all Eternity when they die. The sacrifices they've made in the temple have not satisfied the debt they owe to God for the Sin of Adam. But I am the Son of God and if I am slain it will count as a Sacrifice to God that will pay the debt of your sin so that God will not have to collect that debt by torturing you for all Eternity when you die. However, if you don't believe this, if you don't believe that my death is that perfect sacrifice God demands then it won't count for You, and God will still collect the debt you owe for Adam's sin by torturing you for all Eternity when you die".

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee, you've fallen right off the horse PairTheBoard - this is the christian-hating view that is not uncommon among atheistic circles such as these. I suggest you perhaps take some time off from the circles where this kind of crap is spoken repetitively and spend more time with those who love God.

Christians and indeed Christ - do not speak any of those things and that's not at all what I am suggesting.
However, Christ said some really controversial and 'unpleasant' things that weren't in and off themselves the good news.

The bad news of Christ - You are separated from God - and you are incapable of getting close to God on your own. ...No-one gets to the Father except through me.
This has nothing to do with the sin of Adam - it is because your own shitfullness that has separated you from God. No-one is without sin.

The good news - Christ has paid your debt, when you get to heaven and he knows you - firstly acknowledged him and you've helped the least of men and sought to serve him - then he'll welcome you with open arms.
If not - you do need to pay your own way - yes Christians believe hell is a real place, but not as you describe - You will only be tortured because you will be lost - and not where you were designed to live. I don't believe there is fire and brimstone, just nothingness.

[ QUOTE ]
Which Gospel was preached by Jesus? Which Gospel actually sounds like Good News? Whose view of Christianity is more consistent with the Gospel Jesus actually preached and with the Scripture that says, "God is Love"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus was a radical who preached truth - it wasn't always nice or what people wanted to hear - but it was all good. I'm just saying be careful with how far you take those three words 'God is Love' - I wholly agree with them - but they are not all you need to know about God. Three words can a mean a lot to a lot of different people so you need to learn how all the pieces fit together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see how the pieces you describe fit together. "You will only be tortured because you will be lost - ". Why? "you do need to pay your own way". Pay for what? "it is because your own sinfullness that has separated you from God". Does anybody have a chance to not sin? "No-one is without sin". And what did you fail to do? " firstly acknowledged him ".

You think you have softened the Bad-"Good"-News version I gave. You haven't. It's the same Bad-"Good"-News. It remains polluted with the same Pre-New-Testament eye for an eye mentality. It does not radically improve that mentality to provide fullfillment in a God of Love. It may have sold well in the past because people, like luckyme said, still needed their revenge. It appeals to an eye for an eye mentality and there are still plenty of people ready to sop it up because of that. But many other people are waking up to what it is. They can see it is not a God of Love. They are either going to bypass the Authorities who insist on it, or quit the Religion altogether.

If they are willing to bypass the Authorities the view I gave is available to them. Sullivan gives a similiar one. They will have plenty of authors to choose from. It's not that hard to fit the pieces together once you take seriously the real Radical Truth of Jesus. A life of Love is Heaven Right Now. And it is as close as a change of heart.


PairTheBoard

[jason1990]

First of all, thank you for your posts on this subject in this thread and others. You seem to have a very enlightened perspective. I wanted to contribute some thoughts to it, though in doing so I may be diverging a bit from the topic of whether or not your interpretation is consistent with Christianity.

First, I would like to disagree with something, though the disagreement may be purely semantic. I do not think that Hate is the central problem. You said,

[ QUOTE ]
Many people embrace Hate, teach it to their children

[/ QUOTE ]
How might I teach my child to hate? I would first have to teach her to Fear. Then hate becomes a convenient mechanism for dealing with that fear. Hate is one of the many things that Fear becomes. It can also become jealousy or anger or depression. It can lead one to a life of excessive indulgence or self-centeredness. All these things keep us from this Life of Love you describe, at least as I interpret what that means. Of course, if we think a bit more broadly, we might regard all these things as different faces of Hate. So perhaps your "Hate" and my "Fear" are in fact the same thing. I like the word "Fear" because, at least according to one possible usage, the opposite of "Fear" is "Faith."

Also, you said before,

[ QUOTE ]
We have been Hooked on Hate. Jesus is God's intervention for that addiction. Love is God's Intervention for that addiction. You don't have to believe in anything to get off that Drug. Just give up that Drug. The way you give it up is by replacing it with Love.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you say,

[ QUOTE ]
A life of Love is Heaven Right Now. And it is as close as a change of heart.

[/ QUOTE ]
How close is a life of sobriety to the alcoholic? How close is a life of moderation to the overeater? How close is a life of patience to the short-tempered? Habits are powerful. These things are "close," but only in the sense that they are one step away. The step being to abandon the habit. It is a step over a great hurdle. To many, this hurdle appears entirely insurmountable.

You are advocating a "Just Say No" approach. In the context of the addiction to Hate, it is plausible that "Just Say No" translates to "ask to be released from your addiction to Hate, and you shall be free of it." This seems wholly consistent with Christianity.

We must admit that the "Just Say No" campaign seems very futile. There is a great temptation to want something more. Consider, for instance, the vast array of 12-step programs, and all the lose-weight-with-pills-and-never-stop-eating products advertised on the television. We want to believe that there is an algorithm that will force us to give up our addictions. Something that will make that step for us. But there is no such thing. It seems that "Just Say No" is the only long-term solution. If someone does this, then they have freely and willfully abandoned their habit. If they had "artificial" help, then the habit remains, like a disease in remission.

Still, though, we as a people need more than to simply be told to "give up that drug" or make a "change of heart." We need to be taught that this is even possible. Can we simply choose to stop living a life of Hate? Can we simply choose to give up our fears and worries and all the unhealthy habits they have created? Can we simply change like that by merely deciding to do so? We must be convinced that the answer is yes before we will even try. I think this is a message worth spreading -- the message that these things are possible.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, thank you for your posts on this subject in this thread and others. You seem to have a very enlightened perspective. I wanted to contribute some thoughts to it, though in doing so I may be diverging a bit from the topic of whether or not your interpretation is consistent with Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Jason. The discussion of orthodoxy is really a side issue to the OP which is, "What Religion is Supposed to Be". So your thoughts are right on topic. I'm pleased that you want to take a closer look at my view on its own merits rather than conditioned on its relation to orthodoxy.

[ QUOTE ]
First, I would like to disagree with something, though the disagreement may be purely semantic. I do not think that Hate is the central problem. You said,


[ QUOTE ]

Many people embrace Hate, teach it to their children


[/ QUOTE ]

How might I teach my child to hate? I would first have to teach her to Fear. Then hate becomes a convenient mechanism for dealing with that fear. Hate is one of the many things that Fear becomes. It can also become jealousy or anger or depression. It can lead one to a life of excessive indulgence or self-centeredness. All these things keep us from this Life of Love you describe, at least as I interpret what that means. Of course, if we think a bit more broadly, we might regard all these things as different faces of Hate. So perhaps your "Hate" and my "Fear" are in fact the same thing. I like the word "Fear" because, at least according to one possible usage, the opposite of "Fear" is "Faith."


[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to keep it simple and briefly convey some basic ideas. Further insights upon closer inspection are welcome. I agree there is a relationship between Hate and Fear. I know many spiritually minded people who tell me that Fear is the Central Issue for them. I can certainly relate to that notion.

Where does Hate come from? Is it a product of Fear? Maybe. Maybe they are like an electromagenetic wave, each force feeding on and propagating the other. Sort of like a Fear-Hate pulse of Anti-Light. Whatever best describes how it happens for us, I think we can all relate to the experience of it. And whatever our personal relationship is to it, I don't think anybody likes it when they are victims of it at the hands of others.

I observe that Racists teach their children to be Racists. Criminal Families teach their children the ways of their Criminal Life. Romans taught their children to conquer subdue and tax NonRomans. The basic ethos is "us against them". The "them" are to be explioted for "our" benefit. If "they" mistreat "us" they owe us a debt which MUST be paid. This is the ethos I'm talking about. Call it the ethos of Hate, Fear, Fear-Hate, Vendetta. Whatever. It is that which Jesus most vigorously opposed. We all find ourselves falling into it. At the bottom. Is there any escape from it?




[ QUOTE ]
Also, you said before,


[ QUOTE ]

We have been Hooked on Hate. Jesus is God's intervention for that addiction. Love is God's Intervention for that addiction. You don't have to believe in anything to get off that Drug. Just give up that Drug. The way you give it up is by replacing it with Love.


[/ QUOTE ]


Now you say,

[ QUOTE ]

A life of Love is Heaven Right Now. And it is as close as a change of heart.


[/ QUOTE ]

How close is a life of sobriety to the alcoholic? How close is a life of moderation to the overeater? How close is a life of patience to the short-tempered? Habits are powerful. These things are "close," but only in the sense that they are one step away. The step being to abandon the habit. It is a step over a great hurdle. To many, this hurdle appears entirely insurmountable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly Right and to the heart of the matter. Who can believe such a thing is possible? And to then go on and make the even more extraordinary claim that not only is it possible, but it will Succeed! Despite all the evidence around us to the contrary where those who Take, Get. The meek will inherit the Earth? You've got to be kidding.

How much more Radical could Jesus have been?


[ QUOTE ]
You are advocating a "Just Say No" approach. In the context of the addiction to Hate, it is plausible that "Just Say No" translates to "ask to be released from your addiction to Hate, and you shall be free of it." This seems wholly consistent with Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

It helps to believe that it's possible. The "ask to be released" phrase is the one that people will argue about. Some will say you must do that according to some formula, dogma, ritual, metaphysical and/or magical position, law, set of morals written in stone, idol, meditation training, submission to Authority, bend on one knee, bend on two knees, prostrate yourself facing east or west or north or south. The list is endless and ridiculous. Jesus cut through all that with the simple yet immensly radical Statement, "Ask and you will recieve".

And yet people still didn't get it. They immediately ritualized it by insisting, "Yes, ask and you will receive, but you must ask Jesus". That ritualization is exactly opposite to the Spirit of the Statement. Jesus made a Radical Departure from the old ways of Ritual with that Statement and people immediately pulled it back down into the pollution of Ritual.

"Ask and you will receive" is an attitude of the heart and mind. It needs no Temple, no Law, no Theology, no Chistology. It is a Turning of the Heart. Believing that it is possible helps. We might see it as setting in motion a Faith-Love pulse. A pulse of Spiritual Light as opposed to the Anti-Light of Fear-Hate. What Jesus furthermore taught us is that this Faith-Love wave is one of Life. It builds on itself. It grows like a mustard seed. It produces good Fruit. As opposed to the Fear-Hate wave of death that consumes everything around it.

This is Great News.


[ QUOTE ]
We must admit that the "Just Say No" campaign seems very futile. There is a great temptation to want something more. Consider, for instance, the vast array of 12-step programs, and all the lose-weight-with-pills-and-never-stop-eating products advertised on the television. We want to believe that there is an algorithm that will force us to give up our addictions. Something that will make that step for us. But there is no such thing. It seems that "Just Say No" is the only long-term solution. If someone does this, then they have freely and willfully abandoned their habit. If they had "artificial" help, then the habit remains, like a disease in remission.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid the "Just say No" phrase has problems. I don't want to make a Religion out of the metaphor of Addiction. And I wouldn't want to get enmeshed in controversies involving complicated connotations for words applied in that field.

Also notice this involves two things. Giving up Hate And replacing it with Love. It's not enough to "Just Give Up Hate" if you are then left with Indifference. Recall the old adage, "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop". If Indifference were surrounded by a pure sea of Love it might enjoy the absorption of that Love by osmosis. Unfortunatley that's not the world we live in. The calm of Indifference is easily upset by the tumolt of Hate surrounding it. Faith-Indifference is not stable. It decays. Faith-Love is dynamic. It grows.



So I'd rather find a different name for it. We might call it the "Ask and you will Recieve" approach. But then people will complain that we are about to Spring God on them as the Fantasy Being who is implicitly implied as being "Asked". That robs it of its univerality.

I do like the "Just say No" phrase because of its freedom from Religious connotation. But what's really happening is more than a "No". It's a "No-Yes". No to Fear-Hate. Yes to Faith-Love. I'm thinking maybe, "Just say No-Yes". But I'm not sure I like the "Just" part.

You know what, I'm going to go with "Seek and you will Find". "Seek" implies a turning away from Fear-Hate and a turning toward Faith-Love. "you will Find" implies the Radical Promise Jesus proclaimed as Good News. And it can be done by anybody anywhere at anytime under any conditions without regard to anything else. There is no Religiousity or Ritualization to it. It is truly Radical.


[ QUOTE ]

Still, though, we as a people need more than to simply be told to "give up that drug" or make a "change of heart." We need to be taught that this is even possible. Can we simply choose to stop living a life of Hate? Can we simply choose to give up our fears and worries and all the unhealthy habits they have created? Can we simply change like that by merely deciding to do so? We must be convinced that the answer is yes before we will even try. I think this is a message worth spreading -- the message that these things are possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Jesus assured us of the possibilty. He gave his life to prove its reality. And his spiritual ressurection gives evidence of its success. Love cannot be killed by Hate. Love will triumph.

So this view of Christ is available to help people come to believe if they are so inclined. But it is a universal proclamation. It does not demand any relationship to any Religion, person, or Authority. It is respectful to people where they are. It makes common ground with anybody anyplace, holding any relation to religion, encouraging them and congratulating them in whatever way they may have come to believe in this same possibilty and made that Turn away from Hate and Toward Love. It Celebrates with them. It is indeed Good News.

PairTheBoard

[Walkingman]

As a God - fearing Athiest, It took me a little while to come to the understanding that my steadfast belief that there is no God is no more rational than anyone else's belief that there is one/many. I realized that the failure of logic to reassure me on this particular subject is mostly just a result of playing outside the rules of logic.
More specifically, if you are looking for the value of religion, talk to someone who holds tightly to the values of his/her particular religion without trying to espouse it to others. Sometimes this takes a little looking.

[EGO]

*grunch*

Deism.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always considered myself religious (as do members of my church, including the minister) even though I have never believed anyone is punished after death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in life after death?

[/ QUOTE ]
No

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
And you have the nerve to call PTB's quote Christian-hating? You're the one rejecting the authority of the Councils of Orange and Trent, which unanimously condemned any denial of original sin. The definition of Trent is that sin is transmitted to all by generation, not by imitation.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's really simple - You don't need saving because of Adam, you need it because you yourself are sinful.
[ QUOTE ]
NOT to mention, you are getting borderline heretical with your treatment of hell, while PTB's treamtent stands in the solid company of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, Second Clement, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Mathetes, etc, etc, etc x infinity.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're a nuff nuff. Many great Christian leaders hold the same view regarding hell as me - I'm not saying i'm right and they're wrong, it's probable my understanding of hell will change in the future. It's really not the cornerstone of my faith, yet some are so willing to jump at any chance to attack these sorts of beliefs.
In fact most beliefs that are challenged in the same way are not at all the important ones that people base their faith on.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I suspect your beliefs are so thoroughly anathema that Jesus will be forced to lump you in with the "I never knew ye" crowd. See you in hell!

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm doing my best to follow Jesus - I'm know that I'm on good terms with him. Thanks for sharing your confident arrogant atheist junk though..

[godBoy]

Then you believe Jesus was a misguided liar.
Christians don't believe that Jesus was simply a good man.

[godBoy]

Jesus is the answer. What's the question?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus is the answer. What's the question?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't hug a child with nuclear arms.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you believe Jesus was a misguided liar.
Christians don't believe that Jesus was simply a good man.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are other options. Personally, I dont think he was a liar of any description - I think he was mistaken or misquoted.

EDIT: For what it's worth, my christianity was always kinda dubious anyhow. Discussion with NotReady has pretty much convinced me that my views were never christian, although still theistic.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then you believe Jesus was a misguided liar. Christians don't believe that Jesus was simply a good man.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are other options. Personally, I dont think he was a liar of any description - I think he was mistaken or misquoted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did think about not using the word 'liar' - But the man was making direct claims about his divinity and eternity. I consider a liar to be someone who is claiming 'This is true' when in fact it is not true.

If someone says, The word is 20 years old!
I would say - .. That's a lie.

Though I understand that many people consider a claim of truth to be a lie only when they know otherwise.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then you believe Jesus was a misguided liar. Christians don't believe that Jesus was simply a good man.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are other options. Personally, I dont think he was a liar of any description - I think he was mistaken or misquoted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did think about not using the word 'liar' - But the man was making direct claims about his divinity and eternity. I consider a liar to be someone who is claiming 'This is true' when in fact it is not true.

If someone says, The word is 20 years old!
I would say - .. That's a lie.

Though I understand that many people consider a claim of truth to be a lie only when they know otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the knowledge of the falsity of your claim is essential to be labelled a liar. However, if it's just difference between how we use the word, I still allow the option of him not lying (in your terminology) but being misquoted.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm doing my best to follow Jesus - I'm know that I'm on good terms with him. Thanks for sharing your confident arrogant atheist junk though..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm the one confident in junk. After all, you're only claiming to know(!) that you're on good terms with a man who's been dead for 2000 years. That's certainly very reasonable and well-balanced. And I'm definitely the arrogant one. After all, you're only arrogating the authority of the apostles by denying original sin. That's humility if anything is.

Seriously, your pretended objectivity is more than a little tedious. Quit imagining you're open-minded or intellectually honest. You're not.

[godBoy]

If you say so.

I am curious though, where exactly did I deny `origianl sin`? What does it mean exactly to deny it?

You think you have reasonable evidence from a few posts of mine that I am hell-bound, proud, arrogant, closed-minded and intellectually dishonest.

Not me, Im sure your not as much of an ass as you have made out here. Though I have somehow upset your delicate sensbibilites by saying that PairTheBoard`s interpretation of scripture is not that of the church`s.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious though, where exactly did I deny `origianl sin`?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, at least twice:

[ QUOTE ]

It's really simple - You don't need saving because of Adam, you need it because you yourself are sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with the sin of Adam - it is because your own shitfullness that has separated you from God.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% heretical, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagian) is the logical consequence of denying original sin. Learn some theology plz.

[ QUOTE ]
You think you have reasonable evidence from a few posts of mine that I am hell-bound, proud, arrogant, closed-minded and intellectually dishonest.

Not me, Im sure your not as much of an ass as you have made out here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...let's see, when I correct your theology that is in obvious contradiction to orthodoxy, you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for sharing your confident arrogant atheist junk though..

[/ QUOTE ]

First, my comments were not "atheist junk." They were reasonable representations of Christian orthodoxy as given by the Councils of Orange and Trent, as well as highly revered Church Fathers. Second, you're absurd to accuse me of over-confidence when you happily believe a long-dead carpenter can read your thoughts. Third, Calvin would have burned you at the stake for your heresy. Be glad I only use an abrupt tone.

[ QUOTE ]
Though I have somehow upset your delicate sensbibilites by saying that PairTheBoard`s interpretation of scripture is not that of the church`s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you even in the same thread I am? I was all over PTB's authority to interpret scripture as soon as he responded. If my sensibilities are upset at all it's because you claim YOUR interpretation is the church's! Hint #1: it's not. Hint #2: you're not an apostle, you don't get to interpret scripture.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I have somehow upset your delicate sensbibilites by saying that PairTheBoard`s interpretation of scripture is not that of the church`s.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, your church, godboy! PairTheBoard can make exactly the same claim about you, as can any so called christian!

[jason1990]

I started writing this post the other day, but did not submit it because something did not feel right about it. But today's "Buddhist Thought of the Day" on my Google Home Page has prompted me to submit it as-is.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid the "Just say No" phrase has problems. I don't want to make a Religion out of the metaphor of Addiction. And I wouldn't want to get enmeshed in controversies involving complicated connotations for words applied in that field.

Also notice this involves two things. Giving up Hate And replacing it with Love. It's not enough to "Just Give Up Hate" if you are then left with Indifference. Recall the old adage, "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop". If Indifference were surrounded by a pure sea of Love it might enjoy the absorption of that Love by osmosis. Unfortunatley that's not the world we live in. The calm of Indifference is easily upset by the tumolt of Hate surrounding it. Faith-Indifference is not stable. It decays. Faith-Love is dynamic. It grows.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would certainly never want to discourage someone from turning toward Faith (in the anti-Fear sense) and Love. But in my experience, turning toward Faith-Love and turning away from Fear-Hate are the same thing. There is no need for osmosis. The Faith-Love we seek is already inside us. We are like computers, crippled with viruses and spyware. There is no need to replace the computer or install a new processor. There is no need to replace the malware with good software. Simply remove the infectious code, and the machine returns to its proper state. (Well, okay, not always. But hey, it's only an analogy.)

We need only look to children to see what it is inside us that is being buried under a shell of Fear-Hate. Children are filled with joy and curiosity and love. Of course, they are also filled with other things, like temper-tantrums and "mine-mine-mine." But whatever they are, they are not hateful or indifferent. Here is the Thought of the Day I alluded to earlier:

"Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play."
- Heraclitus

Indifference is an interesting concept, by the way. I think you mean the kind of indifference in which one has no concern whatsoever for other people, neither positive nor negative. It would imply a lack of compassion and empathy, and, at least to some degree, an objectification of other people. To me, this is a form of Hate. I would doubt that anyone who finds themselves in a state of indifference such as this has really turned from Hate.

But there is another meaning to "indifference," where it refers to a lack of concern for material issues. If I understand correctly, early Christians used the word "apathy" to describe this and it was considered a virtue. I think that Buddhism also regards this as something positive to strive for. I do not think one can turn from Fear without attaining some degree of indifference in this sense. Without this indifference, one is constantly frustrated by unsatisfied desires, but even more, one can become fearful of the potential dissatisfaction of desires. One's actions may become motivated by, and in some sense "controlled" by, not only the desires themselves but also by the fear that the desires will not be met.

In my experience, there is a strong relationship between Fear and Desire. I find it helpful to think of these things not only in the context of how they relate to Christianity, but also in how they relate to Buddhism. I also find it interesting that two seemingly very different religions can look so similar when viewed from a particular perspective.

[godBoy]

Firstly, you are talking a lot of junk and I don't wish to argue with someone like you over nothing, I don't have enough time - I sense that the world needs me for great things

My so-called 'denial' of original sin is nothing close to heresy - so please, stop talking crap.

I know nothing of the councils of Orange and Trent, nor Calvin - I have nothing to say then?

The thing is, I know who I am following and why. If you yourself can practice a little humility and present concise reasons for anything I will glady listen. On this topic you have done neither so your words have little meaning to me.

You need Jesus.. Cheese eating scumbag /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, you are talking a lot of junk and I don't wish to argue with someone like you over nothing, I don't have enough time - I sense that the world needs me for great things

My so-called 'denial' of original sin is nothing close to heresy - so please, stop talking crap.

I know nothing of the councils of Orange and Trent, nor Calvin - I have nothing to say then?

The thing is, I know who I am following and why. If you yourself can practice a little humility and present concise reasons for anything I will glady listen. On this topic you have done neither so your words have little meaning to me.

You need Jesus.. Cheese eating scumbag /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get it. He says your denial of original sin is heresy. You say its not. He demonstrates quite clearly (to me at least) exactly how it IS heretical and what the implications of OS-denial are. Then you repeat that it is not heretical.

Ok.

Can you explain WHY it isn't heretical....when it clearly is? You don't have to intend to be heretical to hold heretical beliefs....in fact, that is probably never the case. Most heretics think they hold legitimate beliefs. I just cannot see how your previous comments WRT original sin can possibly be defended as anything but heretical.

Sorry if reading the post took time away from your accomplishment of great things.

[godBoy]

No, I meant the church of Jesus Christ. True followers of Christ who believe he is who he said he was and have a heart turned towards him.

Careful now, you're going to wear out your exclamation key!!!

[godBoy]

Sorry vhawk I truly have missed the part where he demonstrated 'quite clearly exactly how it IS heretical' to believe as I do. Was it in the link somewhere?

"The definition of Trent is that sin is transmitted to all by generation, not by imitation." I do believe that it's human nature now because of Adam that we are inclined to sin, however I don't believe we are held to account for Adam's sin - only our own, and that was my point.

I am in no way, shape or form claiming "Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality." which is the jist of this 'heresy'. Jesus has paid the debt that you will owe for your own sin, it's this sin that YOU commit that needs to be covered for YOU to be right with God.

I don't think it is heresy because it's absolutely absurd to believe that the 'real reason' you need saving is because of the sin of your ancient ancestor. That isn't justice and it isn't the message of any church that I have ever been apart of, nor in the bible which are my main two sources of doctrine. I do understand what The Fall is all about, it's where sin first showed itself on a perfect human being. I don't deny this happened - so I don't understand how I am denying it.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I know nothing of the councils of Orange and Trent, nor Calvin - I have nothing to say then?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

WOW. No wonder Jesus pondered if he would find faith on His return to earth (Luke 18:8.) It is sickening how Protestants have cheapened a religion that, inchoate, was at least grand and unashamed in its authority and Truth.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry vhawk I truly have missed the part where he demonstrated 'quite clearly exactly how it IS heretical' to believe as I do. Was it in the link somewhere?

"The definition of Trent is that sin is transmitted to all by generation, not by imitation." I do believe that it's human nature now because of Adam that we are inclined to sin, however I don't believe we are held to account for Adam's sin - only our own, and that was my point.

I am in no way, shape or form claiming "Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality." which is the jist of this 'heresy'. Jesus has paid the debt that you will owe for your own sin, it's this sin that YOU commit that needs to be covered for YOU to be right with God.

I don't think it is heresy because it's absolutely absurd to believe that the 'real reason' you need saving is because of the sin of your ancient ancestor. That isn't justice and it isn't the message of any church that I have ever been apart of, nor in the bible which are my main two sources of doctrine. I do understand what The Fall is all about, it's where sin first showed itself on a perfect human being. I don't deny this happened - so I don't understand how I am denying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself. What debt did Jesus pay, then? Had Jesus not died on the cross...what then? Would I now be responsible for Adam's sin? But you just said that would be unjust and patently ridiculous! So, Jesus died as nothing more than a good example, which is fine, but clearly heretical.

Explain how you absolutely needed Jesus' sacrifice, in light of your post here. If you cannot, I think its pretty obvious you are a heretic.

[Subfallen]

godBoy, what you fail to grasp is that Pelagianism is the logical outworking of denying original sin. Since logic isn't your strong suit, I don't blame you for that. But just take my word that original sin is an important doctrine in Christianity.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
godBoy, what you fail to grasp is that Pelagianism is the logical outworking of denying original sin. Since logic isn't your strong suit, I don't blame you for that. But just take my word that original sin is an important doctrine in Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fundamentally important, and its that spot where I fail to see how those who accept evolution are being consistent. I don't see any really good ways to reconcile evolution with original sin, at least not without GOBS of handwaving.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
You are contradicting yourself. What debt did Jesus pay, then? Had Jesus not died on the cross...what then? Would I now be responsible for Adam's sin?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you are never responsible for the sin of Adam.

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you absolutely needed Jesus' sacrifice...

[/ QUOTE ]
Humans need Jesus' sacrific to pay for their own sin.

I don't see the blurry edges on this one. I don't see how you have taken anything I have written and come up with "So, Jesus died as nothing more than a good example", which we agree is heretical.

[Subfallen]

OK, let's walk this [censored] through for you. Assume that we are not responsible for the sin of Adam. Then what would happen if someone lived a perfect life?

They would be saved without the necessity of the Cross. Their salvation would be effected solely through imitation of Jesus' example.

This sort of thing matters in theology. I'm sorry if it doesn't matter to you now, but, trust me, it would have if you had lived during the Inquisition. I mean, are you even aware of how filioque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause) was the underlying doctrinal issue behind the Great Schism? Filioque is nothing compared to original sin.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are contradicting yourself. What debt did Jesus pay, then? Had Jesus not died on the cross...what then? Would I now be responsible for Adam's sin?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you are never responsible for the sin of Adam.

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how you absolutely needed Jesus' sacrifice...

[/ QUOTE ]
Humans need Jesus' sacrific to pay for their own sin.

I don't see the blurry edges on this one. I don't see how you have taken anything I have written and come up with "So, Jesus died as nothing more than a good example", which we agree is heretical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus cannot have died for the sins of people who hadn't yet lived, right? Plus, it doesn't even make sense. He died for my own sin? What if I sin more? He died for all of it? So I'm guaranteed Heaven then, right? I'm sin-free. Or did he only die for all sins except "Accepting Jesus"? Furthermore, can you support any of this Biblically?

[godBoy]

The bible tells us that what you describe can not happen - none are without sin.

I really don't care about debating Christian doctrine that people like you find the need to argue about. Sorry religion is really not important to me.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't care about debating Christian doctrine that people like you find the need to argue about. Sorry religion is really not important to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Head explodes.* People like me? Have you ever wondered why there are about a billion "Christian" denominations in the world today? It's because, historically, religion and doctrine have been EXTREMELY important to people who call themselves Christians. INCLUDING THE APOSTLES AND CHURCH FATHERS. Doesn't that bother you at all?

Edit - Not to mention, the very IDEA that random laypeople can "debate" doctrine is also heretical. Trust me, you really might want to brush up on some basic theology.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
I am curious though, where exactly did I deny `origianl sin`?



Um, at least twice:

Quote:

It's really simple - You don't need saving because of Adam, you need it because you yourself are sinful.



Quote:

This has nothing to do with the sin of Adam - it is because your own shitfullness that has separated you from God.



100% heretical, this is the logical consequence of denying original sin. Learn some theology plz.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither statement by godboy is heretical. He isn't a heretic. He would not have been burned at the stake by Calvin.

Godboy, you are a tiny bit fuzzy on some doctrine, you might want to read up on it. Being fuzzy isn't heresy, though. I wouldn't bother debating Christian doctrine with agenda driven atheists. Not worth the effort.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus cannot have died for the sins of people who hadn't yet lived, right? Plus, it doesn't even make sense. He died for my own sin? What if I sin more? He died for all of it? So I'm guaranteed Heaven then, right? I'm sin-free. Or did he only die for all sins except "Accepting Jesus"? Furthermore, can you support any of this Biblically?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, he died for all of it, and the sin of future generations.

I didn't realise what I was talking about was so foreign, {interested in hearing other Christians views on this one}.

My take on it - judgement comes later.
When in heaven you will be before God and if your name is in his book then the debt of your sin has been paid for and you are blameless before 'the judge'.

[ QUOTE ]
can you support any of this Biblically

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, The words of Jesus, the letters of Paul, Revelation etc.. Pick a page.

From 'The Message' version, which is a good paraphrase in contempory language. In short, read 1 John.
[ QUOTE ]

My purpose in writing is simply this: that you who believe in God's Son will know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have eternal life, the reality and not the illusion.

1 John - 1: 8-10
If we claim that we're free of sin, we're only fooling ourselves. A claim like that is errant nonsense. On the other hand, if we admit our sins—make a clean breast of them—he won't let us down; he'll be true to himself. He'll forgive our sins and purge us of all wrongdoing. If we claim that we've never sinned, we out-and-out contradict God—make a liar out of him. A claim like that only shows off our ignorance of God.

1 John 2 : 1-2
I write this, dear children, to guide you out of sin. But if anyone does sin, we have a Priest-Friend in the presence of the Father: Jesus Christ, righteous Jesus. When he served as a sacrifice for our sins, he solved the sin problem for good—not only ours, but the whole world's.
The Only Way to Know We're in Him

2-3 Here's how we can be sure that we know God in the right way: Keep his commandments.

And One for PairTheBoard
God Is Love

7-10 My beloved friends, let us continue to love each other since love comes from God. Everyone who loves is born of God and experiences a relationship with God. The person who refuses to love doesn't know the first thing about God, because God is love—so you can't know him if you don't love. This is how God showed his love for us: God sent his only Son into the world so we might live through him. This is the kind of love we are talking about—not that we once upon a time loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to clear away our sins and the damage they've done to our relationship with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
I am curious though, where exactly did I deny `origianl sin`?



Um, at least twice:

Quote:

It's really simple - You don't need saving because of Adam, you need it because you yourself are sinful.



Quote:

This has nothing to do with the sin of Adam - it is because your own shitfullness that has separated you from God.



100% heretical, this is the logical consequence of denying original sin. Learn some theology plz.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither statement by godboy is heretical. He isn't a heretic. He would not have been burned at the stake by Calvin.

Godboy, you are a tiny bit fuzzy on some doctrine, you might want to read up on it. Being fuzzy isn't heresy, though. I wouldn't bother debating Christian doctrine with agenda driven atheists. Not worth the effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

A. Yeah, Calvin never murdered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servetus) people for disagreeing on practically meaningless theological distinctions.

B. You're a Calvinist. As a heretic yourself, your consolation should hardly comfort poor little godBoy.

[godBoy]

People do have a nack for confusing things.
No it doesn't bother me that people would argue over things that don't need to be argued, I for one wont be caught up in it.

[ QUOTE ]
Edit - Not to mention, the very IDEA that random laypeople can "debate" doctrine is also heretical. Trust me, you really might want to brush up on some basic theology.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus is the answer. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

People do have a nack for confusing things.

[/ QUOTE ]

And with this breathtaking insight, godBoy dismisses the implications of 20 centuries of evolving theological diversity and theology-inspired murder (literal and figurative.)

Impressive. What a thinker you are.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

yes, he died for all of it, and the sin of future generations.

I didn't realise what I was talking about was so foreign, {interested in hearing other Christians views on this one}.


[/ QUOTE ]

The mainstream orthodox Christian view is that the price Christ paid on the cross is sufficient to atone for all sins of all humans at all times and in all places.

One can quibble about whether He paid the price for the unforgiveable sin and of course what that is can also be a matter for argumentation. So I suppose that idea should qualify the above.

The arguments mostly revolve around the application of the atonement.

[godBoy]

Just aiming at re-iterating the man himself who spoke the truth unpolluted by 20 centuries worth of 'intense theological debate'.

[godBoy]

Thanks,

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Just aiming at re-iterating the man himself who spoke the truth unpolluted by 20 centuries worth of 'intense theological debate'.

[/ QUOTE ]

!!!!!! LUCKILY YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN THE APOSTLES AFTER ALL THEY WERE ONLY, LIKE THERE AND DIVINELY INSPIRED AND STUFF !!!!!!!! LET'S JUST IGNORE THE DOCTRINAL TRADITION AND LET'S JUST BELIEVE WHATEVER WE WANT !!!!!! YAY !!!!!!!!

[godBoy]

I'm all for the writings and works of the apostles, They were in fact for Jesus, right?

Oh how we have digressed.. to the point where you are willing to resort to MidGe style response. I expected more of you SubFallen.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

!!!!!! LUCKILY YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN THE APOSTLES AFTER ALL THEY WERE ONLY, LIKE THERE AND DIVINELY INSPIRED AND STUFF !!!!!!!! LET'S JUST IGNORE THE DOCTRINAL TRADITION AND LET'S JUST BELIEVE WHATEVER WE WANT !!!!!! YAY !!!!!!!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Godboy, SF has gone to THE CAPS and the !!!!!!!. You in Big Trouble now. Just remember to duck.

[Subfallen]

It's just a little sad. I mean, I'm all for the decay of fundamentalist religion, but it's still a little sad to have self-righteous clowns like you two doing the damage. In a quixotic, sentimental sort of way, of course. SRSLY, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK BOYZ!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's just a little sad. I mean, I'm all for the decay of fundamentalist religion, but it's still a little sad to have self-righteous clowns like you two doing the damage. In a quixotic, sentimental sort of way, of course. SRSLY, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK BOYZ!


[/ QUOTE ]

Weak. I don't think you're really trying.

[Subfallen]

No, really, even an evil tyrant one prefers to see vanquished at his peak by a worthy foe---not gorged to death on his own dissolution in old age. You guys make me sick.

Edit - Just kidding! You got me, my heart's not really in it today, much too sleep-deprived. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

yes, he died for all of it, and the sin of future generations.

I didn't realise what I was talking about was so foreign, {interested in hearing other Christians views on this one}.


[/ QUOTE ]

The mainstream orthodox Christian view is that the price Christ paid on the cross is sufficient to atone for all sins of all humans at all times and in all places.

One can quibble about whether He paid the price for the unforgiveable sin and of course what that is can also be a matter for argumentation. So I suppose that idea should qualify the above.

The arguments mostly revolve around the application of the atonement.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, did he die for my future sin of refusing to accept Jesus? Is that the lone exception?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is that the lone exception?


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be my guess. But it doesn't really matter, does it?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is that the lone exception?


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be my guess. But it doesn't really matter, does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does. If that is NOT an exception, the world changes drastically.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I started writing this post the other day, but did not submit it because something did not feel right about it. But today's "Buddhist Thought of the Day" on my Google Home Page has prompted me to submit it as-is.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid the "Just say No" phrase has problems. I don't want to make a Religion out of the metaphor of Addiction. And I wouldn't want to get enmeshed in controversies involving complicated connotations for words applied in that field.

Also notice this involves two things. Giving up Hate And replacing it with Love. It's not enough to "Just Give Up Hate" if you are then left with Indifference. Recall the old adage, "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop". If Indifference were surrounded by a pure sea of Love it might enjoy the absorption of that Love by osmosis. Unfortunatley that's not the world we live in. The calm of Indifference is easily upset by the tumolt of Hate surrounding it. Faith-Indifference is not stable. It decays. Faith-Love is dynamic. It grows.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would certainly never want to discourage someone from turning toward Faith (in the anti-Fear sense) and Love. But in my experience, turning toward Faith-Love and turning away from Fear-Hate are the same thing. There is no need for osmosis. The Faith-Love we seek is already inside us. We are like computers, crippled with viruses and spyware. There is no need to replace the computer or install a new processor. There is no need to replace the malware with good software. Simply remove the infectious code, and the machine returns to its proper state. (Well, okay, not always. But hey, it's only an analogy.)

We need only look to children to see what it is inside us that is being buried under a shell of Fear-Hate. Children are filled with joy and curiosity and love. Of course, they are also filled with other things, like temper-tantrums and "mine-mine-mine." But whatever they are, they are not hateful or indifferent. Here is the Thought of the Day I alluded to earlier:

"Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play."
- Heraclitus

Indifference is an interesting concept, by the way. I think you mean the kind of indifference in which one has no concern whatsoever for other people, neither positive nor negative. It would imply a lack of compassion and empathy, and, at least to some degree, an objectification of other people. To me, this is a form of Hate. I would doubt that anyone who finds themselves in a state of indifference such as this has really turned from Hate.

But there is another meaning to "indifference," where it refers to a lack of concern for material issues. If I understand correctly, early Christians used the word "apathy" to describe this and it was considered a virtue. I think that Buddhism also regards this as something positive to strive for. I do not think one can turn from Fear without attaining some degree of indifference in this sense. Without this indifference, one is constantly frustrated by unsatisfied desires, but even more, one can become fearful of the potential dissatisfaction of desires. One's actions may become motivated by, and in some sense "controlled" by, not only the desires themselves but also by the fear that the desires will not be met.

In my experience, there is a strong relationship between Fear and Desire. I find it helpful to think of these things not only in the context of how they relate to Christianity, but also in how they relate to Buddhism. I also find it interesting that two seemingly very different religions can look so similar when viewed from a particular perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds pretty good Jason. Insightful food for thought. I can see the word "indiffernce" has complications. The notion that Turning Away from Hate is equivalent to Turning Toward Love may be profound. I'll have to chew on it for a while.

While children are a good example there seems to be something instinctive in us which often responds with attributes of Hate. Even children exhibit jelousy, envy, wrath, disdain for those who are different, selfishness, and desires to "get even". I'm afraid these thing come all too naturally to us from even the earliest of ages. However you think is the best conceptualization, the problem in living a Spiritual Life is in its practice.

I took my Lady friend to the Beach Saturday. Cinco de Mayo and all that. I was feeling pretty good. Very empathetic with everyone we met. I felt like, yea I've got this spiritual stuff down pretty good. While walking back to the car to leave we passed by a cocktail lounge. There was a young stud standing outside it having a smoke who had evidently imbibed a bit. I didn't even notice him when out of the blue he made a nasty remark about my appearance. I gave him a quick disapproving glance as we passed him by upon which he made another nasty remark with undertones of possible violence. My glowing spiritual condition was quickly shot to hell.

As we continued walking I began thinking about what a bully he was and how I would just love to handle him if required, assuming I was properly armed of course. My Lady friend had to endure repeated comments from me about the incident on our drive back. When I got home I continued to recall the incident with resultant addictive negative emotions. I had what is commonly called a resentment. It is not easy to turn the resentment toward that bully into empathy and compassion for him. That's the rub. That's the spiritual Rake. When you're in the midst of that process the theoretical conceptualizations don't seem to matter too much.

How does this relate to my view of Jesus' message? I feel that man has wronged me. I feel he owes me a debt. I feel the need to force payment of that debt by way of revenge. That is the Old way. My view of Jesus' message is not that Jesus paid that Bully's debt, whether the debt is to me or to God. Jesus preached a radical New Way. That Bully does not owe me a debt. He does not owe God a debt. The Old way of Debt owed for wrongs done is Over. Jesus is the Turning point in History whereby that Old Way is a thing of the Past. Orthodox Christianity did not get that message. They instead grafted Jesus onto that same old way of Debt-Payment of Debt.

In my processing of insticts for revenge I need to realize that the Bully does not owe me a debt. I can realize that in a Spirit of Forgiveness - which is fine - or I can simply accept that it is nonsense. What's done is done. I am not now being harmed by what the Bully did. What I am being harmed by right now is my own entertainment of Hate. It is my Hate toward him that tortures me. I must also realize that the Bully is in a state of Hate himself. I need to empathize with that and replace my Hate for him with compassion for the Hell he is suffering. I need to do this without judgement, recognizing that I in my Hate am doing exactly as he is. It also helps to recall times in the past when I have played the Bully's role. I must recoginze my oneness with him as human beings. We are both in the same boat. He is my brother. If I never see him again I can have faith that in God's loving embrace after death we will meet again and all will be well.

That's Good News.

PairTheBoard

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

How can all this not be obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dogmatic 'education'. The more something is drummed into you, and the longer it stays in there, the harder it is for someone to decide it is wrong (because they need to suck up the fact that they were dumb enought to blindly and dogmatically follow something that is not true).

Catholic church masses are very ritualized with the kneeling, sitting, standing, back to kneeling, sitting, repeating certain phrases, etc. In my experience not much is open for interpretation and not much is even discussed among the parishioners. People are taught in either the catholic school or CCD classes what is what. They are instructed as to what is true. And then they go to church on Sundays and go through all the rituals in the mass.

I really don't know what goes on in bible study classes with adults or in any type of intellectual philosophical discussions among the minority who participates in those but in general people are instructed as to what is true and it is their duty to pretty much go lock step along with that without question.

That's my limited experience anyway.

Why do people have faith in government or nationalism? Is it not from indoctrination in school and then a matter of family tradition for a subset of those?

[David Sklansky]

"Neither statement by godboy is heretical. He isn't a heretic. He would not have been burned at the stake by Calvin.

Godboy, you are a tiny bit fuzzy on some doctrine, you might want to read up on it. Being fuzzy isn't heresy, though. I wouldn't bother debating Christian doctrine with agenda driven atheists. Not worth the effort."

So would almost all of the scholars of your religion agree he isn't heretical?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So would almost all of the scholars of your religion agree he isn't heretical?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe they would call him heretical. Heresy in this area would be something like Pelagianism which clearly doesn't apply to Godboy. I think they would recognize that he hasn't studied the issue.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
"Neither statement by godboy is heretical. He isn't a heretic. He would not have been burned at the stake by Calvin.

Godboy, you are a tiny bit fuzzy on some doctrine, you might want to read up on it. Being fuzzy isn't heresy, though. I wouldn't bother debating Christian doctrine with agenda driven atheists. Not worth the effort."

So would almost all of the scholars of your religion agree he isn't heretical?



[/ QUOTE ]

David’s question is interesting to me since all of my family are Mormon’s. Mormon’s believe Jesus is God and died for our salvation, but they believe that we will all be punished for our own sins and not for anything Adam did.

So, are you ( Not ready ), saying that Mormon’s are not heretical based on this? Are they heretical for any other reason?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So, are you ( Not ready ), saying that Mormon’s are not heretical based on this? Are they heretical for any other reason?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the details of Mormonism on the question of original sin. My understanding has been they don't think Jesus is divine. if true, that would be heresy under all main denominations, Protestant and Catholic. I suspect I could find other instances of heresy in Mormonism. Just to be clear, heresy isn't an unforgiveable sin. I also strongly disagree with any corporal punishment of heretics. I see no support whatsover for that in the church age. Calvin, the RC church, most major church groups, did wrong on this up through at least the 16th century. One other note, Servetus was the only heretic executed in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime. He was susceptible to execution by the RC's and others, and most of Switzerland approved of the execution. Compare that to the number executed by the RC's and others.

[PairTheBoard]

The Central Issue then is the SinDebt/Payment-of-SinDebt Paradigm. It was the Paradigm for both the secular and Religious World of Jesus. The last words of the famous Roman General Sulla were along the lines of, "Let it be said that I have settled debts in full measure, both with my friends and with my enemies". You didn't have to be a religious Jew to be under the paradigm. Revenge ruled.

Jesus meant to End that Paradigm and establish a New one. The Paradigm of SinDebt-Payment in humanity's relationship to God was to be no more. How could this be explained to people who were drenched in the SinDebt-Payment Paradigm? This is how John spoke to their understanding.

[ QUOTE ]

My purpose in writing is simply this: that you who believe in God's Son will know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have eternal life, the reality and not the illusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does one come to believe this new Paradigm of Love? It was especially true in those times that people made a judgement as to what to believe according to who was telling them. How they spoke and with what sincerity. How could they make the judgement to believe in this Good News of a Life of Love? A Love of Eternal Life? John was telling them to look to the one who spoke this Truth, Jesus. They could believe this Truth if they could believe Jesus, the one who spoke it.

This was Not meant to be the establishment of a Ritualization for Salvation, thereby limiting Salvation to those who exercise the Ritual. The Truth is Universal. It can be believed simply because it is the Truth. You can believe it because you believe in the one who lived it and spoke it. Or you can just believe it.

[ QUOTE ]
1 John - 1: 8-10
If we claim that we're free of sin, we're only fooling ourselves. A claim like that is errant nonsense. On the other hand, if we admit our sins—make a clean breast of them—he won't let us down; he'll be true to himself. He'll forgive our sins and purge us of all wrongdoing. If we claim that we've never sinned, we out-and-out contradict God—make a liar out of him. A claim like that only shows off our ignorance of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

John is speaking to several problems here. He is warning against Self Rightousness and Pride. At the same time he is encouraging those who might lose Faith in the possibility of a Life of Love when they fall short of it. The problems in a Spiritual Life come in the practice of it. He is telling them that they are not expected to be perfect in Love. Only to persevere in Love. He is telling them this in a language they understand. That of the Old Paradigm. But just because he uses the language of the Old Paradigm so that those drenched in it can understand, it doesn't mean he is establishing a new version of the Old Paradigm. Just the opposite when taken in context of everything else. He provides some of that context here,


[ QUOTE ]

1 John 2 : 1-2
I write this, dear children, to guide you out of sin. But if anyone does sin, we have a Priest-Friend in the presence of the Father: Jesus Christ, righteous Jesus. When he served as a sacrifice for our sins, he solved the sin problem for good—not only ours, but the whole world's.


[/ QUOTE ]

"When he served as a sacrifice for our sins," is Old Paradigm language so that people could understand the New Paradigm, "he solved the sin problem for good—not only ours, but the whole world's.. Orthodoxy has made a Religion out of the Old Paradigm language while missing the Reality of the New Paradigm meant to replace it.

John makes the context even more clear here,

[ QUOTE ]
7-10 My beloved friends, let us continue to love each other since love comes from God. Everyone who loves is born of God and experiences a relationship with God.


[/ QUOTE ]


"Everyone who loves is born of God and experiences a relationship with God." How much more clear can John make it? The Truth of a life of Love is Universal. It doesn't say, "everyone who loves And says the right ritualistic words about Jesus And is baptised And believes that those who don't are punished by God after death with eternal torture And ...". John simply says, "Everyone who loves is born of God and experiences a relationship with God." It is the Loving that Counts. That's what Jesus preached, that what John says. But Loving is not good enough for Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy remains under the Old Paradigm. And in doing so it falls short of the Fullness of Love.

John finally drives home the Primacy of Love in the New Paradigm here,

[ QUOTE ]

The person who refuses to love doesn't know the first thing about God, because God is love—so you can't know him if you don't love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take another look at my post just previous to this one where I describe my encounter with the Bully. I respond to his Hate with my own Hate which puts me in a hell I don't want to be in. I empathize with the Bully. I realize we are in the same boat. I find compassion for him. I realize he is my brother.

Now, the Closure for Love Jesus gave me is realizing that upon death I will meet the Bully again as a brother while in God's Loving embrace and all will be well. Orthodoxy Robs me of that Closure for Love. Orthodoxy robs me of the Fullness of Love. In Orthodoxy I cannot know that my Brother will be there with me in God's Loving embrace. In Orthodoxy my brother may be suffering eternal torture. That belief does not pull me into the Fullness of Love for the Bully. It Sets Me Back into the Old Paradigm of resentment and revenge. It simply is Not the Good News of Jesus.

carlo said it nicely here,

[ QUOTE ]
carlo -
The movement of the individual ego is such that all of mankind is involved in the LOVE which manifests in ALL MEN. One can see that the individual ego will come to the point of selfless love for all of humanity and will not settle until the thought of one lost human in this journey is anathema to him(talking of human beings here).

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus told us the same thing in his parable of the lost sheep. Scripture says, It is God's will that all people be saved. God's will be done. The hellish hateful dogmas of orthodoxy can go to the hell from which they come.


PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

But Pair The Board is definitely way beyond heretical?

[ill rich]

religion is supposed to be man's way of spreading the word of God.

God might be actually be cruel or have differing views with His imperfect creations. Not many people can accept that though

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But Pair The Board is definitely way beyond heretical?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Non-Christian or non-Biblical. Liberal theology. I mean that with respect to his doctrine.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
But Pair The Board is definitely way beyond heretical?



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



Yes. Non-Christian or non-Biblical. Liberal theology. I mean that with respect to his doctrine.

Post Extras


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but according to you heresy is no big deal, right? Worse case scenarios, my Mormon buddies, and Pair the Board, get burned at the stake in the olden days, but as long as they believe in Jesus ( as divine ) they still make it to heaven and avoid hell. Is this right? Does Peter666 agree with this?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But Pair The Board is definitely way beyond heretical?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Non-Christian or non-Biblical. Liberal theology. I mean that with respect to his doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained how every passage of scripture that's been quoted here to refute my view actually supports and confirms it. My view comes from reading the Bible. It most certainly is Biblical.

PairTheBoard

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But Pair The Board is definitely way beyond heretical?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Non-Christian or non-Biblical. Liberal theology. I mean that with respect to his doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained how every passage of scripture that's been quoted here to refute my view actually supports and confirms it. My view comes from reading the Bible. It most certainly is Biblical.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if you've been following the other thread, but I'd be interested in how you reconcile the following with "God is Love":

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (this from the New International Version):

"16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God."

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But Pair The Board is definitely way beyond heretical?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Non-Christian or non-Biblical. Liberal theology. I mean that with respect to his doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained how every passage of scripture that's been quoted here to refute my view actually supports and confirms it. My view comes from reading the Bible. It most certainly is Biblical.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if you've been following the other thread, but I'd be interested in how you reconcile the following with "God is Love":

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (this from the New International Version):

"16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's tough love.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But Pair The Board is definitely way beyond heretical?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Non-Christian or non-Biblical. Liberal theology. I mean that with respect to his doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained how every passage of scripture that's been quoted here to refute my view actually supports and confirms it. My view comes from reading the Bible. It most certainly is Biblical.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if you've been following the other thread, but I'd be interested in how you reconcile the following with "God is Love":

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (this from the New International Version):

"16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God."

[/ QUOTE ]

I just made this post on the "How do Christians still follow the Bible" thread. It explains how to look at such accounts:
-------------------
Try looking at the Old Testament like this. A record of a people coming to terms with a God which they were only beginning to understand. They were trying to turn away from Hate and toward Love but their understanding of God was often tainted by the Hate that was still in them. They often projected attributes of their Hate onto that which they called God and justified acts of Hate accordingly. In their primitive attempts at righteousness they often created brutal laws. With little understanding of the natural world they routinely gave supernatural explanations for things. They made up stories to illustrate principles. They used symbolic, metaphoric, and allegorical language.

Despite all this they progressed spiritually. Look at the Old Testament as a record of spiritual experience and progress. They had spiritual insights along the way. Consider the insights in context of the times and use your own judgement as to how advanced they were. If you find wisdom in the midst of primitive noise, take the wisdom and respect the experience of the lives led. They are our ancestors and our relations in the human struggle. Have some empathy for the difficulties they lived with.

Can you see Love emerging out of all that historical tumult? Can you see Love emerging out of that people who were so clearly infected with atributes of Hate? Can you see Love Fullfilled in the New Testament? If so, you have found the Bible to be the Word of God because God's Word is his essence and the essence of God is Love.
-----------------

It's not suprising what little understanding of Love there was at that time. What's amazing is that Love could even gain a foothold among such brutal lives.


PairTheBoard

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not suprising what little understanding of Love there was at that time. What's amazing is that Love could even gain a foothold among such brutal lives.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t believe this for one moment. The ancient Greeks had at least 3 different words for love. Love was well understood and rejoiced among ancient people, possibly even more so because of the brutal lives they led.

[MidGe]

I think you are very right yukoncpa.

In my opinion it is the christians, or at least a great many of them, that are perverting the meaning of the word "love" by equating it with eternal damnation and other abominations attributed to their god. And all this to try to justify what are, by all human standard, acts/rulings greatly lacking compassion.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not suprising what little understanding of Love there was at that time. What's amazing is that Love could even gain a foothold among such brutal lives.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t believe this for one moment. The ancient Greeks had at least 3 different words for love. Love was well understood and rejoiced among ancient people, possibly even more so because of the brutal lives they led.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was plenty of brutality to go around in the ancient world. Plenty today for that matter. But I agree with you that people have found Love everywhere. That is in fact one of the main points of my view on the message of Jesus. However they have come to believe in Love, anyone who Turns to Love should be respected, congratulated, and celebrated by Christians, rather than condemned for failing to make the Orthodox Christian rituals of profession.

For that I am called a Heretic, or maybe now more politely a liberal theologian. I'm not sure if they would go so far as to allow "Christian" liberal theologian.

Jesus would have seen such rituals as nonsense. Jesus told us that Love is what matters and as you point out the Greeks knew about it too. In fact the point you make is found explicitly in Biblical scripture while Orthodoxy finds a way to dilute it.

But this does not change the specific record of the Jewish experience found in the Bible. You can take it or leave it. Many people find it useful to consider.


PairTheBoard

[JussiUt]

Love is a basic human emotion. To say that in the ancient times it was hardly there is really an outlandish thing to say. Yes, those were brutal times. However, that doesn't have a whole lot to say of the concept of love in general. People were intolerant? By today's standards yes. Uneducated? Yes. More brutal? Yes. Incapable of love? No. Love was not something that God or religion gave to this world nor was tolerance or kindness.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are very right yukoncpa.

In my opinion it is the christians, or at least a great many of them, that are perverting the meaning of the word "love" by equating it with eternal damnation and other abominations attributed to their god. And all this to try to justify what are, by all human standard, acts/rulings greatly lacking compassion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree MidGe. I don't find that view in the message of Jesus though. For exactly the reasons you give, Jesus taught that Orthodox Christianity will ultimately Fail.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Love is a basic human emotion. To say that in the ancient times it was hardly there is really an outlandish thing to say. Yes, those were brutal times. However, that doesn't have a whole lot to say of the concept of love in general. People were intolerant? By today's standards yes. Uneducated? Yes. More brutal? Yes. Incapable of love? No. Love was not something that God or religion gave to this world nor was tolerance or kindness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree mostly, if not wholly, with what you say. Not sure about what part of my post you are targeting. It is the attempt at changing or equating the meaning of "love" with a god as described in the bible, both new and old testament, that I find perverse.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
There was plenty of brutality to go around in the ancient world. Plenty today for that matter. But I agree with you that people have found Love everywhere. That is in fact one of the main points of my view on the message of Jesus. However they have come to believe in Love, anyone who Turns to Love should be respected, congratulated, and celebrated by Christians, rather than condemned for failing to make the Orthodox Christian rituals of profession.

For that I am called a Heretic, or maybe now more politely a liberal theologian. I'm not sure if they would go so far as to allow "Christian" liberal theologian.

Jesus would have seen such rituals as nonsense. Jesus told us that Love is what matters and as you point out the Greeks knew about it too. In fact the point you make is found explicitly in Biblical scripture while Orthodoxy finds a way to dilute it

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, great post. When I was at Brigham Young University, I had an assigned gay room mate who was a wonderful guy and great friend. But I was considered an apostate for sticking up for him, once he admitted to authorities that he was gay. I explained publicly that there was nothing wrong with being gay and that the church’s position was incorrect. For this I was excommunicated back when I was 18 years old. This was back during the era that Steve Young was our star quarterback and it wasn’t vogue to stick up for gays. What's ironic, is my roomate wasn't excommunicated for being gay. He Apologized and repented of his actions. I, on the other hand did not in any way repent of my actions, namely, sticking up for my friend and telling the church authorities to stick their idiotic ideas up their ass ( which is literally what I told them)

So, Pairtheboard, if your beliefs are odd and heretical to fellow Christians, then I sympathize.

[PairTheBoard]

I hope you take this the right way. But in my view, when Jesus said, "Blessed are you when men curse and revile you for my sake", he was talking exactly about what happened to you. When you stood up for your friend you stood up for Jesus. That's my view anyway.

PairTheBoard

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you take this the right way. But in my view, when Jesus said, "Blessed are you when men curse and revile you for my sake", he was talking exactly about what happened to you. When you stood up for your friend you stood up for Jesus. That's my view anyway.

PairTheBoard


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Of course I take it the right way. It’s the only way I can take it. I’ve been shunned and reviled by my entire family for my actions. So thank you for your words.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, but according to you heresy is no big deal, right? Worse case scenarios, my Mormon buddies, and Pair the Board, get burned at the stake in the olden days, but as long as they believe in Jesus ( as divine ) they still make it to heaven and avoid hell.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would call getting burned at the stake a big deal. And heresy is still a big deal today. I think it's important to be as accurate as possible concerning God's word.

As for who is saved, I've said many times before I can't make that judgment. But being wrong about a doctrine of Scripture won't cause you to lose your salvation.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
While children are a good example there seems to be something instinctive in us which often responds with attributes of Hate. Even children exhibit jelousy, envy, wrath, disdain for those who are different, selfishness, and desires to "get even". I'm afraid these thing come all too naturally to us from even the earliest of ages.

[/ QUOTE ]
In order to come to the defense of the children, I tried to give these things a lot of thought.

I looked up the difference between jealousy and envy. Apparently, both have to do with feeling bad that someone else (the Rival) possesses something (the Object) that you want. The Object should be interpreted loosely. It can even be the affections of a third party. Jealousy is when the focus is on the Object. If another person had the Object, you would be just as upset. Envy is when the focus is on the Rival. If another person had the Object, you would not mind as much, if at all. I agree that there are a lot of jealous children, but I think an envious child might be pretty rare.

I also tried to look up the difference between wrath and anger. All I could find for wrath was that it generally means "intense anger." In that case, I suppose it is common for children to display wrath. However, I think the word "wrath" has some sinister connotations that I would not associate with children.

As for disdaining those who are different, I think only older children can be capable of this. This seems like something we must learn.

Nonetheless, I agree that all these things come quite naturally to us. However, I would like to point out that just because something comes naturally, does not mean it is part of our nature. Illness comes naturally to us, yet it is not the "natural" state of our bodies. I like this comment of yours:

[ QUOTE ]
the problem in living a Spiritual Life is in its practice.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I also liked your story. Thank you for sharing that. I think this quote of yours can be nicely illustrated with an analogy about health and fitness. The difficulty in living a healthy lifestyle is in its practice. We must take constant and active measures to avoid illness and maintain our health and fitness. We must watch what we eat and exercise regularly. If we get lazy and neglect these things, we will "naturally" drift away from health. Moreover, no matter how earnestly and perfectly we maintain our healthy lifestyle, we will still occasionally fall ill. There is no escaping that, it is part of being human. When illness comes, however, the health-conscious person may be poised to recognize it early and take steps to minimize its effects.

As for your experience with the Bully, I think you are fortunate. Two days after the incident, you are reflecting on your reaction, seeing the problems with it, and sharing your thoughts with others. You are fortunate to be able to do this. Your reaction to the Bully may seem like a Spiritual Failure, but I think it is not. We will all occasionally have reactions of this kind. It is an unavoidable part of being human. Seeing it for what it is and trying to avoid it in the future is Spiritual Success.