-
Website
http://atheists-and-christians.com/ -
Original page
http://atheists-and-christians.blogspot.com/2009/10/of-heresy-blasphemy-and-price-of-tea-in.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Thanks for your comment. I'll try to do another post soon. I doubt I'll ever be as prolific as you though. ;-)
It's no coincidence that the shirt Driscoll used to illustrate his post contains the phrase "Meek. Mild. As If." That's because Driscoll believes that "Jesus is a God who hates." Jesus was no "limp-wristed hippie" who came to earth "wearing a robe like some fairy" says Driscoll. Here are some other choice quotes from the pastor:
"God hates you... God can't even look at us because he is so disgusted… You have been told that God is loving, gracious, merciful, kind, compassionate, wonderful, and good... That is a lie... God looks down and says 'I hate you, you are my enemy, and I will crush you.'"
Makes me shake my head in wonderment. I've been away from the church for a long time and I've known many a Christian who is thoroughly hateful but this is the first time that I heard that God/Jesus hates you and I. Doesn't give me much incentive to do other then shoot him the bird and go my own way, eh? What is it with people like this Driscoll guy, I wonder?
Anyway, enjoyed your post Mike but I don't think you could have a decent discussion with this guy. Probably just tell you that god hates you and so does he. LOL
Be good to yourself
JEB (John)
Here's another gem from him: "To pray with Muslims absolutely dishonors Jesus."
I wonder, would he say the same about praying with Jews? They don't pray to Jesus either.
Thanks for your comment.
So what? I'm always amazed when I'm told that, because people have differing opinions, nobody should consider their opinion the correct one. Especially when the people telling me this are convinced that I'm wrong and they are right. Why is it so difficult to accept that people believe differently and that in some cases people think other people should believe like they do? Why can't we allow everybody to hold firm opinions and speak their minds? Then we can challenge their reasoning if we choose to instead of insisting that everybody play 'I'm OK, You're OK'. If we get insulted we turn away. If we get challenged we respond, retrench, or retreat. This is how we learn.
I hope you aren't referring to me when you say "Especially when the people telling me this are convinced that I'm wrong and they are right." I'm far from convinced you are wrong and even farther from being convinced that I'm right.
"Why can't we allow everybody to hold firm opinions and speak their minds? " That is exactly what I am advocating, firm opinions, not cemented ones. If I'm not even willing to consider your opinion then why should you even bother talking to me and vice versa. If I brand you a heretic according to my beliefs, I can't imagine the conversation going much further, can you?
Where did I say to play 'I'm OK, You're OK'? I'm saying listen to the opposing view, don't dismiss it.
Tell me, do you disagree with my statement "If Gnosticism had won, and become the popular belief, everyone would be calling what we think of today as Christianity the heretical and false belief system."?
Thank you for your comments.
As an example of refining one's understanding, I see Roman Catholicism as a combination of pronouncements, many of which I'd stick one or two fingers up at; what bemuses me (because I'm free to shop around), and what I regret, is the power it holds over communities that leads toward abuse. Of course, not all teachings are mutually exclusive - you might find many catholics and protestants alike who'd sign up to a sentence such as "Jesus provides the way of salvation" but with potentially different meanings of the phrase, for example. And thus the simple understanding of this being a game of two opponents becomes more complex and the issues themselves more interesting.
As an example of the latter - third way forward - this is where science has the resorts of reality and experiment, which is good; the nearest thing in the religious realm might be to abstract-out academically and say with honesty, "we don't know for sure what happens when you die; the writings we have represent what ideas their authors thought at the time, don't mistake them for being authoritative statements". (Small wonder I identify fairly strongly with liberal Christianity, is it?)
No, I was just calling attention to the irony of relativism.
If all you are saying is that we should be considerate (both socially and intellectually) when dealing with those who hold other opinions then how could I disagree?
...do you disagree with my statement "If Gnosticism..."
No. I agree with your statement. But again, so what? Christianity is called heretical and a false belief system by many millions around the world.
There's nothing new in this; Christian mystics have been bouncing around such ideas for centuries, liberals and progressives in the past 50yrs have continued the philosophical approach post-Enlightenment (google for "the God beyond God"); it's just that one keeps on hearing about people who have a petty tribal-identity view of God (specifically, "their God" or "our God" which should absolutely be rephrased and reconsidered as "our (experience|understanding) of God").
One aspect to bear in mind is transcendence: I can envisage a simple believer in a religion thinking their religion is the bee's knees; I can envisage "sum of all experience" as the friendly cumulation of all religions' experiences and philosophies; I can further envisage the phrase as applying at scales from the subatomic to universal (God as somehow present when an electron changes orbitals releasing a photon, as there is "experience" there); and then there is God beyond that, about which I have no comprehension.
This is why I'm thinking, "God" is more a dictionary term for something that exists and yet has the partly-incomprehensible nature, barely something in which to believe; discussion of "the existence or otherwise of God" is now unfruitful for me.
Does the fact my beliefs have evolved very much along the lines above set me closer to some kind of truth than the simple believer? Than a simple non-believer in any/all religions or gods or God?
Is this a rhetorical question? What is the nature of truth that it can be gotten closer to or further from? Can it be gotten closer to by intention or only by coincidence?
Now I think it goes to an extreme to say we can make no claims at all of doctrine -- for that would be absolutist as making them absolutely -- but I think if we make them and hold to them too rigidly we do not allow for growth of knowledge. God is often taking what we know and expanding it and changing it to something more true. If we hold on to last years knowledge with a vice grip we can't move on and mature in God. That doesn't mean we are all over the spectrum of religions never knowing what to believe, but it means that we don't need to hold to "well-polished, sharp edged systems."
Moreover, I don't see God's existence as mere doctrine, anymore than I see my husband's existence as a mere fact. Both I have relational knowledge of for both I know beyond facts about them.
It's nice to see a new post!
Does this allow for well-polished and sharp edges in some facets of our system? Is Chesterton correct in saying, "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
To assume I have all the answers (and that they are all perfectly correct) is more than arrogance, it's ignorance. But to be confident that I have some (correct) answers is required to be able to reason effectively.
In our society we can love ice cream, books, cats and our spouse and children. But using the same word for all of them doesn't show the higher meaning when applied to people. However, with the word heresy it has been used in all sorts of ways that when one wants to use it in a proper way without its loaded connotation -- people can levy that connotation to the bearer of the word. However, we may want to consider that one needs to know the heart of the speaker before ensuring that a negative connotation existed at all.
If I were to say someone's theology was in error, for whatever reason, that would not mean that I think less of the person. I would be saying it to help further truth and not to bash anyone. I can disagree with a pastor's teaching down the street, but I would not see that as reason to be any less friends with him and his church.
I would treat Dan Brown or even Richard Dawkins as well as I would treat any pastor or good friend even though I have disagreements with their outlook on life. Disagreements ought not severe relationships, but could enhance them when the truth is shared in love.
Takes two to tango. I understand your position entirely, and would like to say the same - but I do question how much one can be friends with someone who disagrees about the grounds for friendship. (That's a classic liberal dilemma :)
I agree. And it seems to me that it would be easier to be friends with "God", assuming that such a being exists for sake of argument, if we didn't have to share/adopt its "worldview", lest we be punished for not doing so. With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?
Really? Then why is it that I can be a good, thoughtful, law-abiding citizen---one who has a compassionate "heart", cares for his family, etc.... but yet, I can still be deserving of eternal damnation because I have not adopted the Christian "worldview"? The idea seems absurd, and this absurdity is compounded when you consider that I am unable to adopt said worldview, lest I lie to myself(and to "God")
I would argue that "truth is better than falsehood" regardless of what "God" wants.
The issue I took with your original statement was that you alluded to the notion that it would follow that "truth is better than falsehood" because of what "God" wants. I'm merely saying that there are many principles, in this case, "Truth" being better than "falsehood", that are true *independent* of what a "God" thinks, or wants. In other words, establishing that Truth is better than falsehood does nothing in the way proving the Christian philosophy is "Truth".
My second contention is that God isn't more concerned with us knowing right things intellectually but experiencing truth in every aspect of our existence for the knowledge doesn't do much for us if we do not tap into the experiential reality of Truth.
I don't recall raising the issue of what "God" should, or should not, be "concerned" about, but only that it would be easier to be "friends" with "God" if I didn't have to adopt a certain worldview. After that, I *did* elaborate on your previous statement, which is as follows....
Karla: "God is way more concerned about our heart than our worldview."
To which I responded.....
"Really? Then why is it that I can be a good, thoughtful, law-abiding citizen---one who has a compassionate 'heart', cares for his family, etc.... but yet, I can still be deserving of eternal damnation because I have not adopted the Christian 'worldview'?"
To the best of my knowledge you haven't addressed this.
It isn't found in invisible, conscious, supernatural beings, either...as you erroneously attempt in your next statement...
Goodness God's nature and we need an infusion of His nature to make us truly good.
Fallacy of bare assertion. There is no objective confirmation that human beings need to be "infused" with anything to be "truly good".
**Can I ask a question? You seemingly believe that asserting that your particular brand of theology is "Truth" and over and over and over should be convincing to nonbelievers... even, former believers. Why? Why should we believe you over a Muslim, Scientologist, Buddhist, Mormon who comes along and simply asserts that his or her philosophies are "Truth"? I'm really curious about this.
We can't earn that, we are given it by grace.
If being "truly good" is something given to us at the discretion of a "God", via "infusion", then why are those who don't receive this "gift" held accountable for not being "good"?
Jesus said....
See here**, above.
["Jesus said"] he didn't come into the world to condemn the world, but to give the world life so that none would perish and whosoever believes in Him shall be saved.
He also said that he came to bring a sword, and to divide us against ourselves. He said we must hate our own parents, and even our own lives, in order to be a disciple.[paraphrased from memory]. With such contradictory, incohesive statements, which are we to actually take seriously, and *how* do you "know"?? Moreover, if "Jesus" doesn't want anyone to "perish", then good grief, why not give every person the evidence it would take for *them* to believe? Why "hide" and speak (supposedly) through other humans, and do "Miracles" that are rife with abmiguity???
We are designed to live life connected to the Life giver and when we live apart from the source of life it starves us and hurts us
Excuse me, but you don't know what "starves" and "hurts" me. This is simply you projecting your own beliefs on to me; it's you assuming that because you cannot fathom life without "Jesus", that all of your fellow human beings cannot, either. Again, I have to admit that your arrogance is astounding. But yet, I understand how the Christian meme grips the mind. You must believe at all costs, even if your apologetic approach is offensive.
The map won't save you no matter how accurate it is if you don't drink the water.
"Water"(H2O) is material, it is found in nature, and it is available to all, even if it is NOT being sought.
If you want to be convincing, at least use analogies that are actually analogous in supporting your theology.
My asserting God is the source of all goodness doesn't make it so any more than anyone asserting He isn't makes that so. But you stated ". but yet, I can still be deserving of eternal damnation because I have not adopted the Christian "worldview"?" So here you are making a claim to what Christianity teaches and I was speaking to that claim to explain that this isn't what Christianity teaches, and I do that as a Christian. Whether or not the claims of Christianity are true or not is a different matter. But at least we should be accurate in reflecting those claims if we want to have an intellectual discussion about them, wouldn't you think?
So when I was responding I was responding to say "no Christianity teaches XYZ not the ABC you laid out. The validity of XYZ being true is another matter. So my stating things was not to make them true because I keep stating them, but to shift the conversation to dealing with actual Christian tenants rather than the perceived tenants you had espoused.
I've already done that...and frankly, I don't know why you'd assume I haven't thought to do that. Christianity, to me, doesn't make any more "sense" than Mormonism, Scientology, or Islam. I surmize that the notion that the Perfect Word of the Creator of the Universe was dictated to Muhammad as he sat in a cave, and he later hitched a ride into the clouds on a winged pony, doesn't make any "sense" to you, whatsoever, does it? In fact, I'll wager that you think the notion is down-right ridiculous, don't you ? Yes, of course...you and I are too smart for that nonsense.
Well, I also find the notion of virgin births, walking cadavers, healing disease with bird's blood, two human prototypes made out of dust, and snakes, donkeys, and vegetation that speak the human language, nonsense as well. Yes, admittedly, I at one time believed those things on "faith", because I wanted it to be true, even though I knew at the time it was nonsensical. I *compartmetalized* my beliefs, just as you are doing right now. But yet, you seem to be a different type of believer, in that you actually believe those things make sense, and that their appearing in "the Bible" makes them believable and "sensible" simply because of that fact. 'Simply amazing...I'm really intrigued by this type of "Believer", if nothing else.
But you stated ". but yet, I can still be deserving of eternal damnation because I have not adopted the Christian "worldview"?" So here you are making a claim to what Christianity teaches and I was speaking to that claim to explain that this isn't what Christianity teaches, and I do that as a Christian.
Yes, Karla, the bible most certainly does teach that those who don't believe, suffer in some way, shape, or form. You can mince words all you'd like---the bible makes clear that there are undesirable reprecussions for nonbelievers. Moreover, millions of your Christian constituents would agree that eternal damnation awaits the nonbeliever, and before you attempt to say they haven't interpreted "Scripture" correctly, please note that it's your word against theirs. Neither party can "prove" that they have the One True Intepretation. If I am wrong, please tell the readers how *you*, Karla, are impervious to human error, which you would have to be, in order to be able to claim certainty when interpreting the contents of the bible.
The Bible does teach there is a place called hell where some will dwell if they remain separated from God. But your assertions regarding it were not congruent with Scripture. I find it amazing how often atheist bring up hell and how seldom I hear it mentioned in Christian circles.
Jesus said he came not to condemn the world and that He doesn't want any to perish. That is the heart of the Father. And forgive me, but I do say that emphatically. I won't go on, I've written on this topic several times on my blog and I'm sure you've seen them or can go back and read them if you want to know more of my thoughts on it.
Having evidence to support your personal beliefs..i.e..a subjective "Truth", is not the same as having evidence that supports an Objective "Truth". Claiming that the former proves the latter is dishonest.
The Bible does teach there is a place called hell where some will dwell if they remain separated from God. But your assertions regarding it were not congruent with Scripture.
Congruent? Either the concept of "hell" is in the bible, or it isn't. If it is, then my previous statement stands, and my concern is legitimate.
BTW, your subtle attempt to trivialize it by using the word "some"... as in, "some will dwell"(in hell) is really astonishing. FYI, if your belief system is true, the majority of humanity will "dwell" in eternal damnation for the thought-crime of nonbelief.
My entire life is fully invested in the Lord and His Kingdom.
People make investments all the time that don't necessarily turn out to be good investments.
My husband and I are currently living out literal dreams he gave my husband and things he has told us to do.
Oh?..things he has told you to do? Like, in an audible, objective human voice? Really? Can you describe the voice, and/or, give a comparison of the voice you claim to have heard? Was it a baritone type of voice? Did he have a middle-eastern accent? I'm genuinely curious about this, because millions of people claim to have heard the "voice of God", when as it really turns out, the "voice" they "heard" is nothing more than their own conscience.
This is my contention. No one is separated from God eternally for a thought-crime. I gather you see it as only having to do with intellectual beliefs, because you don't think of it in terms of God actually existing.
When man was created we were connected with our life source, God. When man sinned that caused a severance between us and the substance of life -- eternal life -- (which is qualitative not just quantitative). The Bible says that Jesus is that eternal life. So the way to stop perishing in our path of death and separation from God, is to plug in to eternal life -- which is Jesus. Intellectually ascribing to a system of statements about Jesus doesn't give life. Being connected to Jesus is how we are made new and are pulled out of our separation from God into intimacy with God.
I have not heard the audible voice of God. I do know people who have. Charles Finney I think recounts such an encounter with God as do some present day ministers. God speaks mainly in inaudible ways. You'll see a picture in your minds eye when your praying for someone and you'll tell them about it and they know instantly how it pertains to their life. Or you'll be thinking of someone and suddenly have knowledge about them and you call them up and tell them and it is exactly what they needed to hear. One day I was praying and I started praying for my pastor and then I started praying for his lungs -- I didn't know anything was wrong with his lungs-- but I felt I needed to pray for them. Then while I am sitting upon my bed talking to God the phone rings and I answer it to find its a woman from church who mentions in the phone call that our pastor just got home from the doctor and found out he has bronchitis. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
One day last year I was at this conference out of town and I was standing in a crowd of people and a young girl comes up and ask if she can pray for me. I said sure. As I am standing there listening to the music, the girl looks up at me and tells me that God says I am a writer and she goes on to tell me more about what he says about my writing. Another day I was sitting at breakfast with a girl I had only met the day before who lives in Denmark. She started telling me God was showing her things about me and she described in detail the very things I was telling my husband I was thinking and feeling and she spoke life and encouragement to me. I have had numerous occasions of people I have never met telling something from God that was completely accurate in fact down to some really insanely detailed specifics they could have never known. One day someone we didn't know even gave us a prophetic word for a friend of ours that was not present nor had ever been to where we were and it was incredibly accurate.
I'm fairly certain that most intelligent adults know and understand the difference between the statements, "I love vanilla ice cream!"... and..."I love my spouse." The "higher meaning" is implicit. Or perhaps I've misunderstood the context of the analogy(?)
If I were to say someone's theology was in error, for whatever reason, that would not mean that I think less of the person. I would be saying it to help further truth and not to bash anyone.[emphasis mine]
'Sounds good at face-value, but how exactly would you be furthering "truth", when, as Mike pointed out, no Theist can offer more than an "opinion" when it comes to "God"?
Speaking of "opinion", it was asked....
Why can't we allow everybody to hold firm opinions and speak their minds?
I think we should allow everybody to hold firm opinions and to speak their minds. But what about when the collective "opinion" of a large group evolves into actions, for example, when/if certain groups of Muslims have the opinion that killing non-Muslims gets them 99 virgins and a life in paradise with their creator, Allah?
@ Mike,
Nice looking blog.
Peace.
Yes ideas have actions that follow. But how does one judge any actions without some kind of true standard by which one can judge. How can you say the actions of a Muslim extremist are worse than the actions of a Hindu, or Christian or Atheist? By what standard do you have cause to denounce the killing of non-Muslims. Is human life more valuable than animal life? Science doesn't lead to that conclusion.
You keep bringing up this idea that if we don't acknowledge some higher standard of morals that we have no reason to be moral, and yet even you agree that people interpret the Bible differently, which is of course the only documentation of these morals.
Christianity may very well be more than just opinion, but opinions and perceptions are all anyone can offer. You had experiences and interpreted them as coming from the Christian God, that is no guarantee they they actually did come from him. Not unlike some Christians who dismiss miracles that happen to people of other faiths as counterfeit.
I'm not saying we have no reason to be moral, but do we have justification of saying someone else isn't moral. And if we do, as we all feel we do, where does that idea come from? Why does that idea exist? There are lots of deep things to consider in this type of topic. It goes beyond what book you read to get morals. We don't even need to use the Bible to have this discussion. There is something resonant within us that we all operate by morality.
To review, someone asked(and I have no idea if he or she is even a Theist, or not).....
" Why can't we allow everybody to hold firm opinions and speak their minds?"
Again, it may look like a good, fair, diplomatic policy on the surface, but the point I was trying to make is that when/if the doctrinal literalists..aka extremists, take their collective opinions a step beyond merely "speaking their minds" - in other words, into actions - it can prove deadly. Please notice that these very same people will make statements like the following:
"There is a lot more to it than opinion."
" I've experienced the truth."
" It's not just a series of statements and principals I choose to believe."
" It's something I've lived by my whole life and something I have witnessed the truth of time and again. "
"I've felt God in major ways."
" I've seen ["God's"] miracles take place instantly before my eyes."
" [My religion] cannot be reduced in most cases to just opinion."
Theists.....they ALL say these things, yet, none of them can demonstrate in any objective terms that their religion(yes, Christianity is a religion) is "Truth", nor can they demonstrate that the other guy's is false. Hence, the dilemma(and danger) with religious "faith".
So we don't have an absolute handle on what is right, but we can pursue the good as best we know how..
Correct, there is no Absolute "right". However, when you say... "pursue the good as best we know how"[emphasis mine], you then disqualify biblical standards, because "Commandments" such as "Thou shalt not kill!" are NOT absolute. Sometimes killing is perfectly ethical---for example, if it is in self-defense. Moreover, if biblegod, or any other deity's "Word" were intrinsically "good", then that is essentially saying "anything goes", because "God" could wake up and decide that killing all nonbelievers is "good", but we would know otherwise.
We do NOT get morality from "God".
Actually, I think we do, but that's because I have a larger idea of God that *includes all* moral/ethical systems and is not a separate entity from the world or universe (so I'm talking a concept, not "a God", and that is a concept larger than the petty tribal interpretations in the Bible too).
Here's a thought: an atheist can certainly have a moral code - a pleasantly minimal clear example being "does it benefit the species as a whole?". That might be used to assist decision-making, fine. It rules against murdering peoples of different religions. What weight should be put on it relative to others' criteria? What happens when we find ET?
Actually, I think we do, but that's because I have a larger idea of God that *includes all* moral/ethical systems and is not a separate entity from the world or universe (so I'm talking a concept, not "a God", and that is a concept larger than the petty tribal interpretations in the Bible too).
Okay; fine. If you're "talking a concept", then I could find that agreeable. If on the other hand you were talking the personal deity found in the pages of the Holy Bible, I would obviously disagree. There is something - a "concept"; call it whatever you wish other than a personal "God"(a being) - that exists that is *above* Theistic morality. Avoiding unnecessary harm seems to be a good starting point, and we know that avoiding such harm is "good", not because a "God" says so, but because humanity and our innate will to survive says so.
I feel slightly funny here, like how Dawkins is fond of saying "I reject just one god more". I *refine* just one God more, from simplistic personal theist, to conceptual, to... wake me up next year.
Yes, "transcendent"..... but sadly(and ironically), unable to transcend the pages of a book----at least, based on the opinions of the thousands of bible-believing Christians I've encountered over the years.
God if he was perfectly good would not start to be less than perfect for he would become less than God. So He would always eternally be absolutely good and perfectly thus.
"We do NOT get morality from "God"."
That's a very absolutist truth claim.
Let's pretend for a minute that you can prove the Roman Catholics, who interpret that passage as "thou shalt not kill", wrong.
So, Karla, will you tell us with a straight face that the only reason that you know that "MURDER" is wrong is because you read it in the bible? Really? Seriously?
God if he was perfectly good would not start to be less than perfect for he would become less than God. So He would always eternally be absolutely good and perfectly thus.
You've attempted this line of reasoning before, and again, I find it unconvincing. If "God" and "His Word" were "perfectly good", or "Sovereign", then "God" could decide to command the killing of entire ethnic groups just like he did in the OT, and you, the Xian, would have to see that as "good", when we as intelligent adults know that to do so is not "good". And NO, you can't say that "God" would never command such a thing, because he did just that in the OT.
How do we know killing entire ethnic groups isn't a "good" thing, Karla? How do we know slavery is not good? How do we know that dashing children against rocks is not good? How do we know that stoning prostitutes is not good?
These are things that are never "good", yet, they were all at one time condoned because of what the bible says.
That's a very absolutist truth claim.
If you can prove to me that we get Morality from the Judeo-Christian worldview, I'll be happy to retract the statement.
Maybe you should review some of the topics on my blog where I talk about goodness and morality. I've written on it at length. I have a lot of thoughts going through my mind in response, but I have said most of them before on my blog.
In short, yes the Bible is clear that God has killed people. He doesn't contradict the Bible to do that. The Bible says that He is a Just God and perfect in goodness and justice. Not all killing is murder. There are just and righteous reasons for Him to kill. Actually the best handling of this topic is http://www.marcschooley.com/blog/. Check out his series on "Is God Guilty of Genocide"
If you can prove to me that we get Morality from the Judeo-Christian worldview, I'll be happy to retract the statement.
I think we, in the West, have gotten a lot of our morality from our Judeo-Christian heritage. I think we take for granted that those things are self-evident and if we experienced other cultures more often we would see stark differences in moral particularities.
However, I think resonate in all people is the idea of good v. evil and that good should overcome evil and that we ought not do bad things. I think what those good and bad things are change based on what philosophy underpins a society. But for morality to be universal even if the "right" and "wrong" actions are different points to the existence of a source of good.
Can you explain to me how morality gains meaning apart from a source of good? And then prove to me that there is no source of good from which we aim to live up to? To clarify, when I say source of good, I am thinking that source is God, Himself.
Karla, while you might prefer to use the euphemism "separated from God" in lieu of "hell", I can assure you of one thing, and that is that from the nonbeliever's standpoint, this attempt at trying to "buffer" what is plainly there in your "bible" has failed, not-to-mention, it is disingenuous on your part. Dishonest, Karla.
As for a "thought-crime", yes...if I, the nonbeliever, can end up "separated from God"(in HELL) for not harboring the right beliefs(beliefs are thoughts, Karla), then that is the equivalent of a thought-crime.
I gather you see it as only having to do with intellectual beliefs, because you don't think of it in terms of God actually existing.
What is the relevance? *I don't believe; I am UNABLE to believe. The end.
When man was created we were connected with our life source, God.
Begging the question. Logical fallacy.
When man sinned that caused a severance between us and the substance of life
Begging the question. Logical fallacy.
But I'd like to ask you a question under the pretense that what you say is actually true: I know that I was not present in "the Garden". Were you? No, neither you, nor I, nor any other living human being was present in "the Garden". We had no say-so, whatsoever, in the "Original Sin". Yet, oddly, were are being held accountable. How is that "just" and morally acceptable?
-- eternal life -- (which is qualitative not just quantitative).
There is ot one scrap of objective evidence that supports post-mortem "life".
The Bible says that Jesus is that eternal life.
That might actually carry some weight if you could only prove that what "the Bible says" is actually true. Until then, you are wasting both your and my time by using such arguments.
So the way to stop perishing in our path of death and separation from God[i.e..the way to avoid being tortured mercilessly in eternal damnation], is to plug in to eternal life -- which is Jesus.
What if I cannot believe without lying both to myself, and also to this supposed biblegod?
Intellectually ascribing to a system of statements about Jesus doesn't give life.
Where have you been along this conversation? I'm not "ascribing" to the Christian philosophy either "intellectually"(because I can't), nor am I "ascribing" to it metaphysically(i.e.."Spiritually)
Being connected to Jesus is how we are made new and are pulled out of our separation from God into intimacy with God.
I cannot simply choose to be in an "intimate" relationship with something that I see no evidence for. When will it sink in?
I have not heard the audible voice of God.
Then you cannot know for certain that what you believe is "God" telling you to do, is actually said being.
I do know people who have. Charles Finney I think recounts such an encounter with God as do some present day ministers.
I' m skeptical, just like you're skeptical of Muslims that claim to have heard the voice of "Allah".
God speaks mainly in inaudible ways.
How convenient.
You'll see a picture in your minds eye when your praying for someone and...
What's the difference between the "minds eye", and one's imagination?
One day I was praying and I started praying for my pastor and then I started praying for his lungs -- I didn't know anything was wrong with his lungs-- but I felt I needed to pray for them.
Didn't "God" already know that your pastor's lungs needed fixin'?
Then while I am sitting upon my bed talking to God the phone rings and I answer it to find its a woman from church who mentions in the phone call that our pastor just got home from the doctor and found out he has bronchitis. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
What about the "counterfeit" prayer-sessions of opposing religions that yield the same types of unlikely, but "true", results?
One day last year I was at this conference out of town and I was standing in a crowd of people and a young girl comes up and ask if she can pray for me. I said sure. As I am standing there listening to the music, the girl looks up at me and tells me that God says I am a writer and she goes on to tell me more about what he says about my writing. Another day I was sitting at breakfast with a girl I had only met the day before who lives in Denmark. She started telling me God was showing her things about me and she described in detail the very things I was telling my husband I was thinking and feeling and she spoke life and encouragement to me. I have had numerous occasions of people I have never met telling something from God that was completely accurate in fact down to some really insanely detailed specifics they could have never known. One day someone we didn't know even gave us a prophetic word for a friend of ours that was not present nor had ever been to where we were and it was incredibly accurate.
How would clarvoyancy prove the existence of invisble, conscious beings?
For instance, when I say atheists say there is no god. And then proceed to give argument of why an atheist cannot prove a negative. Atheists have corrected me and told me that they don't affirm there is no god, theist affirm there is, and atheist don't accept their affirmation and so they don't posit any belief whatsoever so they have nothing in which to defend. Only the theist needs to defend. Now, I would need to demonstrate that I understand their position before responding as to whether it is valid. If I responded, no you don't that's not what atheist believe, then that would be rather odd. I could say I don't agree with the proposition, but I would have to accept that it is their proposition and adequately understand it in order to debate the issue.
This is what I am asking of you. I'm telling you it isn't about thought crime and you are telling me what my position is that it is about it. So I think we need to clear that up before we can have a good conversation about it. I'm not being dishonest about any of it. I really want to have clear parameters of what we are talking about.
**NO, I'm not concerned in the least bit (at this time) with what your opinion is on what "Jesus says". I'm speaking specifically of the *doctrine* of "hell", or as you like to call it, a "separation from God[biblegod]".
....or the Bible teaches this as trying to speak to it's validity. While I do see it as valid, that discussion couldn't follow until we understand what is pretty mainstream to Christian teaching.
What is "mainstream" to "Christian teaching" is debatable; what the bible "teaches" is debatable. I'm talking about the language within bible, and that language, if taken at its face-value, makes clear that there are undesirable consequences for those who don't believe. You can candy-coat it all you'd like, but neither you, nor you apologetics can change the fact.
You are stating that according to the Bible people are sent to hell for thought crime. My response is that is not the reason..
I'd be curious to hear what you believe the "reason" is. Until then, since "belief" originates as "thought(s)", and since I can be a good, law-abiding human being whose actions reflect a compassionate "heart", but yet, end up in "hell" for not having the right belief(i.e..THOUGHTS), yes...it is a thought-crime.
I preceded to explain what the Bible teaches, that is different from saying it's true because it teaches it.
So, you're saying just because the bible teaches it, it does't mean it's true? Or are you trying to make a distinction between what is "true" in the Bible, and what it "teaches"??? If the latter, why should I take the word of "Karla" over any other "Christian"? If the former, then the implication is that not everything contained in the bible is true. Wow, that's some astonishing disclosure.
We aren't at that point in the conversation to be able to even adequately discuss that.
No offense, but I see this as an attempt to dodge the issue.
Let me make it simple: Do nonbelievers go to "hell", or not? If so, everything else is beside the point, really.
For instance, when I say atheists say there is no god.
What follows is two statements. Tell me if you see and understand the difference between them:
a) There is no God!!!
b) I don't believe there's a God.
And then proceed to give argument of why an atheist cannot prove a negative...
You don't *NEED* to "give an argument" of why a negative cannot be proven, because most (intelligent) people already know this. To ask for "proof" of a negative is illogical/nonsensical. Please "prove" to me that Poseidon doesn't exist. See? Please prove to me that invisible pixies don't exist. See?
Atheists have corrected me and told me that they don't affirm there is no god, theist affirm there is, and atheist don't accept their affirmation...
They "don't accept their affirmation" because they aren't making one. To state, "I don't believe in God" isn't an attempt to affirm anything.
This is what I am asking of you. I'm telling you it isn't about thought crime and you are telling me what my position is that it is about it.
NO, I most certainly am *not* telling you what your "position is". I'm telling you how >>>I<<< and millions of bible-believing Christians interpret the plain, black-n-white text that makes up the doctrine of "hell", found in the pages of the bible. See here**, above. I'm telling you how and why >>I<< intepret my nonbelief/noncompliance of said doctrine as a "thought-crime". Please try to actually read my words, and perhaps we can avoid making the discussion more convoluted than it has already become.
Maybe this will help give some context of what I am saying and see the post that followed this one (Part 2).
To clarify, I believe the Bible is 100% true in what it covers/touches. I don't think it is exhaustive of all truth that exist, but what it does say is true.
Are you familiar with the term, "false dichotomy", or false dilemma? That is precisely what's going on in the following paragraph, taken from the suggested link:
"If there was no hell and all people went to heaven it would follow that heaven would not be 'heaven' at all, but simply a new place of existence after death with the same people and problems as life on earth. There certainly would not be peace and harmony if people who were lovers of themselves and not of God were then forced to live with God. This would not be heaven for them."
Are you telling me that the best that an infinitely intelligent, perfect being can do is come up with ONE alternative to "Heaven", and that is "Hell"? My goodness, I am a limited, fallible human being, and I can come up with at least one other alternative, and that is nonexistence. That's right, I wasn't troubled for the last hundred trillion years or so of nonexistence, so I have no reason to believe I'll be troubled by it for the next hundred trillion. Furthermore, are you suggesting that because there are people who don't want to be "forced to live with God" that they would automatically choose to burn in a lake of fire instead?
Moreover, if we start with the presupposition that God is a loving God what does that look like?
To me, it looks like a being who loves all people equally, and thus, judges them based on their actions and character as human beings, not what they believe about the origins of the universe and how it got here. But that's just me.
He would only have one option that would exclude the necessity of hell. Namely, to create robots who have no freedom, but must obey Him and love Him.
Again, see false dichotomy. This "God" could simply let those people who don't choose him cease to exist(die a natural death). This way, no one's "free will" is harmed, and *also*, this way "God" gets all the people who *genuinely* want(ed) to be with him, as opposed to those too scared to not choose him, due to "Hell". See?..it works out better for everyone!...i.e.."God", believer, and nonbeliever...and get this---"God" can still be seen as "loving".
As far as "robots", haven't you just described life in "Heaven"? According to you on another thread, once "infused"(your word) with "God's Righteousness" one is incapable of "sin", right? Aren't the occupants of "Heaven" infused in said manner, making them incapable of "sin", thus, making them the equivalent of robots or puppets?
[biblegod] gives us plenty of signs of His love..
But why the "sign"-language? Why not clear, unambiguous, verifiable evidence, the same way we see evidence that our family and friends "love" us?? Actions, and person-to-person interaction. For some reason, that seems too cRaZy of a concept to biblegod. What is the excuse?
...but He does not force us to accept that love or to love Him back
Neither does a mugger force you to give him your purse or wallet. You can, instead, have your brains splattered against the alley dumpster, if you so choose.
You think it fair to judge us based on our actions? The thing is He doesn’t have to judge us based on our good or bad actions; instead he looks at whether we are with Him or against Him. He can look at us and see His righteousness when we are in Christ therefore having the life of Christ. Or He judges us based on our own righteousness which is zero. We can have justification in Christ, or we can keep to our own path. It’s not about what we believe in our minds, but what we believe in our hearts—that’s the experiential—the fullness of belief when it takes root in your heart and is not just head knowledge.
BoomSlang “As far as "robots", haven't you just described life in "Heaven"? According to you on another thread, once "infused"(your word) with "God's Righteousness" one is incapable of "sin", right? Aren't the occupants of "Heaven" infused in said manner, making them incapable of "sin", thus, making them the equivalent of robots or puppets?”
There’s a difference between being controlled to not be able to sin and choosing transformation into righteousness. If you are full of only righteousness which has cancelled out the sinful nature then you produce only righteousness. It’s a transformation, not a controlled environment. Good only produces good. Evil produces evil that’s why it is so important what is on the inside of our being in our “heart” for that is what we will produce.
BoomSlang “But why the "sign"-language? Why not clear, unambiguous, verifiable evidence, the same way we see evidence that our family and friends "love" us?? Actions, and person-to-person interaction. For some reason, that seems too cRaZy of a concept to biblegod. What is the excuse?”
It is clear to me. God does hide in plain sight. We gain more in the seeking than when He is readily apparent right off the bat. Seeking does something in us that is good for us and helps us draw closer to Him.
Yes, in fact, I do...why? My actions are a direct reflection of my "heart", are they not? If my actions reveal a compassionate "heart", what does it matter what I believe about the orgins of the Universe or how life came about, or whether I believe the earth was flooded and an old man built a barge and saved some animals, or whether I believe a ghost impregnated a virgin, yada, yada? If I am a good, law-abiding citizen who works and provides for his family and helps his fellow man, etc...why isn't that good enough?
The thing is [biblegod] doesn’t have to judge us based on our good or bad actions..
I have not once raised the issue of what "God" has to do. "God" is God, and presumably, he/she/it can do what he/she/it wants. The question is, just *because* "God" can do what he/she/it wants, does that make it "right"? Logic, reason, and humanity say NO. Unfortunately, religious dogma says, YES.
..instead he looks at whether we are with Him or against Him.
If I can't believe in "Him", does that mean I'm "against Him"? Are you "against" the Almighty Allah?..or is it that you don't believe in such a being? Answer honestly, and you'll quickly realize how your "for/against" policy is lacking.
It’s not about what we believe in our minds, but what we believe in our hearts
Right, and to reiterate, one's actions reveal what's in their "heart". I'll bet even you'll concede that it's better to be a "doer" of "the Word" than to merely be a "believer" of "the Word", right?.....the former being *actions*.
There’s a difference between being controlled to not be able to sin and choosing transformation into righteousness. If you are full of only righteousness which has cancelled out the sinful nature then you produce only righteousness.
I'm sorry, you've made a distinction without a drop of difference, in my view. So what???...once you "choose transformation" you are thus "transformed", and therefore, unable to "not be righteous". 'Same difference; same resultant behavior.
It is clear to me. God does hide in plain sight. We gain more in the seeking than when He is readily apparent right off the bat. Seeking does something in us that is good for us and helps us draw closer to Him.
I have no idea what you just said. Do you? ...."hide in plain sight."? I'm sorry, what?
Thanks for the link. I'll check it when I get a chance. For the time being, I was questioning...."hidden"/"plain sight".
Is that, like, found missing?
= )
Boom “Yes, in fact, I do...why? My actions are a direct reflection of my "heart", are they not?”
Agreed.
Boom “If my actions reveal a compassionate "heart", what does it matter what I believe about the orgins of the Universe or how life came about, or whether I believe the earth was flooded and an old man built a barge and saved some animals, or whether I believe a ghost impregnated a virgin, yada, yada? If I am a good, law-abiding citizen who works and provides for his family and helps his fellow man, etc...why isn't that good enough?”
Is your heart perfectly good? Are all your actions good? Do you really want to be judged for your bad actions? What if you didn’t need to be judged by your actions at all?
Goodness is God’s nature and that is the only thing that always is good enough. We can be clothed in His nature and be given His righteousness and that can flow from our heart. God isn’t looking for people who do good things, He is looking for people who have His heart because He is the source of all goodness and we NEED His Life to be fully good.
The thing is [biblegod] doesn’t have to judge us based on our good or bad actions..
BoomSlang “I have not once raised the issue of what "God" has to do. "God" is God, and presumably, he/she/it can do what he/she/it wants. The question is, just *because* "God" can do what he/she/it wants, does that make it "right"? Logic, reason, and humanity say NO. Unfortunately, religious dogma says, YES.”
I raised it. God can only be Himself. He is good so all His actions are good. Goodness isn’t something external to Him or He wouldn’t be God. That is logical and reasonable. Goodness is rooted in His Person, His Being. I’m not talking about what is or is not religious dogma, I’m talking about what would be a logical attribute of a perfect being.
Boom “If I can't believe in "Him", does that mean I'm "against Him"? Are you "against" the Almighty Allah?..or is it that you don't believe in such a being? Answer honestly, and you'll quickly realize how your "for/against" policy is lacking.”
If you don’t know Him in your being and you are positioned against Him. It’s more than intellectual belief. Yes, my position with God does position me against the Islamic Allah or any other god.
Boom “Right, and to reiterate, one's actions reveal what's in their "heart". I'll bet even you'll concede that it's better to be a "doer" of "the Word" than to merely be a "believer" of "the Word", right?.....the former being *actions*.”
Doer is a result of what is inside you. We are either reflecting a sinful nature or a righteous God nature. The actions are a byproduct of the reality that you live in; it’s not about the actions, it’s about the reality you belong to; a righteous reality found only in Jesus or an unrighteous reality of not knowing Him.
Karla “It is clear to me. God does hide in plain sight. We gain more in the seeking than when He is readily apparent right off the bat. Seeking does something in us that is good for us and helps us draw closer to Him.”
Boom “I have no idea what you just said. Do you? ...."hide in plain sight."? I'm sorry, what?”
I see and feel and know God’s reality every day. However, God does conceal Himself just enough for us to seek Him for our benefit. Have you ever hidden Easter eggs for a small child. Typically they would be hidden in rather obvious places, but the youngster is still on a hunt and ecstatic when he finds what was left for him to find. Naturally the eggs were hidden for the purpose of them being found, not hidden so that they would not be found. God hides this way; He often conceals Himself just enough for us to seek Him out and this is beneficial to us and that’s why He does it.
When we get to know a person its part of the relationship process to discover who they are through spending time together and talking together and sharing life together. Spouses are doing that even after they are married for many years they are knowing each other more and more—it’s a seeking and finding process. It’s like that with God too.
P.S. I won't be on the computer hardly at all tomorrow so there may be a delay in responses after this afternoon.
"Are all your actions good?" Nope. Sometimes I act out of selfishness.
"Do you really want to be judged for your bad actions? " Yes, yes I do. I totally want to be accountable for my actions, good and bad.
What about grace, mercy, forgiveness? You wouldn't want that?
It's easier to forgive yourself once you know that God has forgiven you completely. I think I just might do a post on forgiveness soon, I saw something recently on a friend's blog I want to share.
Not at the expense of someone's LIFE. You have no problem letting an innocent man die a brutal death so you can throw your arms up in the air and praise God for "forgivness"? That is dispicable, in my view.
No, as *I am imperfect by NATURE, and therefore, have no control over said NATURE. Despite that, I try my best.
Are all your actions good?
No, see here*, above.
Do you really want to be judged for your bad actions?
Not necessarily judged by them, but responsible for them. I most definitely don't want an innocent man, women, or child to DIE because I owe something. The idea is barbaric, out-moded, unethical, and should be denounced.
What if you didn’t need to be judged by your actions at all?
One step better--what if I didn't need to be "judged" at all????
Goodness is God’s nature and that is the only thing that always is good enough.
According to "God's Word", killing is also "God's nature".... as is jealousy; as is revenge; as are temper-tantrums, and a whole host of undesirable characterists, which contrasts your previous insistance that "God" doesn't have any human characteristics[paraphrased from memory]
He is looking for people who have His heart because He is the source of all goodness and we NEED His Life to be fully good.
Nope, 'sorry....."He" is NOT "the source of all goodness". "Goodness" exists independently of "God".
I raised it. God can only be Himself. He is good so all His actions are good.
So even if "God" acted in way that we as society deemed unethical, say, owning and keeping African-Americans as servants, or dashing children against rocks, we'd have no choice but to see that as "goodness", right?
Goodness isn’t something external to Him or He wouldn’t be God. That is logical and reasonable
Again, "goodness" exists independently of invisible, conscious beings.
Yes, my position with God does position me against the Islamic Allah or any other god
And my position with reason, logic, and ethics positions me against anything that is unreasonable, illogical, and unethical. When I peer into the Holy Qu'ran or Holy Bible, I see an over-flux of all of the above. I denounce it, and you should join me in denouncing it, instead of defending it.
Doer is a result of what is inside you.
Yes, a reflection of your "heart"(or conscience)
We are either reflecting a sinful nature or a righteous God nature.
Did you read up on "false dichotomy"? It doesn't appear so, as you keep committing this logical fallacy over and over and over and over, again.
Let's recap: You insist that "God" doesn't want "robots", yet, the implication is that if we are "sinful" by nature, that we can do NO good, whatsoever. Conversely, when/if we are "infused" with God's "Righteousness" we are unable to "sin", and can ONLY do good. 'See any problems? I do.
Question: If our great, great, great, etc., grandparents had chosen to NOT eat the "forbidden fruit", would we subsequently be a race of perfect mortals? And if we didn't "die"(as promised), would you concede that earth would be wall-to-wall people by now, thus, making survival impossible?
I see and feel and know God’s reality every day.
Yes, we've already established what you believe.
However, God does conceal Himself just enough for us to seek Him for our benefit. Have you ever hidden Easter eggs for a small child.
At times, I find it extremely difficult to not be ad hominem with you.
(@ Mike, please tell if I'm ever out of line)
Karla, your analogy is simply horrible. For one, a child's "eternal soul" does not hang in the balance while he or she searches for "Easter eggs". Okay? 'He or she misses out on an egg, or two, or three? Wow..big whoopty. 'He or she doesn't find "Yahweh"?.... it's off to hell with them.....or to "perish", or to be "separate from God", or however you want to sugar-coat it.
Secondly, why does "God" have to hide at all? I can still choose whether or not to follow or be "infused" with "righteousness" even if I am fully convinced that said being exists.
The whole "God must remain hidden argument" fails. It is merely Christians making excuses for either a nonexistent "God", or a stubborn, unreasonable, dispicable "God".
Your comment did get me to thinking though.. about the idea of one line of thought (i.e. Christian) winning over another line of thought (i.e. Gnostic) just because it was more "popular" than another. I wonder how many follow a certain line of thinking just because it is hip or popular? Seems that both believers and atheists fall into this trap. Also seems a bit hedonistic too.. and I can relate to that.. most of my life I did a lot of religious things that made me feel really good. Maybe a lot of belief/unbelief is more about feeling good than it is about anything else?
About heresy.. I think that it is all about power.. but since the rise of Protestantism power is and has been so decentralized that the word really no longer has much meaning in the sense of rebelling against Rome. These days it is used to speak to the idea of holding views that are unorthodox.. of course defining orthodoxy has its own problems. So I guess my eyes usually just glaze over when I hear the word heresy.
Mine too!
Thanks, Bob!
If you want to read an awesome book on the Reformation I recommend Alister McGrath's Christianity's Dangerous Idea: the Protestant Reformation. It wasn't just a history book, but a historical analysis of Christianity up until present day. And it shows the good and the bad.
As I said before, one woman's heretic is another woman's saint.
People from other faiths can give evidence, I welcome you to examine it all.
No one is disputing that "the sun" exists, however. Moreover, while true, we cannot prove with absolute certainty that the sun "will rise"(it actually doesn't move, the earth does), we can reasonably deduce that the sun "will rise" tomorrow because of its proven track-record for doing so. Invisible, conscious beings, on the other hand, do not carry a proven track record. Good grief, the answer for "prayer" is "yes", "no", and "wait". How would scientists even go about setting up a test for such a thing? Answer: They can't....it boils down to "faith", yet, theists will insist over and over and over that they have "evidence". How tedious.
This is why I pray to a magic eight ball, more options. ;-)
Mike, one blog sparks a lot of discussion on a variety of aspects of truth. . .
Yes, I'm perfectly aware that you and most people reading know that the sun doesn't really "rise". I simply find it ironic because the notion of a "rising sun" probably originated from people of the Bronze-aged era because they believed that the sun actually *did* "rise". After all, that notion seems to be corraborrated by biblical passages that allude to a geocentric earth.
Okay..."instantly manifest". Wouldn't that fall under a "yes" answer? I believe so.
God isn't a vending machine, there is a difference between Him giving us something we ask for, or telling us it is better for us not to have it or to wait for it and actually walking in power and authority yourself
Once again, the topic goes off into a tangent that is irrelevant to the point. My original point was that "the sun" has a proven, verifiable track-record for appearing in the sky each morning. Thus, we can reasonably deduce that it will continue to do so, at least until it burns out. With religious "faith", there is no proven track-record because "the results" are not consistent, and therefore, we cannot test the opinions of Theists who insist that "God" exists and intervenes in our(their) lives.
As a Christian who walks in God's power we can learn to make obvious the Kingdom of God such as a miracle happening or some other physical thing that shows He is real.
::sigh::
It's "obvious" to you, yes.
Also faith isn't just something one employs when they lack evidence, faith is a substance. I can have faith in something visible and tangible just as much as I can have faith in something I can't see.
"Faith" and trust are not necessarily interchangable. Like the example I provided above concerning the sun, to "trust" something observable/testible is not irrational. The problem is that invisible, conscious beings and their alleged "interaction" with believers is NOT observable/testible. This is where "faith" comes in.
It's not like belief in Santa Clause, it's like a child having faith that his parents love him and will protect him. It's something of substance.
I hope what I'm about to say isn't taken as bashing, because I want to respect Mike's blog policies and his mission statement.
I am simply amazed that you, Karla, keep employing these thoroughly inapt analogies throughout the conversation. My goodness, we HAVE objective, verifiable evidence that "parents" exist..... and additionally, we can OBSERVE their actions to know that they "love" and "will protect" their offspring. The child can trust that his or her parents "love" them, yes...but they do not need to employ "faith". "Faith" might be employed by the child whose biological parents bailed out when the child was born, never to be seen again. The child wants to desperately believe that his or her parents really do love them, but they cannot know such a thing, so they have "faith" that it is so because the thought comforts them.
Arrrg. [/rant over]
=)
That was one of the largest factors in my de-conversion, shouldn't God be more real than some guy I meet on the street or people I talk to on the internet, not less real?
That's pretty tame compared to some of the comments Karla gets on her blog. ;-)
I know your question was rhetorical, but I want to answer it, nonetheless.
Yes..."God" should be more "real" than the people you mention. Moreover, since the age-old "parent/child" analogy was put forth, I also think if "God" cared about its "children" the way most mentally stable parents care about their children, then he/she/it wouldn't let them suffer, expecially when he/she/it presumably has the wherewithal to prevent it. Children can be taught life-lessons without the parent standing there with arms folded as they suffer.
Peace.
AAArgggggghh!!!! Outmoded canned model alert.
Maybe, at the very least, the God of people who believe in trite tripartisms could be allowed to say "I don't actually mind what you do!" occasionally as well.
More seriously, and hopefully more obviously, that is a *huge* assumption that prayer==asking only. Whatever happened to meditation and intercession and action as forms of prayer??
When my 6 year old niece ask me to put her shoes on her, sometimes I will do it, but other times I tell her she knows how to do that and it would be better for her if she puts her own shoes on. If I ask her to read something, I let her sound out the word instead of supplying it for her. Then there are times where we sit and spend time together where I'm not teaching her and she isn't asking for anything, but I'm getting to know who she is as a person.
Prayer isn't a formula to get something from God. It is communion our spirit with His Spirit. We can ask for His aid and He wants us to ask when we have need, but the relationship is about far more than getting our material or physical needs met.
Hi there,
'Sorry if that idea bores you, but I'm simply using the "model" of "prayer" found directly in the supposed 'Word of God"...aka the bible. Shall I provide examples? I will if I must, but I get the feeling that you know precisely to which verses I refer.
In any event, when/if the nonbeliever uses this example..i.e.."yes, no, wait", I think it is merely to illustrate that the idea of "prayer", for example, distant healing, is not falsifiable. At least, that's why I employed that argument.
More seriously, and hopefully more obviously, that is a *huge* assumption that prayer==asking only. Whatever happened to meditation and intercession and action as forms of prayer??
During my deconversion I dabbled in meditation. Sadly, whenever I mentioned the idea to my Christian constituents, most scoffed at the idea and many said it was "evil". I'm fairly certain that this was because (in their mind) to meditate, or to be introspective, meant one was striving to be self-reliant, when idealy, Christians are supposed to be reliant on "God", and nothing else.
Peace
The irony is, the idea of "don't put God in a box" is one I first heard in evangelical circles. Now I look back on them - from outwith that box - and see the problems with it.
Also, Mike, just because some Christians do stuff out of ignorance or religiosity doesn't reflect on the validity of the Bible or Jesus.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. This idea that one religious practice is legitimate and one is not when neither can be proven to be true.
I take issue with unprovable truth claims trumping other unprovable truth claims. That's my entire point.
You miss out the main thrust of my point, which is that "yes,no,wait" is an *interpretation* of Scripture - one that did the rounds while I was in university CU (very evangelical circles). It's just a model that people throw at the book and see what sticks, like ACTS ("adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication and remember it's supplication last" (and note how 3/4s of that is *not asking*, see?)).
EVERYTHING (taken from the Bible) is "an *interpretation* of Scripture".
Moreover, concerning the verse(s) that you and I both know are there regarding "asking" and "receiving", I believe that my "interpretation"....no, wait, scratch that......I have faith that my interpretation is a reasonable one ; )
Karla: Everyone always has a choice of what path to walk.
This is not entirely true. Where "faith" is concerned, no amount of it will assist me in believing a proposition that I find thoroughly unbelievable. So, while yes, I have decided that I can no longer "walk" the Christian "path", I had/have no "choice" in that decision if I am to remain intellectually honest.
Let's use the term "the sum of all experience, the theological universe" as a description of aspects of God (works for me). The Bible is a record of what-people-thought-in-this-field; I think the term "word of God" is synonymous with "product of the universe" so either is equally applicable. (I'm taking an idea full-circle here, unifying the apparent gap between secular and sacred. Unfortunately other people may not mean the phrase "word of God" in this way.)
B) You are really experiencing God
What else is there to experience? ;)
C) That any person or persons have such a relationship with God as to be capable of calling others heretics and be correct?
Don't you just hate it when there's a scripture that hits the answer-nail on the head? "Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35). Also, a pejorative use of the word `heretic' (or the word itself, if it is necessarily pejorative) would fly against the spirit of not calling people `raca', I believe.
I do dislike the overblown use of this word "relationship". I have a relationship with God in the same way I have a relationship with this blog. Neither is the kind of relationship where I have to bring you flowers, fortunately. ;)
B) Depends on who you ask, but I appreciate your point.
C) Yep, I've quoted those verses before, but once one is in the grip of self righteousness they don't seem to make much of a difference to them if any at all.
The flowers would just die anyway. ;-)
Reminds me of one of the links I posted on Facebook today.
"For I was hungry, while you had all you needed. I was thirsty, but you drank bottled water. I was a stranger, and you wanted me deported. I needed clothes, but you needed more clothes. I was sick, and you pointed out the behaviors that led to my sickness. I was in prison, and you said I was getting what I deserved." (Richard Stearns version of Matthew 25)
http://gregnettle.com/2009/10/hole-in-our-gospe...
The most vocal are usually accurate representations of the majority as you say. Wouldn't help to tell more of the stories of those who do live by compassion instead of retelling the vocal few and helping spread their mentality? I know you do this some, being fair to post even things that about people of faith doing something really good, but I would like to see more atheists look beyond the vocal few to the real heart of the churches in this world.
If the "real heart of the churches" is.... to love and care for people and our environment....then that's one thing. But I fail to see why the religious would expect the non-religious to be impressed with this type of mission statement if the only reason "the church" does this is because they believe that this is what "God" wants them to do. Why do Christians have to be influenced by "leaders" at convention to be moved to be compassionate, etc?
It was about showing the love of Christ and living that compassion.
What about the examples in the bible where "Christ" isn't so compassionate? How do you go about extolling a figure-head who is just as capable of exhibiting all of the undesirable characteristics as we mortals - including such things as losing its temper, jealousy, and getting revenge - for a beacon of "compassion"????
That's actually quite a useful separation, given the light it shines on your question
What about the examples in the bible where "Christ" isn't so compassionate?
This is my next field of investigation: what exactly was meant by "Christ", in AD0-30, and what does it mean to follow that, as reflected in but not synonymous with following Jesus?
He proposes the idea that it's not interesting why Mark & John have no birth narrative (customary of biographies at the time), but rather why Matthew and Luke bother - and further suggests that the differences are because Matthew's out to make Jesus "a bigger Moses than Moses" (to appeal to Jews - based partly on the idea of the ruler decreeing killing kids<2yrs old), and Luke to make Jesus "a bigger John the Baptist than John the Baptist". As for what Jesus' supposed last words were either... Yes, we know these discrepancies. It's still quite a huge leap to open one's mind to redactive criticism, though - the process of looking at any passage and saying "I should read this as though some anonymous author identified only as [M,M,L,J] wrote it with an agenda in mind".
For me, this doesn't make much sense since you would "need to be right" in order to *know* and prove to me that I am living "in deception". Since you cannot(or at least, have not) proven this to me, then I have no reason to believe that you are above being deceived, yourself.
You might actually mean well - and I believe you do - but to be frank, this type of "love" comes across as arrogance, not "compassion".
So there is hope. :)
' Kind of difficult to be on a "mission" where the goal is to "learn about experiences of God together"[bold mine], when/if the target audience is not experiencing the same experiences of the people who are on the mission.
I'm not at all surprised by that either. To be honest it is my belief that today's Christian culture has very little to do with Christianity. The sad thing they don't care.
Aristotle said “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false; while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”
Yes, that's the very definition of exposing falsehoods.
Karla said: "And if that 'exposing falsehoods' was put into religious language would that not be exposing something as 'heretical'?"
This is where it falls apart, because theological concepts are different than truth about the physical world. We all agree and can support the truth that when I stand on the earth and drop an apple, it will fall, and unless caught, hit the ground. However one cannot prove, say, The Trinity, in the same way, and yet some would call those who don't believe in The Trinity heretics.
Karla said: "Is it then the labeling something as "untrue" that is unethical to you, or is it perhaps when the bearer of the falsehood or heresy is treated unethically that creates the injustice."
The injustice is when one person with an unprovable belief calls someone who holds a contrary, possibly also unprovable, belief a heretic.
way to measure those things? Certainly things can be true that we can't
prove 100%, but if we can't prove it we can't be honestly certain.
We would also have to decide whether we thought that was true, so we are at the same place.
"What if man, collectively, has made lots of roads to God as we all have a sense that we ought to reach Him, but God has given us a road to Himself and ask us to walk that road."
The main monotheistic religions all have texts claiming they came from their god. All of them were given their paths by their god.
"If it could be determined that God, Himself, has provided such a road, wouldn't it shine above the man made roads and be something that is true, not because we think it to be, but because He made it thus?"
And how would we determine this to everyone's satisfaction? Which monotheistic religion shines above all the others? If I ask you, you'd say Christianity, if I ask a member of Islam guess what they would say.
"Wouldn't it then be good to take such a road and not the others?"
Of course it would be correct to take the true path, but the whole point of this blog post is that you can't know that your doctrine is any more true than someone elses.
Not sure I follow you. Who would have to decide?
Mike "And how would we determine this to everyone's satisfaction? Which monotheistic religion shines above all the others? If I ask you, you'd say Christianity, if I ask a member of Islam guess what they would say."
Why does it have to be to everyone's satisfaction? How is agreement a condition of truth?
Mike "Of course it would be correct to take the true path, but the whole point of this blog post is that you can't know that your doctrine is any more true than someone elses."
How do you know that statement is correct? You are making a truth claim by saying that and it's rather self-defeating.
God "gives" us truth, like you said, we humans still need to decide whether to acknowledge it as truth. Is that clearer?
"Why does it have to be to everyone's satisfaction? How is agreement a condition of truth? "
Agreement is not a condition of truth, but it is a condition of logical arguments, we have to agree on our premises to even have the discussion. You proposed that God would give one true path, obviously for people to accept it they would have to have to see the logic of that path.
"How do you know that statement is correct? You are making a truth claim by saying that and it's rather self-defeating."
Really? It's self defeating for me to say the unprovable is unprovable? Maybe it's redundant, but it's hardly self defeating.
Okay. Yes. It wouldn't be helpful to us if it were not possible to see what He has given as truth.
"Agreement is not a condition of truth, but it is a condition of logical arguments, we have to agree on our premises to even have the discussion. You proposed that God would give one true path, obviously for people to accept it they would have to have to see the logic of that path."
I see what your saying now.
"Really? It's self defeating for me to say the unprovable is unprovable? Maybe it's redundant, but it's hardly self defeating."
No it's self defeating to say it is impossible to know any doctrine as true. That is if "doctrine" and "truth claim" are interchangeable which I think they are if you remove the religious terminology.
It would be self defeating if I were trying to argue that my particular religious doctrine is true, but I don't have a religious doctrine.
The Jewish people have an entire history of the reality of God. And Christianity shares that history. I'm not sure your premise is correct. Also something doesn't have to be proved to the whole world to be true.
Islam shares the Jewish and Christian histories too.
You are right, something doesn't have to be proven to be true, but to declare others heretics based on something you can't prove would seem the height of arrogance to me.
find it profitable, in a feeling good about myself kind of way, to just be grateful for what I have and try to treat everybody I come in contact with in a way that I would find beneficial. If that
not good enough for Zeus he can take a hike. LOL
Be good to yourself Mike and thanks for this post.
That works for me!
Thanks!