GENIUS FORUMS

Sleeping To The Noise wrote: Here's something interesting about Christ's death and how it works...C.S. Lewis wrote this in his book Mere Christianity (which I highly suggest - especially as a substitute for talking with me:-):

Mere Christianity was such a joke that it was actually instrumental in convincing me to walk away from the church. You know, on second thought, I'd reccomend the book, too.

Rory,

Why was Mere Christianity a joke to you?

Do you feel you have a higher, more clear, or rather more real understanding of Christianity than C.S. Lewis did (or expresses in the book)? If so I'd like to read a book you've written. Have you written any?

What was he missing (that I'm assuming you found) that led you away?

Or did his explanations and ideas paint a picture of a God that is not for you? If so why?

I'm interested.


:-)

Sleeping To The Noise wrote:Rory,

Why was Mere Christianity a joke to you?

Do you feel you have a higher, more clear, or rather more real understanding of Christianity than C.S. Lewis did (or expresses in the book)? If so I'd like to read a book you've written. Have you written any?

What was he missing that you found that led you away?

:-)

It was more a matter of "this is the best they have? This is the guy who is so celebrated for clearing up and championing their cause? It must be hopeless."

Specifically though it was the first chapter was one big logical fallacy. "I know when I did bad. Thus everyone knows when they did bad. Thus there is a God" uhm. Unless you are defining society/culture as God, then no. It proves no such thing.

Hello Sleeping,

Unfortunately, it is 1:30 am and I won't be home again until midnight tomorrow. So I'll just say a couple of things. Feel free to reread my posts because I think you are partially dismissing them. Try to really ponder what I've said. Also, if you begin to anwer in better detail, I'll get to it all tomorrow.

You think I am bitter and need a hug. You think I am estranged. Estranged from much of Christian dogma, yes, because I see the damage it does.

I'm not estranged from God and I wonder why you saw the negative I wrote and not the positive. What happened was this: One day out of the blue, but due to someone's writings, I had a powerful visit from the Holy Spirit. My life has never been the same and I was absolutely overcome with gratitude and love for God. I was a Christian at the time, and I existed in a state of bliss for months, actually two years.

But my opinions and spiritual self-confidence grew until I could no longer be held in the church. The purpose of the church, of Jesus' life is to bring people to God. I am completely satisfied that the church gave me that.

It's like this. Suppose you know a certain person inside out, and you know they are very kind, and they are accused of a cruel crime. You might have full confidence that they would not be capable of that crime, and stick by him through thick and thin. The more I felt close to God, the less I need to depend on the church to tell me what to believe. The Bible supports this! It says the Holy Spirit can teach all things and lead to all truth.

But very few people get the Holy Spirit in enough measure for that to occur.

C.S. Lewis is really good, he is quite far along. I did read that book, but many years ago.

I do not think Jesus was a liar or phony, but I also don't think he claimed to be God in the way you mean. Nor was such a thing clear to the early church. this was one of many issues they fought about.

I can easily continue this discussion upon the assumption that Jesus was God if you like.

Rory,

Can you present something he said that you feel doesn't add up... or that you feel you can deconstruct and prove entirely faulty?

If you can do this on a point by point basis I think you should call a publisher and write a book on it asap... you may have a big career ahead of you as: "The Person Who Put To Shame Everything C.S. Lewis Wrote in Mere Christainity"...

I'm sort of not kidding:-)

:-)

Iolaus,

I like your slippery slipperyness:-) I do see some of the positives in what you've said... but they are sometimes stated in only a partially explained manner so I'm reluctant to simply agree or disagree... I have personally seen hypocrisy in the church, but more often I just see people straining to understand and teach things that are very hard to understand and difficult to teach in the right way... If God is truly GOD then we don't see the whole picture, we see only fragments and there is room to get it wrong or for people to start just filling in the blanks or using scripture to prove there own points or whatever... I do think it is possible to "get it right"... I feel like in my own limited understanding that I "get it right"... but that doesn't mean that I "get it all"... We are all imperfect people... and the higher our understanding is of the one perfect person Jesus the better idea we have about what to aspire to, as we fail time and again...

I also think your overall tone seems to suggest that I'm just like all the other Christians who are getting it wrong, or missing the point or whatever (or am I being to sensitive?)... There are so many angles and subjects being touched upon that we aren't spending enough time on any one thing... there's a lot of bits and peices for the most part... this is just my opinion... and this comes from the fact that I don't wanna spend my whole life writing in a chat room! Just some healthy percentage:-)

Have a good night:-)


Maybe I'm over-using those smilies?
:-)

Sleeping To The Noise wrote:Rory,

Can you present something he said that you feel doesn't add up... or that you feel you can deconstruct and prove entirely faulty?

If you can do this on a point by point basis I think you should call a publisher and write a book on it asap... you may have a big career ahead of you as: "The Person Who Put To Shame Everything C.S. Lewis Wrote in Mere Christainity"...

I'm sort of not kidding:-)

:-)

The entire first chapter is a logical fallacy. OK.

You know when you did something wrong. Well, at any rate we hope so...

You believe that everyone knows when they've done wrong. Well, first of all, you're wrong. There are some people who just don't. Plus, what you think is wrong and what they think is wrong may not be the same thing.
For example, I might consider eating someone's brain wrong, however in some parts of Africa, people do eat the brains of their relatives when they die, and in other places they eat the brains of slain enemies in war.
Differences in time exist, too. 100 years ago it was a regular occurance for teachers to slap children with a ruler across the knuckles. Want to take a guess what would happen today? And yet, the teachers didn't think they were doing anything wrong.

Right and wrong are socially defined concepts which are far from universal across time or space. And yet, God is supposed to be outside of time and space. So if God were actually the one giving us this understanding of right and wrong, our entire definition of God must change in order to accomodate such huge differences.

Lewis tries to write this off by explaining that he really only means the big picture concepts - but how big picture do we have to get? The Israelis in the Bible were commanded to rape women and commit genocide. Is that one of those "little picture" things? Plus, God is obviously concerned with minutia. He commands people to not eat certain food items, or not cut their hair.

Then he tries to jump from the logically improven idea that "there is a God" to "that God is the Christian God" - he paints the picture that there are 3 options. Christianity, Atheism, Pantheism. His disproof of atheism is basically what is written above. He completely ignores pantheism other than to state it exists - what? He didn't have an argument, and just hoped that people would pass on by? And, he ignores every other religion. Even sticking with monotheism, why would one assume for Christianity rather than Judaism? Or Islam? Plus he's completely ignored polytheism. Why not Hinduism?

At any rate, I've misplaced my book and lack the desire to go hunt for it, or to do a more thourough write up on this...

Hello Sleeping,

In the above quote (if I'm understanding her right), she's coming from a viewpoint where God is separate from Jesus in some way... or that God and Jesus contradict each other. Christians believe in the Trinity... Father, Son, Holy Spirit... three as one. There are many things that can be said about how they relate etc., but to separate them out and argue points about their separateness creates other problems if you don't believe they are in fact one whole with three different means of expression (so to speak). .

Yes, God and Jesus definitely contradict each other, that is what I am trying to show. As to the Trinity, I think most churches teach that there are three distinct persons, albeit in complete harmony. I prefer your interpretation. I think that many people feel closer to Jesus and put the Father on a back burner because he is the source of this terrible threat. Supposedly Christianity is monotheism, but I don't think that is really true.

Also, it's good to note that there are things that distinguish the old testament from the new testament... one big one is that after Jesus came we were able to invite the Holy Spirit into our own "hearts" which created a whole new way to experience God... a more intimate personal way. In the old testament people experienced God in ways we can't understand first hand. Christians today live in a different reality in that sense.

This is the sort of excuse Christians make to justify the stark difference between Old and New testament reality. I find it absurd. If you believe that the Hebrews were the chosen of God then why did the Hindus have greater scriptures 5,000 years ago? Why should the Hewbrews not have had the most elevated religion on the planet? If you think the Holy Spirit somehow relates differently to people in one era than another, or to one people and not others, then you don't understand the Holy Spirit at all. You think Christians own and control the Spirit? I certainly agree that the New Testament brought better understandings, and therefore a spiritual flowering and great joy - but the Holy Spirit never changes nor alters his availability.

The debt was "paid" BY GOD. God as man (Jesus) died for our sins. That is noble... unless there's a question about Jesus not being God himself (the Trinity thing).

Well, ultimately that is right. You may not know the origins of salvation doctrine. They teach that God's offence had to be paid for by a person of equal perfection to Adam. Since Adam had been without sin, God required a sinless sacrifice to pay the price. There are parallels here with Roman feudal law regarding substutionary victims, and this stuff was dreamed up the the Roman church - any chance that's a coincidence?

But what is the need for a blood sacrifice? Why would God want that? In the OT, of course, there are all these laws about sacrificing animals to Jehovah. Think hard about this. The temple was a slaughterhouse. There were some 600 laws, the transgression of any of which meant you should get some little animal and get a priest to kill it for you, so God could forgive you, or it made you pure again. This seems like a primitive tribal custom to me. I cannot reconcile with my ideas of God the idea that he forgave people their little and big sins by the satisfaction of the killing of doves and pigeons. Then via some of the prophets, he states that he is sick of the sacrifices. And Jesus says to the pharisees, "Go and learn what this means: I will have mercy and not sacrifice." He is quoting from the prophet Hosea. Jesus is trying to overturn heavily entrenched ideas that are dismal. So does God contradict himself, or change his mind, or get bored after all with the slaughterhouse?
There's an obvious way out of the dilemma: Stop the indefensible nonsense that each and every Jewish scripture is the word of God. Some are very good, but many are unworthy of any decent human being, let alone a good and loving God. Are you aware that Jehovah calls himself "a man of war?"

and what better way for we humans to understand God than for Him to come on down and show us how to be godly as humans.

Yes, that part I agree with and I think it is a primary reason for Jesus to come - to show us the way, and to be the oracle of God.
As for your quote of CS Lewis, I note that Lewis does not subscribe to the narrow doctrines, and allows for much that is symbolic or mystical.

If I have inadequately explained some point, why not ask for clarification?

I have personally seen hypocrisy in the church, but more often I just see people straining to understand and teach things that are very hard to understand and difficult to teach in the right way

I am not talking about hypocracy. We all know about that. If Christianity were purified of its ugliness, there would be less of that. What I am saying is that I agree that people are trying hard to understand that which is difficult, but if they were fed more truth and fewer lies, if there teachings weren't a hopelessly twisted mix of good and evil, they could at last love God with all their hearts and minds.

Make no mistake: Christians deep down must hate God the Father for he is the source of danger. A danger of nightmarish, almost unimaginable proportions. The mind can be fooled and the emotions suppressed but the heart never.

Let's look again. God the Father is the source of all existence, and is the source of the Son and Spirit. The creator of the world. Most people, or many people, go to hell for offending him by not believing in that which isn't provable and about which they can have no knowledge. They will never, ever get out, never be forgiven. An eternity of suffering. A tragic ending to the cosmic drama. Unhappiness reigns forever and God lacks either the will or the ability to uplift and purify his creatures. If you don't submit to him, this is what he will do to you. I see so many christian tracts and calling cards, and nearly every one says just one thing: Believe or else. That's it! And if they are right about God's plan, then it is surely correct to put that first. Danger must be taken care of first.

I also think your overall tone seems to suggest that I'm just like all the other Christians who are getting it wrong, or missing the point or whatever (or am I being to sensitive?)...

Not at all. You seem nice. I'm on your side. Instead of creating the kind of people that Jesus obviously wanted, church doctrine makes hard-hearted people who can suppress their own inner horror at the fate of those he has been told to unconditionally love. It goes against everything Jesus taught to be able to remain happy while other human beings are living in a state of hoplessness and pain.

From an epistle: "He who does not love his brother does not know God."

Could it be any plainer? And after you have learned to love your brother, how shall you be happy while he suffers eternally? Could you be happy if your next door neighbors were starving to death?

Remember not to take my use of the word 'you' personally. I am asking rhetorically and I do not hold individual Christians responsible for what has become of the church.

Iolaus,

There's always so much to respond to... and I literally don't have the time I wish I had to respond to all you write... wish I did... I feel it's all worth replying to... I love this kind of back and forth...

I do feel like the lines between your opinions and objective facts are not as distinct as they could be (you seem too sure about things that you can't be that sure about if you're honest about how with some things it's impossible to know for sure)... or maybe they're not distinct enough to get us somewhere too far beyond just statements about our own personal beliefs/opinions (opinions that are based on the facts... but that are built firmly upon personal experience almost more so)... has anyone ever told you that you seem to emotionalize your opinions to the point where you express them as universal facts unchangable by other ideas? I f this IS what you're doing... it's is a very dangerous road to travel on if you never take an off ramp and rest or explore areas where humility reigns supreme... Just wondering... I just get the feeling that you feel smarter than most (or maybe all?) people you know so you feel that they can't understand things on the level that you do, therefore you're the final stop... ?? You come across as pretty arrogant and prideful... but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I've never experinced someone is truly those things through and through...:-) and that by the way, is just an honest little nugget of opinion, I certainly don't KNOW you at all... and I know for me that only the smallest slice of "me" is being expressed here...

A few things jumped out at me...

but the Holy Spirit never changes nor alters his availability.

I'm guessing this is just your opinion right (the second part)? The bible says that God and the Holy Spirit never change... but I think the word change has different meanings... I could stop chatting with you on this forum, thereby removing my availability to you but it deosn't mean I've changed, it just means I'm no longer available to you... To me it seems that the Holy Spirit's availability does change... God can choose to do anything with the Holy Spirit short of making mistakes with it or using it for evil (because He is all loving and perfect)... If the most loving thing for God to do is to alter the availability of the Holy Spirit he can do so, He's God! :-) The biggest change people today experience it changing is actually kinda sly... it isn't changing, we are... which creates the illusion that it is changing... Our freewill give us great power to make decisions and to believe things, true things AND false things... a good example of this is when a parent disciplines a child... to the child it may seem as if the parent has removed it's love and replaced it with something negative (a punishment of some kind) The child will feel like there's been a change in the love, but their hasn't been any change, there's just been a different expression of the love which doesn't feel as good.

I realize this is an oversimplified example (and probably one you've heard before)... but it's important I think, to note that the only way for God to give us the ability to love, we have to also be given equal ability to not love. And obviously this created all kinds of opportunities for evil, but only if we as free beings choose not to love will the evil be expressed through us. God created only the possibility for evil not evil itself. And He only did this so that we could experience real love (and apparantly also so that He could love something that doesn't have to love Him back)... Real love has to be a choice or else it's cohersion. It works much the same for parents teaching their kids responsibility... a parent may give the 16 year old the keys to the car to drive around... thus giving the kid the ability to go drive off a cliff or drink and drive and crash and kill people (i.e. the potential for some evil), but they certainly don't want anything bad to come of it... they want to build the kids character and skill set as a fully functioning, competent, independant human being.

There are so many parallels between how we are to love and how God loves us... if husbands truly took to heart Jesus' advice (" and you men love your wives as Christ loved the church, He gave his life for her") on how to love their wives, I think the divorce rate would greatly improve... and kids would grow up in a healthy environment free of abuse, neglect and then hopefully pass on this kind of love to everyone they know..

hmm... did I get off track? Maybe... maybe not... more later

:-)

Hello Sleeping,

I understand the lack of time problem. I think I have said quite a few things you could try to repsond to, and so I really don't need to say more. You can take any amount of time you like.

Again, if I fail to explain somethig, or if the line between fact and opinion seems blurred, and if you're interested in this kind of back and forth, you should point it out. Otherwise, it's a too general accusation.

Some of the things I wrote contained emotion, but I reread my last post and overall I just don't think it is too emotional. Certain things call for a bit of passion. I am wondering if you are not really so much put off by my style or even time, as by the things I am asking you to examine.

I have asked a lot of Christians if they will pity me in hell and they say they won't. I find this pretty sad. I say Christianity has failed. I think in terms of salvaging it, sometimes. But if christians are so impervious to any introspection - why then it's like talking to a billard ball.

I am not really sure why you think I am prideful.

It is true I'm smarter than most people, (no, not all) but what has that got to do with anything?

Yes, what I say abouat the Holy Spirit is my opinion. But you spoke of it as though it existed for Christians. The Holy Spirit is the spirit OF GOD - it is everywhere present and fills all things. It is the life-love energy of the universe. We're not talking about three wizards in the sky with magic wands who can do anything they please because by golly, they're the boss!

I agree with you that it is we who change, not the spirit.

I have to tell you, Sleeping, that in my internet attempts to talk with Christians, with few exceptions, I get a whole lot of nothing. I suspect that Christians are very inadequate to these types of questionings. They just don't know what to do with them.

Why not start thinking? Tell me what you make of the statement,

He who does not love his brother does not know God.

(Can't find my concordance.)

So who created the emotions? Lucifer felt envy, lust, fear, and was capable of rebellion...in his NATURAL state e.g pre-fall. Did he just pull all of this stuff out of his ass? God appears to be quite jealous at times Him/Herself, as well as vindctive and unforgiving. One problem with the Hebrew explanation (and its subsequent Christian extrapolations) is that in order to make the whole thing hang together they have to elevate Lucifer to the role of a virtual co-creator and make him responsible for all the negative stuff. If however you find that G_d is the origin of ALL of the emotions including the negative ones, then you have a much more interesting mix.

God does not have to be all good, get over it.

Iolaus,

Again, if I fail to explain somethig, or if the line between fact and opinion seems blurred, and if you're interested in this kind of back and forth, you should point it out. Otherwise, it's a too general accusation.

I'll try to do that... but, along with not having enough time to point it all out and explain my responses in detail, now that I think more about it another important thing is that I feel from your words that you've put quite a lot of thought into what you've decided to believe... and you are a smart person as far as I can tell. So your very passionate beliefs are more focused in areas that REQUIRE belief, so to argue these points is fairly pointless for me. I'm not the kind of person who yells when yelled at (if that makes any sense). It's like arguing about who the best band in the world is. Everyone is right (so to speak), some have better sounding reasons and more "evidence" but really no one can stop another person from passionately believing in something that no one can completely proove (not the best analogy, but you get it). If Christianity was entirely provable then to not believe would be impossible (unless the person is insane). Freewill would be taken away and we wouldn't be capable of real love which requires choice and action. It's like if Christianity were gravity... we are all under it's power, and it's such an obvious, easily provable scientific fact, that it's excepted. So, I prefer to "choose my battles"... you know, I care about what you believe... not sure why, I think I can at least partially attribute that to the Holy Spirit in me...

That's the long way of saying I'm not here to argue all your points... I could but they would be responses "in kind" which would just lead to a long arguement where at the end of the day, you and I both know that we would likely just hold onto our BELIEFS because they work for us.

I just can't help but keep thinking that you have been deeply personally injured by someone in the past and the blame has fallen on Christianity (the "religious" parts of it, God Himself or Christians as a group)... am I wrong? I hope I am... because if I'm right then whatever it was must have been awful... and my compassion and maybe empathy is at the ready...

:-)

more later.....

So who created the emotions? Lucifer felt envy, lust, fear, and was capable of rebellion...in his NATURAL state e.g pre-fall. Did he just pull all of this stuff out of his ass?

Yes. He's got a big, evil, firey, red one that he pulls stuff out of (including but not limited to rabbits). Either that or he had freewill, and therefore the ability to choose whether or not he loved God. He chose to hate Him. God created the potential for evil because if God is love, for anyone other than God (or created by God) to experience love they need to be able to choose it. The only way to truly have the freedom to choose it, is if there's an opposing choice that one can make. And the only way for this choice to be a real choice (for us human beings) is for God to make Himself as equally easy to get to know and love, as it is easy to reject Him. Please think about that part, it's big stuff, when I heard that and really thought about it, it deepened my faith... and that deepened faith has enriched my life so much. A light comes on in the darkest corners of my heart and mind.

God appears to be quite jealous at times Him/Herself, as well as vindctive and unforgiving.

Jealous? Where/how does God appear jealous? Interesting... this doesn't seem logical. If God created all things he would have access to all things and therefore would have no need for Jealousy... and beyond that, why would he be Jealous?

One problem with the Hebrew explanation (and its subsequent Christian extrapolations) is that in order to make the whole thing hang together they have to elevate Lucifer to the role of a virtual co-creator and make him responsible for all the negative stuff.

Co-creator? hmm... maybe in the sense that human beings are co-creators... creativity is a gift FROM God that (due to freewill - another gift) can be used for good or evil... I would have to say that Satan's a pretty crappy creator, he seems to just keep creating things that suck, and make people hurt... I'm sure he'd love the idea of a gun that shoots out of both ends killing the shootee and the shooter all with one pull of the trigger, the murder/suicide gun. Satan's a jerk. (and I'm a dork):-)

I don't really see that Satan is "held responsible" for all the negative stuff (rather he uses it as a tool against us)... Freewill again: We are responsible for ourselves... badness here on earth is a result of sin. Sin happened because of freewill, and because a human being freely chose it.

If however you find that G_d is the origin of ALL of the emotions including the negative ones, then you have a much more interesting mix.

I believe God is only the origin in the sense that He created the potential...

Have you ever experienced love? If you have, then you know it was worth it. If you haven't experienced love then that bums me out, and I hope you do asap...

God does not have to be all good, get over it.

You don't have to be mad or condescending, but you choose to be (or at least you 'tone' suggests that to me)... I'd rather believe God is all good because the bible, my heart, soul and mind tells me it's true... and that gives me hope and compassion and an understanding of my own sin... which leads me toward forgiveness and humility (not as close as I'd like!)... my life is simply better having Jesus in my life. Every battle won against sin is a noticable step toward a better life. I'm living proof that Jesus changes people for the better (I'm a work in progress - 2 steps forward, 1 back)... but I don't necessarily think that matters to you.. I only hope it does...

There's love in me for you... and it didn't get here because I'm awesome... it's here because Jesus is.

:-)

Hello Sleeping,

You say that the points I bring up are in areas that you are required to believe, so there isn't much point in arguing.

That is terribly sad, but like I said at the beginning, this is a circular situation Christians are in, and they cannot even examine their own beliefs, or give a searching and thorough answer to questions, because they are required to believe a certain thing.

Of course, you only think that. You probably don't know how many times in history those beliefs have changed, or the credentials of those who have imposed them.

It is sad that you think God requires of you to believe things without question. I don't see free will in that.

By the way, I think Reed's post may have been at least partially to me, and Reed, I agree with you, but that question is pretty difficult.

I don't know why you keep thinking I have been deeply personally injured and blamed Christianity. I already explained to you that the opposite is true.

Do you think that when Jesus railed against the counterfeit religion being taught the people by the priesthood and scholars of his time that it was out of a sense of personal injury? He said to them that they neither enter in, nor let the people enter in (to fellowship with God).

You really can't believe that it upsets me to see God slandered in this world?

Iolaus wrote:Yes, God and Jesus definitely contradict each other, that is what I am trying to show. As to the Trinity, I think most churches teach that there are three distinct persons, albeit in complete harmony. I prefer your interpretation. I think that many people feel closer to Jesus and put the Father on a back burner because he is the source of this terrible threat. Supposedly Christianity is monotheism, but I don't think that is really true.

The starting point for mainstream Christianity is 1=3.

Kinda pointless to argue with that.

Sleeping To The Noise wrote: God created the potential for evil because if God is love, for anyone other than God (or created by God) to experience love they need to be able to choose it.

Someone once noted that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. The fact that I do not love you does not at all mean that I hate you. I would submit that hate is an entirely different emotion in its own right. My point is that all of the capacity for love, hate, envy, trust, fear, rejection, ad infinitum, existed in the pre-fall state i.e. they are an integral part of the mix. If I put a loaded gun in front of you and you pull the trigger, one could not claim that I was an innocent bystander.

Anyway, you're getting your information second- and third-hand from some book. There are other ways to meet the Big Guy face-to-face.

We need another thread to discuss the whole Jesus thing.

Reed,

Have you met the Big Guy face to face?

If you want to discuss the whole Jesus thing, why not here?

What's your take on the whole Jesus thing?

Iolaus wrote: Have you met the Big Guy face to face?

Does a fish see the water that it's swimming in?

Iolaus wrote: What's your take on the whole Jesus thing?

Everything starts with the creation story. It attempts to explain where we came from, why we're here, and sets the stage for where we're going. Every culture has one. This is Joseph Campbell territory par excellence.

Fascinating thing about the present time, there is a HUGE contest taking place between competing creation stories, one based on science and the other based on tradition. Stay tuned!

But I have to confess that I cringe whenever Christian beliefs are introduced into a discussion because I have to grope around to find the bedrock before further discussion takes place. For example, are we talking about a literal 7-day creation here? Woman created from Adam's rib? What exactly does "begotten" mean?

We're off to see the Wizard! But I prefer not to do dueling mythologies. The bottom line is that whenever Jesus referred to himself, he used the term Son of Man. He is emphatic about this, IMHO. The fact that he entered this world thru the birth canal of a woman instead of descending from the clouds speaks volumes. By the way, explain to me the relationship between "virgin birth" and "born sinless", the inference is pretty clear but I want to hear you say that FUCKING = SIN. But I digress; now if Jesus was the Son of Man, and he was also the Son of God, and as he often noted, everyone else was his brother and sister, then you do the math: if A=B and B=C then A=C.

Hello Reed,

Does a fish see the water that it's swimming in?

Depends on the fish! I.e., some understand and some don't. The way I put it, God hides in plain sight.

Fascinating thing about the present time, there is a HUGE contest taking place between competing creation stories, one based on science and the other based on tradition. Stay tuned!

Yes, the topic fascinates me too, but I disagree that the contest is between science and tradition. Right now there are two competing creation myths, one indeed traditional, and one semi-scientific. That would be literal Genesis versus Darwinism. Now, the third option, intelligent design, is actually the scientific one. And it has already won, but that has not yet been admitted. This is going to be very fascinating, and I've got front seats.

For example, are we talking about a literal 7-day creation here? Woman created from Adam's rib? What exactly does "begotten" mean?

No reason to think the Old Testament was ever non allegorical, or intended to be taken completely literally. Only dumbed down modern folk think that. The rib could mean several things. Genetic material taken, probably. Did the Bible ever state that Adam awoke or is all of this Adam's dream?

Begotten might just mean that a bunch of guys in the 4th century tried to make some sort of coherent story befitting a new world religion. The Trinity is such a troublesome doctrine. But, it means of one essence with the father. Then they threw in the story about the Holy Spirit and Mary, which is a bit messy because I don't think the Father has his own dna. Now there is such a thing as parthenogenesis, although I don't know about any data for humans, it does work for some animals, and sometimes it requires certain conditions. Parthenogenesis means a female spontaneously is able to produce young without input of male seed. And the Holy Spirit being the spirit carrying the life force into matter, could perhaps have provided some such energy. I am not sure if there is a problem in that scenario with producing a male child, however.

It is hard to know why he called himself the son of man. He quoted from the OT more than most people realize - which wasn't the OT, it was just scriptures, not even organized into one Bible, if I am not mistaken. One of the OT prophets, and I should be able to find out which one with a little effort, was called by God every time he had a vision or meeting, like this: "Son of Man! Tell the people..."

By the way, explain to me the relationship between "virgin birth" and "born sinless",

If you are referring to immaculate conception, that refers to Mary's own birth, and the Roman church made that one up out of whole cloth.

but I want to hear you say that FUCKING = SIN.

You won't hear me say that. God loves fucking. This entire universe is nothing but one endless sexual regime, fucking is all that exists, and orgasm everywhere. Your every heartbeat is an orgasm, physiologically. It's all yin and yang, baby.

reedsch wrote:I want to hear you say that FUCKING = SIN. But I digress;

Why would you have such a desire? And what would prompt you to digress into abusive language? Is there a point to it?

BTW, God also said "Go forth and multiply." I don't think He meant to multiply this much though.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: And what would prompt you to digress into abusive language? Is there a point to it?

Perhaps abuse is in the eye of the beholder, strong language was indeed the intent though abuse was not. I don't feel like apologizing though, maybe you should apologize for being over-sensitive and finding offense where none exists; I find little need to abuse anyone to get my points across.

I sure do like your responses Mr. Iolaus. However the bedrock is not yet apparent, though it is obvious that you have cast off a huge amount of what passes for conventional Christianity.

Iolaus wrote: Right now there are two competing creation myths, one indeed traditional, and one semi-scientific. That would be literal Genesis versus Darwinism. Now, the third option, intelligent design, is actually the scientific one. And it has already won, but that has not yet been admitted.

I agree that Darwin trumps Genesis. I am rooting for intelligent design, but there is a very steep hill left to climb. Ironically, at the end of the day it may still come back to faith of one kind or another. We hope to pull aside the curtain and find The Wizard furiously working the gears and levers of creation. Tell me why you think ID has already won though?

is all of this Adam's dream?

Very poetic, I like it! Good name for a rock band too.

It is hard to know why he called himself the son of man

He stressed his humanity and strenuously avoided being put on the pedestal. Because once on the pedestal, his standard of behavior could be safely side-stepped as unattainable by us mere humans, as is clearly the case.

If you are referring to immaculate conception, that refers to Mary's own birth,

You sure on that one? I am not a scholar of Catholic theology but I always figured the immaculate conception was Jesus' virgin birth. My point was in that case the nexus between the absence of sin and the absence of sex. And Jesus had actual flesh-and-blood brothers (1/2 brothers because of the different dad?) so obviously Mary was quite human in that regard.

FYI many indigenous cultures have long traditions of esoteric events similar to what we refer to as Jesus' miracles

I would like to start another thread deconstructing the creation story, if it has not already been done (I am a newbie here and balk at plowing fields already well trodden).

Reed,

Tell me why you think ID has already won though?

I've read a lot, and that's my assessment. I don't consider the two sides (Darwinists and IDists) to be even in the same ballpark. They'll never catch up, or answer the challenge. They just keep slipping further back. It can't be turned around, but some intersting face saving convolutions will be tried, and perhaps gotten away with.

Ironically, at the end of the day it may still come back to faith of one kind or another.

Faith doesn't really exist. There is only knowledge.

You sure on that one? I am not a scholar of Catholic theology but I always figured the immaculate conception was Jesus' virgin birth. My point was in that case the nexus between the absence of sin and the absence of sex.

Yes, it's a common misconception but it doesn't detract from your point really.

And Jesus had actual flesh-and-blood brothers (1/2 brothers because of the different dad?) so obviously Mary was quite human in that regard.

I don't think the brother thing is that strong. For one thing, some cultures refer to cousins as brothers and sisters, although they do seem to differentiate in the gospels. And the half brothers could have been Joseph's from a prior marriage, which means they were only nominally his brothers, but not really (since Jospeh was not his father.) I think you'd like Tony Bushby, look up his books on amazon.

We cannot allow Joseph and Mary to have sex!

FYI many indigenous cultures have long traditions of esoteric events similar to what we refer to as Jesus' miracles

I don't know about indiginous, but certainly the yogis. And anyway, Elijah brought back someone from the dead.

I would like to start another thread deconstructing the creation story, if it has not already been done .

Well, go ahead. I'd like to see what you find interesting about that. Are you a recovering YEC?

I don't think this thread is going anyplace, though. I am afraid I frightened off my prey, and I thought I was being so nice! I love the whole topic of hell. Since we're in it now. So it's important.

That is terribly sad, but like I said at the beginning, this is a circular situation Christians are in, and they cannot even examine their own beliefs, or give a searching and thorough answer to questions, because they are required to believe a certain thing.

You have me a little wrong here... Is proof required for belief or faith? I think, not necessarily. I do think Christian's should examine their own beliefs... but I don't think that knowledge of cold facts is necessarily all it takes to have an understanding of true reality... History tells us stories that are often like swiss cheese, full of holes... the indescriabable experiences of people's souls is missing or half explained...

Knowledge (and logic etc.) is what it takes to argue in a forum and it is great to do this kind of "back and forth"... It can have a lot of positive results in terms of clarifying things and finding faults in thought processes or in factual knowledge etc... but, it has it's limits... Seek and you will find (i.e. seeking God)... "Seeking" is a different process for everyone. Those blessed with the ability to think and reason with great depth tend towards an arrogance in that area and a lack of respect for the unseen... or the improvable (or the distinctly personal)... I've certianly noticed that often the smarter someone thinks they are the less they value emotions or spiritual experiences in general (though this is not necessarily true in all cases of course). Often they devalue even their own experiences if they are unable to explain them while retaining their self image as "intelligent"... I am not immune to what I'm describing... nor am I claiming to be super-smart... I'm trying to walk the humble line with varying results...

I guess partly what I'm saying is that what's more powerful than the logic of belief is the experience of belief... my simplified faith in who I understand Jesus to be (based on what I know, which is always morphing) has led me to a better life. Definite, real and postive change has occured as a direct result of this faith and belief... and that is probably the hardest thing to impart to another person... but it's the most important... Looking back is where I see God the most... and when charted against my degree of faith the curve is easily understandable... where my faith turned on it was as if God gently stepped in to turn events in my life toward harmony with who He designed me to be (i.e. my talents and personality were used in fulfilling and meaningful ways)...

I realize this response might not have much merit in a place like this, which is why I feel the need to put it here. This is not really a direct response to Iolaus but more of a general thought for anyone to take or leave... a shoe to wear if it fits...

Of course, you only think that. You probably don't know how many times in history those beliefs have changed, or the credentials of those who have imposed them.

You're right I don't know how many times the beliefs have changed... do you? Is there an exact number? Is it possible that God's sovereignty has kept the important truths in tact?

It is sad that you think God requires of you to believe things without question. I don't see free will in that.

I don't think that exactly... I believe that to believe it is required that some things go unanswered. Simply that no one will have all the answers... I think there will always be a requirement for faith when it comes to God. If there wasn't then God would not be God afterall... God gave us brains to think with, but he gave us much more than that, and as far as I know He never says to seek Him with just your mind... He wants us to seek him with EVERYTHING...

Oops gotta go... time to eat.

Iolaus wrote:Now, the third option, intelligent design, is actually the scientific one. And it has already won, but that has not yet been admitted.

Also, it turns out that the moon really is made of cheese.