Burner Impressions of Christianity

[MikeVDS]

3. all-loving

Many people believe that those who don't believe, pray, or whatever to Christ, are straight going to hell. I know this is not a belief of all Christians, but it is for many. If that is the case, God is a fucked up evil bastard. Sorry, I don't want to be with that guy. That means he's sending most humans to an eternity of pain and suffering, and he also know this was going to be the case when he created humans and human nature.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

3. all-loving

Many people believe that those who don't believe, pray, or whatever to Christ, are straight going to hell. I know this is not a belief of all Christians, but it is for many. If that is the case, God is a fucked up evil bastard. Sorry, I don't want to be with that guy. That means he's sending most humans to an eternity of pain and suffering, and he also know this was going to be the case when he created humans and human nature.

Can you be a little more specific on which God you are talking about?

May God(s) is not their God!

And you forgot the song: "Hell is for Children" or specifically, "Hell is for the Weak Minded!"

If is just a scare tactic, proven my psychologists to be totally ineffective for social behavior modification.

AIIZ

PS- I am right about Cain and Abel: totally fictitous myth!

[MikeVDS]

Can you be a little more specific on which God you are talking about?

I thought it was pretty clear that I'm talking about the God that sends people to hell for not believing Christ is the one and only savior. Was that not clear?

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Can you be a little more specific on which God you are talking about?

I thought it was pretty clear that I'm talking about the God that sends people to hell for not believing Christ is the one and only savior. Was that not clear? :roll: :twisted:

Now you did it: pissed off Jesus

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/play/685

[Teo del Fuego]

Hey, Teo, I am sorry for the misspellings

And I'm sorry for coming across like a pompous twit in reaction to it. I honestly did not know if you meant "important" or "impotent" or if you thought "importent" was the medical term for inability to acheive ....well, you know...

Do you have any spiritual beliefs, Teo?

I was raised a Baptist and I struggled 30 years trying to make that shoe fit my foot. It never felt right for me. I'm now blissfully barefoot. I believe in the core tenants of Buddhism, I do not beleive there is an invisible sky god with a beard who will burn us all in hell if we don't sufficiently stoke his ego. I love science, I hate easy answers.

Teo, you seem to have a problem when things are not in black or white.

I haven't tried to set forth my views in any detail in this thread, so I can see why your would think that. Everything is "grey. " There is no black and white, except for the fictions we use to make things easier to manage. I think Christians need the certainty of black and white and shudder at the thought that the meaning of life and what occurs after death are unknowable. All I was trying to show with the famous thought exercise was that the ultimate truths Christians assign to God are logically inconsistent in light of real world events. Thus, I was arguing that things cannot be as black and white as religion would have them.

Humans must find their own way through this universe according to laws. If you can channel into universal consciousness and open a pathway, then you might be told something you may need to know.

Couldn't have said it any better. Sometimes we quibble over the little things (like spellin' I suppose) and fail to see we often are on the same page and just didn't know it.

[dana]

The point has absolutely nothing to do with mankind's free-will. It has to do with a God who is purportedly able to see the future, powerful enough to stop things from happening, and full of love for all of his creation. My point, and it may seem meager to some, is that one of those three attributes is falsely ascribed to God. You cannot love the children on Flight 105 who were prayin' their little behinds off not to die in a crash, know that the crash is about to happen, have the power to prevent it, and sit back and do nothing. That's either not love, or it's a God caught unawares, or a God who cannot stop some of the bad things that happen.

Your comment about ego is an interesting lead into Buddhism. The biggest impediment to enlightment is the ego. The ego is that which makes us see ourselves separate from one another, separate from the other living things on this planet, unique from the rest of creation. Transcending the ego, which I certainly cannot profess to do but for very brief moments, causes fear to cease. It allows one to see the connections...it stops the fear that propels one to insist that there is no way but a particular religion's way.

But we still need something to plug the gaps in our knowledge concerning why we are here in the first place and what occurs after we die. Some still need religion for that. To me, those two questions matter not.

Or perhaps your understanding of god is way off base. Wouldn't it be most loving to let us do what we "will" rather than constantly interfering. Your points get back to my earlier point about being the passive recipient of God's will. Being able to pray to god as a kind of supplication that gets answered with the goods or not, doesn't make sense in the way most people mean it. (Getting help - yes, maybe even a miracle, but no guarantees. And it still needs to all fit seamlessly. Do you really think it would go over well if the plane suddenly stopped a second before crashing and then gently settled in?)

That also touches on Heyzeus' question re Cain and Abel. The story as told is about supplicating God. I'm curious how the original Hebrew translations (or Aramaic??) meant for the word "respected" because the bible says that God didn't "respect" Cain's sacrifice. It's all archaic ideas in any case. The part of the "mark" of Cain is intriguing. If you're Buddhist, you'd have to see the analogy to being "stuck" on the wheel of Karma when Cain is condemned to wander.



Negative ego is the Devil. You don't transcend it per se, you just stop being prisoner to it and build a positive ego (It does thesame tasks without the confusing commentary.) Isn't that part of what you're here for?

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Humans must find their own way through this universe according to laws. If you can channel into universal consciousness and open a pathway, then you might be told something you may need to know.

Couldn't have said it any better. Sometimes we quibble over the little things (like spellin' I suppose) and fail to see we often are on the same page and just didn't know it.

Now that we understand that point, let me explain something more about us Hellenics.

In a synonymous way, the Universal Consciousness is Mt Olympus. This is what the Oracles would tap into for answers and messages.

Now, we have talked about Laws: Laws of Human, Laws of the Earth, Laws of the Universe and Laws of Gods. You can understand that concept try to conceptualize laws that the Universal Consciousness might be organized under. No reason to think that it is some haphazardly force flowing around us, right? Like our body made up of billions of individual life forms- cells, which is turn are made up into organs organized to make up our body, then why wouldn't this Universal Consciousness be organized as well. Zeus, not a man but like the brain or perhaps a group or council or like an office, such as President or congress that oversees the descending order of groups, each with certain powers or abilities- The other Gods. The lowest level, perhaps where simple spirits, yours and mine, spiritual self.

We form a continual movement from physical form to spiritual form, life & death, move to and from learning and experiencing the physical and tapping into spiritual: evolution in both forms, the physical and the spiritual each moving toward Olympus- the highest form.

Its just a concept like evolution it will come true when you are ready for it.

That also touches on Heyzeus' question re Cain and Abel. The story as told is about supplicating God. I'm curious how the original Hebrew translations (or Aramaic??) meant for the word "respected" because the bible says that God didn't "respect" Cain's sacrifice. It's all archaic ideas in any case. The part of the "mark" of Cain is intriguing. If you're Buddhist, you'd have to see the analogy to being "stuck" on the wheel of Karma when Cain is condemned to wander.

Yes, archaic in that when the Hebrew's were to try to explain the genesis of man and the world, they had to created some story of certain ways of the world. And that there was some ulterior reason for Blood Sacrifice over simple offerings: giving your life, blood sacrifice- the supreme offering for the cause of warring on the behalf of Israel or Judaism. We can see how the Jews, Christians and the Islamic extremists exploit that biblical event today: Your supposedly reward in Heaven for giving your life to the cause.

Again not the way of Gods, but Men.

AIIZ

[Teo del Fuego]

Wouldn't it be most loving to let us do what we "will" rather than constantly interfering.

Where was the free will of the little school children on the 911 airplane? From THEIR perspective....

Ah hell, never mind.

I didn't make up the thought experiment, it dates back to Aquinas. Greater minds than ours have labored over what ePlayans are able to simply smack like a ping pong ball off the paddle of their immutable beliefs.

God is Great, God is Good! Allah Akbar! Let no man put asunder....

[DJmoYst]

Teo del Fuego:

Its not contradictory. I am saying you can be all of those thing and not use them to benefit the civilization you have chose to grant free will.

On the other hand i do agree that this is a hard thing to grasp and i sometimes struggle with it.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Where was the free will of the little school children on the 911 airplane? From THEIR perspective....
..

Their free will was to board the jetliner.

We as a species are free to do as we want no god will interfere- it's call evolution. We must make the grade sort of speak: remember we are still only well mannered monkeys. still a low form on the evolutionary ladder.

But the gods can intervene on other levels such with individuals- you or me with what we were talking about guidance

AIIZ

[MikeVDS]

Its not contradictory. I am saying you can be all of those thing and not use them to benefit the civilization you have chose to grant free will.

By itself it is not contradictory, but if you're going to argue that God has interfered in the past, then you start to see the contradiction. So either God has always left us alone (no miracles) or there is a contradiction. I think that is Teo's point, where you're trying to argue the statement in a vacuum is not itself contradictory. You are both correct, but is that really your point?

[Teo del Fuego]

if you're going to argue that God has interfered in the past, then you start to see the contradiction. So either God has always left us alone (no miracles) or there is a contradiction. I think that is Teo's point

Bless you Mike, Bless you.

AIIZ: I don't beleive in a God who is involved in personal affairs. There seems to be a cosmic intelligence or cosmic force that pervades everything. We are just temporary bodies containing a fraction of this greater consciousness or "energy" if you will, and when we die we return to the source which infuses or informs other living things.

My solemn pledge to God: I will post on this thread no more.
Whew!

[Apollonaris Zeus]

if you're going to argue that God has interfered in the past, then you start to see the contradiction. So either God has always left us alone (no miracles) or there is a contradiction. I think that is Teo's point

Bless you Mike, Bless you.

AIIZ: I don't beleive in a God who is involved in personal affairs. There seems to be a cosmic intelligence or cosmic force that pervades everything. We are just temporary bodies containing a fraction of this greater consciousness or "energy" if you will, and when we die we return to the source which infuses or informs other living things.

My solemn pledge to God: I will post on this thread no more.
Whew!

But you agree, "Humans must find their own way through this universe according to laws. If you can channel into universal consciousness and open a pathway, then you might be told something you may need to know."

who is to say who it is that is infusing the info, God, Godhead or gosiping pixies

Other then that, you will return to post again, next year, like you did last year!

AIIZ

[dana]

Its not contradictory. I am saying you can be all of those thing and not use them to benefit the civilization you have chose to grant free will.

By itself it is not contradictory, but if you're going to argue that God has interfered in the past, then you start to see the contradiction. So either God has always left us alone (no miracles) or there is a contradiction. I think that is Teo's point, where you're trying to argue the statement in a vacuum is not itself contradictory. You are both correct, but is that really your point?

One thing I can say for sure is that when we demand that our understanding of these things must adhere to a simple either/or logic, we probably won't be able to come to any new understanding or experience. Can you say what the purpose and function of a miracle is? Have you ever experienced any? Do you have any reason to believe that the only requirement to produce a miracle is to simply request one through prayer and God will do the rest?
There is no contradiction per se. I have never heard of a massive miracle like an entire planeload of people being saved from a crash. But I have come across lots of small (and a few larger) miracles. A meaningful synchronicity is one such small miracle. What makes that a miracle? It was something out of the ordinary, beyond expectation that revealed a larger reality (which is part of what God is in a sense - the larger reality.) Miracles tend to happen on an individual basis. It is intended to touch that one person in a way that will expand their individual reality - not just save their bacon.
As far as the 911 plane crash, I would have to say that the lack of a miracle would probably have more to do with us than God. That kind of miracle is just not part of our current thought/belief paradigm, and you have to imagine that God is not unaware of that fact. Can you imagine how disturbing it would be to watch that replayed on CNN? It would throw the world into absolute chaos. You can't extrapolate anything off of Teo's example.
(You have to practice with the little miracles first, the ones that could easily be ignored as mere chance.)
And by the way, in case you're wondering, I got all these ideas from gossiping pixies.
...

[Zhust]

... if you're going to argue that God has interfered in the past, then you start to see the contradiction. So either God has always left us alone (no miracles) or there is a contradiction.

One thing I can say for sure is that when we demand that our understanding of these things must adhere to a simple either/or logic, we probably won't be able to come to any new understanding or experience.

I have noticed that you seem to have a problem with logic. I'd like to know if you disagree the logical system or do you have an argument to make within its confines?

And by the "logical system" I'm referring to the method of declaring a premise, defining irrefutable steps from that premise, and coming to a conclusion. To me this is a perfect system -- as long as all the conditions are met: a premise may be arguable, or steps may be refuted, but if both conditions are met, then the conclusion itself cannot be argued.

For instance, if I say that 1+1 is 2 and that 2+2 is 4 then 1+1+1+1 is also 4. Within logical argument, either my premises are not true (1+1=2 and 2+2=4), or the step I took toward the conclusion is (that substituting "1+1" for "2" is valid), but if you agree that both those things are true, then it is simply erroneous to say that 1+1+1+1 is not 4.

For our God argument, the premise is that either we have free will or God is all-powerful. If God is all-powerful (and by that I mean, in control of all things all the time) then it would not be possible for us to have true free will (and by that, have the capacity to make decisions for ourselves without being controlled.) So: either God is not all-powerful, we do not have true free will, my definitions are incorrect, or there is not a contradiction as I have defined.

The logic itself, though, is not arguable. And for the "either-or" scenario: either everyone agrees or not. The challenge is to try and create an argument such that everyone agrees that the premises and steps are irrefutable -- and therefore, the conclusion must also, necessarily, be agreed upon.

[dana]

... if you're going to argue that God has interfered in the past, then you start to see the contradiction. So either God has always left us alone (no miracles) or there is a contradiction.

One thing I can say for sure is that when we demand that our understanding of these things must adhere to a simple either/or logic, we probably won't be able to come to any new understanding or experience.

I have noticed that you seem to have a problem with logic.

To me this is a perfect system -- as long as all the conditions are met:.

"as long as all the conditions are met".....
Jaycer, chew on that for a while.

Do you honestly believe that you are fully aware of all the conditions? You are correct, logic is a wonderful and very exacting discipline which really applies poorly to the reality that humans find themselves in - fluid, seemingly full of endless depths which is only limited by your ability to percieve. Logic requires that all of the variables are known quantities. I am not so arrogant to believe that even in my most expansive state I could possibly make the claim that I was aware of all of the variables or conditions of reality.

[dana]

For our God argument, the premise is that either we have free will or God is all-powerful. If God is all-powerful (and by that I mean, in control of all things all the time) then it would not be possible for us to have true free will (and by that, have the capacity to make decisions for ourselves without being controlled.) So: either God is not all-powerful, we do not have true free will, my definitions are incorrect, or there is not a contradiction as I have defined.

The logic itself, though, is not arguable. And for the "either-or" scenario: either everyone agrees or not. The challenge is to try and create an argument such that everyone agrees that the premises and steps are irrefutable -- and therefore, the conclusion must also, necessarily, be agreed upon.

The other side of this, beyond what I wrote above, relates to "either/or" logic. One thing that reality shows us (almost endlessly) is that our demands for a simple either/or reality or solutions are rarely met. Yet we keep trying to have just that level of simplicity. Some have said that this is part of a kind of chauvinism of consciousness - either men are the boss or women, its either this way or that, etc. etc.
In fact reality is trying to show you that the best and most viable solutions come about from embracing complexity - "both this and that" but not quite the way you thought.
Getting back to your argument, we do have free will and God is "all powerful". If I have absolute control over how you live your life, what you do at any single moment and I can inflict whatever I want upon you - but I decide that in most cases I will not exercise any of that control, does that mean that I am not "all powerful"? Perhaps I see things that I would like to give you that I know you would find truly wonderful, but I know that intervention is not part of your belief structure and out of caring for you I don't interfere.
In order to come to an understanding of this, you would have to have a better sense of causality. I suspect you currently believe that it is all purely simple mechanics - "what you see is what you get..." so to speak.

[Ugly Dougly]

I have learned that there is no evil, devil or hell. What matters is whether you are close to Spirit or not.

[DJmoYst]

Its not contradictory. I am saying you can be all of those thing and not use them to benefit the civilization you have chose to grant free will.

By itself it is not contradictory, but if you're going to argue that God has interfered in the past, then you start to see the contradiction. So either God has always left us alone (no miracles) or there is a contradiction. I think that is Teo's point, where you're trying to argue the statement in a vacuum is not itself contradictory. You are both correct, but is that really your point?

Miracles are usually human interactions influenced buy the power of God, either through inspiration, insight, premonition, prayer, mediation, ect. He is not necessarily interfering with actual events but influencing people to draw the power of the divine thought their own free will. God has never left us alone, its your and my free will to listen.

For our God argument, the premise is that either we have free will or God is all-powerful. If God is all-powerful (and by that I mean, in control of all things all the time) then it would not be possible for us to have true free will (and by that, have the capacity to make decisions for ourselves without being controlled.) So: either God is not all-powerful, we do not have true free will, my definitions are incorrect, or there is not a contradiction as I have defined.

We are now useing math to define God? We haven't been able to do yet, so its basically irrelevant.

[MikeVDS]

He is not necessarily interfering with actual events but influencing people to draw the power of the divine thought their own free will.

So you don't believe in the flood? Or the complete story of Moses? Or that diseases are cured by god? Only that he talks to people? If that is the case, you're understanding of God is different from those people who we are defining as having a contradicting philosophy.

We are now useing math to define God? We haven't been able to do yet, so its basically irrelevant.

No, you're missing the point. It's about using solid logic. If you say something is always so, you should test and see if it truly fits that definition. It has nothing to do with God, but it has everything to do with people's perceptions and misunderstandings about God. It's like saying "God always kills cats after exactly one year." then later saying "God sometimes lets cats live longer than a year." No. Sorry. It's one or the other, logic says it cannot be both.

[dana]

We are now useing math to define God? We haven't been able to do yet, so its basically irrelevant.

No, you're missing the point. It's about using solid logic. If you say something is always so, you should test and see if it truly fits that definition. It has nothing to do with God, but it has everything to do with people's perceptions and misunderstandings about God. It's like saying "God always kills cats after exactly one year." then later saying "God sometimes lets cats live longer than a year." No. Sorry. It's one or the other, logic says it cannot be both.

Mike, seriously do you really think you could possibly apply logic to the conception or perception of God? Now that I know how to do links, consider the following from wiki. Pay attention in particular to the concepts of "scrutinizable" - or how well can you perceive that to which you would apply your logic; and "ontology" - or how you know what you know about how reality is composed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

If you insist that God will somehow be revealed and explained on the basis of normal scientific understandings of physics, chemistry, etc.... sorry that's obviously pointless. Does that logically prove anything or to use another component of logic, are you merely showing yourself that you are stuck within one particular "set"?
Eventually you have to accept that the ineffable can only be experienced. Afterward with your jaw hanging open trying to figure out what the fuck just happened, you can try to apply your best effort at logic, theory, articles of faith or form new beliefs. But you will never "prove" anything. You can give up and ignore your experience or you can decide to move forward into the mystery and wait to see if a clearer pattern emerges over time. (No matter what, it will always be less than the absolute truth!!)

[MikeVDS]

Mike, seriously do you really think you could possibly apply logic to the conception or perception of God?

Again, missing the point. I am not trying to apply any logic or standards or things I "know" about God. I am pointing out and backing those pointing out that others "knowledge" is flawed and cannot be. People define very specific things about God, and a lot of those combinations cannot work the way people define them. It means something about those peoples perceptions of God is wrong. Maybe he's not all knowing the way we've come to interpret it, or all powerful the way humans define things. I don't know, but my point was that things cannot be the way others *not I* define them.

[dana]

Mike, seriously do you really think you could possibly apply logic to the conception or perception of God?

Again, missing the point. I am not trying to apply any logic or standards or things I "know" about God. I am pointing out and backing those pointing out that others "knowledge" is flawed and cannot be. People define very specific things about God, and a lot of those combinations cannot work the way people define them. It means something about those peoples perceptions of God is wrong. Maybe he's not all knowing the way we've come to interpret it, or all powerful the way humans define things. I don't know, but my point was that things cannot be the way others *not I* define them.

Yes!!! That's it. Even the bible shows this if you take half a second to think about it. You start out in the old testament with a god who sounds like a crotchety old codger that likes to wager with the Devil (Job), takes sides, etc. which transitions into the new testament which loosens up and implies god is more about love and consciousness, but there are still lots of funny ideas thrown in. Both are merely approximations that may have made sense during the time they were written. Now, we look for new ways to conceive of God.
And here's the funny thing. I was told once that no matter how much you may finally evolve in your own consciousness, eventually leaving physical reality behind and evolving and expanding on other levels - all the time becoming more and more aware of yourself as part of God - you will never catch up to God. Because even God is evolving and growing.
Interesting little mind fuck.

[Teo del Fuego]

Mike, Jay,

Give up. Your excellent points and discussions will always be lost on Christians. By definition, belief in the ancient religions presupposes a committment to the irrational--the untestable, the unprovable. Anecdote and passion will always triumph in that system over hypothesis and analysis. Children will deserve to die because they exercised their free will to board jet liners and the Almighty God will remain All-Loving...evidence to the contrary be damned. A scientist's mind is usually open to testing his or her views, assumptions, results. A Christian's is primed only for one thing: defending the faith. I know: Im seeing the hot Christian chick I posted about earlier. It is incredibly frustrating.

[Zhust]

I had an epiphany just now. Without logic, the whole world is a much simpler place!

• God is all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time.
• God is all-powerful and I have free will.
• God exists and does not exist!
• I can rob your house and not rob your house!
• 3,000 people died on 9/11 and they didn't die!

Now that I have transcended logic, bring me my minions! I'm not God and I am God!

[dana]

I had an epiphany just now. Without logic, the whole world is a much simpler place!

• God is all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time.
• God is all-powerful and I have free will.
• God exists and does not exist!
• I can rob your house and not rob your house!
• 3,000 people died on 9/11 and they didn't die!

Now that I have transcended logic, bring me my minions! I'm not God and I am God!

Brilliant Jaycer!! Excellent work.

I think you're finally starting to catch on. Gold star for the day!

[joel the ornery]

[DJmoYst]

Again, missing the point. I am not trying to apply any logic or standards or things I "know" about God. I am pointing out and backing those pointing out that others "knowledge" is flawed and cannot be. People define very specific things about God, and a lot of those combinations cannot work the way people define them. It means something about those peoples perceptions of God is wrong. Maybe he's not all knowing the way we've come to interpret it, or all powerful the way humans define things. I don't know, but my point was that things cannot be the way others *not I* define them.

You seem to be the only one pointing out specific event and analyzing them. You asked me about the flood. Here is my take on the subject. As i have said before, God influences people, he came to moses and sad there will be a flood, take 1 male and 1 female of the animals and put them on a boat. he had his own free will to listen and do what God asked. He had a choice.

Yes!!! That's it. Even the bible shows this if you take half a second to think about it. You start out in the old testament with a god who sounds like a crotchety old codger that likes to wager with the Devil (Job), takes sides, etc. which transitions into the new testament which loosens up and implies god is more about love and consciousness, but there are still lots of funny ideas thrown in. Both are merely approximations that may have made sense during the time they were written. Now, we look for new ways to conceive of God.
And here's the funny thing. I was told once that no matter how much you may finally evolve in your own consciousness, eventually leaving physical reality behind and evolving and expanding on other levels - all the time becoming more and more aware of yourself as part of God - you will never catch up to God. Because even God is evolving and growing.
Interesting little mind fuck.

In the old testament God is seems very vengeful/pissed off. I like the evolution statement, thats why we see him send his son to change the thoughts of the vengeful god into thoughts of a loving god. i know that this is contradictory to fundamental Christianity, but if we believe that we evolve in mind body and soul (no i don't believe we came from monkeys, but i do believe we evolve within our own species) so can God.

[MikeVDS]

As i have said before, God influences people, he came to moses and sad there will be a flood, take 1 male and 1 female of the animals and put them on a boat. he had his own free will to listen and do what God asked.

You completely missed the point. Who created all the water that covered the earth? Was it just a natural disaster to you or did God intervene with physics and make it happen?

[Teo del Fuego]

[quote="DJmoYst"]I like the evolution statement, thats why we see him send his son to change the thoughts of the vengeful god into thoughts of a loving god. /quote]

Yeah, he evolved into such a warm fuzzy loving god that he sent his only son here to die a gruesome death for which no one asked or wanted. Save me from my sins? Well, thank you very much! Nail your son to a cross? You sick bastard...You are All-mighty God! Surely there must be some other way!