Some Quotes From God

Just some context to to not take everything so seriously. Why not do all these things as well if you are "Christian"? After all your god has commanded it has he not? Even if some would seem to contradict his own rules.

 

If a Father had 10 sons and the family needed milk and he called his oldest son to him and said go buy the family milk does that now mean that all the sons should go and buy milk as well?

 

so only some people have the right to own slaves?

 

What makes you think that God said any of that?

 

good question, each quote seems to have a bible verse attached to it. so apperently the poeple who wrote the bible claim god said those things. if you question the poeple who wrote those quotes then you have to equally scrutinize everything else they wrote.

 

oh those bible comedians
they were just speaking in tongues

 

If only the omnipotent creator of the universe were more articulate than an illiterate bronze age cattle herder.

 

Well, that seems a serious question to me. Especially since a lot of people indeed project on people that are christian that they all ought to do the same. Which is of course bogus, because christians and their beliefs are as diverse as non-christians and their beliefs. Wether someone is a christian or not, we are all individuals in the first place. This means that even though some people (not just christians it seems) believe a christian can't be a good christian or human if he doesn't act or believe the same as the fundamental christian, they can (and should) actually be so on their own terms. Which seems the only way to consciously be a good christian to me.
When people claim otherwise it is usually merely wishful thinking. Either because it is easy and comforting to simplify such a broad subject as christianity/being a christian (this seems to count also for a lot of non-christians), or because people believe they are following the only right way and thus the others must be fakers/sinners/misguided/whatever.

 

If you follow Jesus because you believe he was the human incarnation of the creator of the universe, the almighty Lord of Lords YWHW, then doesn't it make you feel a little uneasy that there are "as many different christian beliefs as non christian beliefs"? Doesn't that render the whole project of being a christian meaningless in some sense, if just about anything you can think (ranging from the horrors of Lords Army in Africa to the peaceful quietude of Quakerism) can be "christian"? So what isn't "Christian"? And why is the creator of the universe, who in the bible is an obviously jealous and neurotic god, suddenly so laissez faire when it comes to the biggest questions of how to follow him (when he clearly is EXTREMELY specific and demanding to his followers).

 

nonsense interpretation

 

The majority of christians I know (well, of those of which I know how they stand on this particular issue ) do not make it an active issue or hold it actively against other kinds of christians that they're believing different or follow a different branch of christianity. Some of them feel maybe a little bit uneasy about it, just like you feel a little bit uneasy about all these people in this day still finding use and purpose in organized religion. I'm sure they're not actively talking to other thinking people about it trying to convince them though, not even on internet forums. So in that way it could be said they are even less affected by this uneasyness about the fact that there are (a lot of) people with opposite belief systems than for instance you. But I am sure there are a lot of christians that do feel at least as uneasy about opposite belief systems (wether they're christian or not) as you.

Apparently not for most (as they're more busy with their own lifes and practicing their own belief than with those of people on the other side of the world or branches of christianity they feel they have nothing in common with). Just because there's a lords army doing stupid things in the name of christianity, every 'normal' christian should feel being a christian is meaningless? Why? Other people do crazy stuff, sometimes in the name of christ. Other people that sincerely believe and do so for themselves should reject their own form of christianity because of such things? That would be sad and stupid.

Most christians these days do not take the bible that literally. It doesn't make sense to them. To you neither it seems. So why do you take it so literally and connect it to christians these days (who do not believe God is that jealous and neurotic God)? It seems you think they should take it literally for the sake of consistency wether they have their own thoughts on it or not. Do you want all christians to remain as ignorant and gullible as the most negative examples in reality? I guess not. Why do you always come from that perspective then? As a lot of them are clearly passed that.
We can see how people 3000 or so years ago came up with the image of God that is slightly disturbing to us now and recognize people attritubed human traits to God to make sense of what He could be. You seem to imply sometimes that christians can't. This is not really the case. Christians use their brains just like you and me It is not all as simple as the bible or the (once) prevailing branch of christianity said how it would be. Most christians I know are not insisting on it being that uniform or simplistic. So it always puzzles me why sensible and curious atheists insist on it (as it is not doing their view on reality a favor)

 

I cannot comment on the if you follow question because I don't. What I feel uneasy about or more accurately compassion for, is peoples discomfort around their own beliefs. Your own for example that cause you to posit this question. The discomfort appears as both the need to defend and the need to attack any thought system. This sense of need appears precisely because the conceptual model is essentially unsound. It is not a fact of nature that we should be uncomfortable at any moment and anxiety is an indication that you have misapprehended or handled the situation in such a manner as to cause your own strife.

If you, "follow jesus because of belief," you have no guide to truth and can only lean on what you are told no matter if you understand it or not. That way of applying yourself leads to moments of remembering the imagined good old days that won't happen until some as yet to be determined time in the future. That appears to me a stupefying hypnotic slumber. Now if you were a disciple, (student,) of a particular teacher you might learn something and actually be able to demonstrate substantial reason on the subject, of your own accord. If you were to look at the phenomena of a wandering sage teacher instructing a group of students without the political history associated with the religion christianity you get something more anthropologically like buddha and his group.

In this sense, when looked at as a teaching relating to the awakening of a greater self, it takes on dimensions that are much more peaceful and helpful to human well being than the rancorous armies that emerge from the institutional approach. In fact the institutional approach was cautioned against by the very sage that the institutions are said to venerate, saying when you pray go into your room and close your door and pray in secret to your father who knows you in secret. The whole gathering to pray and praying in public thing is very far from taking up your cross daily or uprooting your own suffering as a daily focus. In order to help an ailing world you must first become well yourself or remove the log from your own eye.

 

Quote from god,

I am.

 

Isn't that an incomplete quote of Descartes jk!

 

I think...

 

I think it is amazing and spectacular (and very worthwile) that we can in this day still take notice of the thoughts of both people like Descartes and of thoughts on how God could be from people from more than 2000 years ago. I think it is a bit of a pity that some find it a shame that the ancient thoughts on what God could be are still seriously pondered on (just because they were proposed as facts/abused to indoctrinate). They are just as worthy and interesting to the objective 'student' so to say as the philosphising thoughts of people around the age of enlightenment. They seem to even come from the same urge. The people in those days would wish they were so lucky in this regard.

 

My point isn't about demographics; it isn't about whether you feel uneasy because other christians are practicing other rituals and beliefs, and how dare they, my point is about truth, honesty, consistency and reliability. Consider that there are approximately 40,000 christian demoninations (here are just some of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations) . . . now, most of the differences in these different christians, are differences in belief. That is, for any given claim "x" in christianity, there is one group who thinks it is true, and one group who thinks it is false. Now, you, as a christian, happen to have a stance on "x", your own opinion. However, there are 39,000 demoninations who might either subtly alter your own wording of the belief, or flat out accuse you of heresy, witchcraft, and working for Satan, for holding such a belief. Consider the historical conflicts between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, as only an example of TWO well know schisms in christianity.

So my question about feeling unease is as follows: Given you have beliefs X, Y, and Z, and these beliefs you summarize by saying "These make me a christian", how do you reconcile the fact that there are literally millions of people in the world who would tell you that X, Y and Z mean that you are decidedly not Christian? Are they wrong? Why? Why is it not you who is wrong? And finally, the real point, how, in Heaven and Earth, can there be this many disagreements, ambiguity, personal preference, and idiosyncrasy in what is supposed to be an account of everything that was, is, and will be, and the ultimate nature of ontology, the meaning of life, the truth of space and time, human meaning, etc.

How is this not a massive red flag to you, that your own beliefs, which you have merely by accident of being born in the time and place you were, being raised by the parents you had, in the culture you were in, that your own beliefs are founded on nothing more than what was drummed into you on momma's knee, or just "decided" arbitrarily the same way we might decide we don't much like the Miss Universe contest?

Please stay focused on the fact that you purport to be in possession of actual knowledge regarding the state of the universe and it's literal God ruler, Yaweh. This is not a situation where "well you're free to believe what you like" . . . no. You are not free to believe that disease is caused by witchcraft; if you do, you are either a fool, in denial, or have brain damage. I hold you to a higher standard than those three categories. You are free to believe that for which there is compelling evidence to believe. So tell me why you believe your beliefs, what has compelled you to believe things that millions of other christians in the world would not dare to believe?

The things they do are backed by scripture. They have elaborate justifications for why they do terrible things, straight from the bible. Even if you are the world's biggest fan of the bible, please do not insult this audience by claiming that it is not riddled with xenophobic violent barbarism through and through. Must I copy and paste an entire plain text bible here for you and point out, verse after verse, how one could justify all manner of horrors from this book? You know this. I hold you to a higher standard. Do not cherry pick from the divine document of Yaweh, whom you believe exists.

A belief I hold is that compassion is a good thing to have. If tomorrow, a group of people inflicted unimaginable horrors on humanity through the careful and logical application of compassion, I would feel tremendous unease about my own beliefs towards compassion. I would at the very least, undertake a rigorous and strident deconstruction of my belief in this light, and reconnect the dots in a new way so as to exclude the possibility of such actions occuring. I might even outright dismiss the entire notion.

But christians don't do this. When children are slaughtered, when stem cell research is blocked, when contraceptives are denied to AIDS ridden countries, christians say "well that's just those OTHER, weird christians, i'm not like that, and I don't believe that". Isn't it a problem that Yaweh is not a little more clear on this matter? Is there maybe a small, ignored voice in the back of your head, murmuring "well maybe there just isn't actually a Yaweh out there"? I'm reaching to that quieted voice. That is the voice of reason. That is the voice which puts 2 and 2 together and does not shy away from 4 because he lives in a world of 3.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx


You are simply mistaken in your assertion that most christians do not take the bible as the literal word of god. Again, this is a massively important point of theology, in which merely the existence of such controversy within the religion should tell you something about the truth value of that religion's claims.

 

I am beginning to grow tired of your cognitive judo, wherein any claim I put forward is turned back at me, and any uncertainty I present towards a worldview I am critiquing is then claimed by you to be nothing more than redirected anxiety at my own worldview.

I am safe, secure, and confident in my worldview. I am also willing, ready and able to change it at a moment's notice, should compelling evidence present itself that this should be so.

How many religious people can make the same statement?

You follow Jesus in a way which separates you from most of the world's christians; and you must know this. You must know that if I plopped you down into say, the Vatican City, or Georgia USA, or Liberia, or in fact any number of countries on this planet, you must know that even though you might be surrounded by christians, the moment you got one sentence out regarding your own "christianity", you would be at least ignored and shunned, if not outright murdered for profaning christianity.

You cannot divorce the teachings of christianity from its political history. The bible, the source of your beliefs about christianity, makes specific claims about the political, biological, cosmological, and spiritual nature of the universe. For example, it makes the claim that around 2,000 years ago, a middle eastern jew rose from the dead after 3 days of being a corpse, and floated "up" to heaven in his corporeal body. This is a foundational claim of the worldview of christianity; to disagree with the foundational claims of a religion while still claiming to be a member of the religion is akin to disagreeing with the precept that killing and eating animals is wrong while claiming to be a vegan. It is nonsensical, and it is only a way to squirm out of an honest appraisal of one's worldview.

You can "buddhize" christianity if you like, as seems to be the vogue in certain sophisticated spiritual and intellectual circles, but this is not the religion of the bible. Read the bible. Look how much Yaweh has devoted to animal sacrifice, war, and how to deal with children who talk back and what to do when your daughter is raped. You can ignore this and claim that I am misunderstanding the bible, but this is just more judo. You may redirect my attack, but you have not blocked or deflated it at all. If there is one human capacity which allows the continuation of these ridiculous myths, it is our incredible ability to squirm.

I have no problem with you learning lessons from the historical accounts of jesus' life. But are you then a "christian"? I can learn tremendous lessons from Mao Zhedong; but a Maoist I am not, nor would I confuse myself or my neighbours by claiming so.

 

You are beginning to grow tired from what? I don't tire of discussing concepts or human functioning. The information is not about you personally or your beliefs but about our common estate. I don't know why you defend yourself as though you were attacked on some level unless it is as I describe. Why do you announce to me that you are stable as though I had not already assumed it? If you mean by cognitive judo that I challenge or stimulate thought or maybe expose previously unexamined assumptions then I guess it is my martial art as I have faith in the capacity of knowledge to dispel the bondage of ignorance and in turn the ignorant habit that is polluting our planet and ruining ecosystems.

On your question how many religious can make that claim I have no way of knowing but I am alarmed that you may think that I suggest that the religious are somehow more aware than you by comparison. I hope you do not measure yourself on the basis of how you are abundantly better than someone else. Our inheritance as living creatures is in common. Beliefs do not in fact separate us from our biological reality in common. Disparate and passionately defended beliefs don't recognize or address in truth that common estate creating a psychological experience of being human that looks like us against them in mortal conflict. That is beliefs don't contend with the truth or even touch on the truth of our common estate as homo sapiens, they only contend with each other.

This is as far as I have gotten in reviewing your response I will look at the rest.

 

I have experience with those few that think I am heretical on sight. Mostly they keep their mouths shut in my presence. AS I have described elsewhere in the forums I have in fact crashed church educational functions and have been thanked sincerely by a few for my input. The majority however don't have a clue what I am talking about and they look at me as a curiosity. I would love to be invited to the vatican just for a chat but alas I am not such a mover and shaker on the public scene. I have relationships with people and work in an underground way so to speak by offering the unveiled intimacy of compassion for our common experience. Once you get beyond small talk with me you enter a space of serious reflection on our common experience. I am unconcerned with discovering everything someone has done as I consider it a private or egotistical accounting of something we all know. We all have experiences. We don't all chose to examine the connection between our own conceptions and experience or what I call the effects of our own thinking.

So I gather you hold me to the same standard they would in speaking of my own understanding? Would you do this without examining if what I say is understandable or not?

Well you can't divorce the teachings of christianity from political history if that is the way you want to couch the discussion. The bible is not the source of my beliefs. I haven't told what my beliefs are other than in shorthand to say I am confident the truth sets us free. The bible is a repository of symbols and does not make claims of itself. Symbols must be interpreted and right there you should realize that all claims are abstract, i.e. not specific.

I do not agree with the idea of forcing my discourse into a pigeon hole of what I should be saying regarding the subject nor obviously do I approve of the assumption that you know what my beliefs are. I am saying words that can be reasoned upon. I see no reason challenging my reason except that is not what is is supposed to look like.

As to buddhising christianity that is not my intent. My intent is to familiarize with every aspect I have come to understand about our common experience as living creatures. My observation is of the phenomena of the holy man or the sage or the shaman. They exist in all cultures. The university system is an outgrowth of the recognition that intuitive apprehension can be refined for the common good. That is education is the power to personal achievement in any venue.

I would take the subject of the politicizing of the "christian" experience toward the direction that it has detrimentally influenced any deeper understanding. It becomes in fact a political or social exercise that inhibits the personal apprehension of anything potentially meaningful. The congregation is in fact menaced by the threat of expulsion if a new idea challenges previous dictum. I think the propensity to politicize and institutionalize bright ideas brings them into a realm of insane conflict as the are stultified by the prime directive of all organisms, biological organizations, which is self extension or protecting the status quo. The same thing happens with the ideological public politician who may be sincere when he enters government but is soon consumed by the necessities of running for office or keeping up appearances. If you are adept at experience you don't need the system to provide you one. We are biological creatures born into a world that is clement toward life and we posses the wisdom of an ancient biological inheritance.

It is the mandated education of the system that is paralyzing the emergence of novel solutions. Both religious and secular. The whole system is too big to fail in the minds of many but it is not in fact too big to ignore on the basis of personal recognizance.