With ironic respect. Should we thank God that religionists are such hypocrites?

With ironic respect. Should we thank God that religionists are such hypocrites?

The religions that offer a supernatural God are basically authoritarian religions with tyrannical Gods.

They are quite divisive and if Christians and Muslims do not do things just right, they get to burn forever in in a purposeless hell. Yahweh and Allah are mean demiurges.

https://vimeo.com/7038401

In terms of following their religions to the letter, I see both Christians and Muslims as being quite hypocritical and I thank all the Gods for that.

If Christians and Muslims did live by the barbaric ideals their religions and Gods wanted, the inquisitions and jihads would force the rest of us to eliminate those fouls religions for reasons of self-defence.

Let us thank all the good Gods that Christians and Muslims do not practice their religions and are such hypocrites. Let us thank all the Gods that Christians and Muslims are moral enough to be hypocrites and only give lip service to their vile religious ideologies and imaginary Gods.

How many Christians are hypocrites? This link says the vast majority right at the beginning of the link, and I would say that the same number applies to Muslims even though their mosque attendance is higher than the Christian one due to culture more than religion.

Jesus for the non religious - Retired bishop John Spong on religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUmKEH9jnu8

Regards
DL

 

I guess. It's not as simple as that though.

Jesus had some good things to say, and if you were to follow just good teachings and ignore the rest of the Bible, you would actually be a pretty decent person.

Giving to the poor, sharing all you have, and doing good to all were some of the main tenants of the Gospels. Following that would make you a regular Joe person.

I think it's good that we don't follow the old testament.

But it's a bit more complex than what you make it out to be in my opinion.

 

It is more complex, I agree, especially when it comes to following the teachings of Jesus as you recommend.

You picked his good stuff but ignored the bad, and where Jesus did follow the O.T.

I see his worse as his no divorce and his substitutionary punishment policies but there are a number of other saying and tenets that are questionable.



Regards
DL

 

^ I think the guy in this video is basing his argument on an incorrect interpretation of what Jesus said. I believe his message was that we were ALL God incarnate.

 

I don't know about the videos, but I can agree that not everything he said was pleasant.

I can't blame him. I haven't said all pleasant things my life either. And if we are all God incarnate than we're all a work in progress.

 

That is what a Gnostic Christian will get from certain verses but mostly not what the author quotes.

You might consider that there is more than one Jesus in the scriptures. You have the one the author quotes which I see as a Roman invention and a pacifist wimp who wants to slave us to religions.

The other Jesus I see I quote below in an explanation of why I call God I am and is anything but a pacifist wimp and he wants to free us from religions.

============

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.


Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.


The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL

 

I do not use the word "if" for us being God WIPs.

Regards
DL

 

Should we thank God, with ironic respect of course, that evangelists are so easily separated from objective convo starters? :-D
Doesn't seem to matter if they're catholic, protestant, gnostic or JH's witnesses.

 

I think the important thing is how religion functions in the lives of believers. At the Methodist church I attend, we have several Sunday School groups. The one I belong to split in two as a result of the Iraq war. One part meets upstairs, the other downstairs. They're essentially two different religions. The upstairs group is into being saved and getting to heaven by believing the traditional doctrines of the creeds. They're more into Bible study, and literalism. The downstairs group (the one I belong to) focuses on what we consider to be core teachings of Jesus to make us and this world a better place: love of God and love of neighbor, especially society's rejects. We tend to take an historical-metaphorical approach to the Bible, and are concerned mainly with issues of social justice. Christianity and Islam, at their best, offer support groups for people who share common beliefs and values and are vehicles of organized altruism.

The self-styled "expert" of your video speaks confidently about what Jesus was all about. Many Christian theologians would disagree with him. The late Marcus Borg saw Jesus as offering an gospel of inclusion (of "unclean" tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, sinners, etc.) in a culture that was into exclusion and purity as strategies of resistance to foreign occupiers, and that's what got him nailed up. I think Bart Ehrman was right: the historical Jesus was probably "too historical"--i.e., some issues he was concerned about were ones which we'd have difficulty relating to. But the core teachings of peace, love, understanding, and reaching out to the disadvantaged, are ideals and values I try to dedicate my life to. Yesterday we began our Advent studies with the first of the four advent themes: hope, peace, joy, and love. For the "hope" part, we watched a documentary about a program the Jesuits are running in San Francisco for rehabilitating hardened drug addicts and gang members through a holistic program combining support groups, medical services and job opportunities. To me, those are the things Christianity is about.

 

Your is a subjective rendering and I do not usually put Gnostic Christians with the rest of the rabble as it is said that we are the only good Christians.

Regards
DL

 

I like the tone but your reality is not what most see except for the splitting of your particular denomination which happens far too often.

Altruism is good. But not what your bible says will be when Jesus returns.

Both Christianity and Islam have the same DNA.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: `Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"

Disadvantaged like gays and women to the people who continue to follow your church teachings on homophobia and misogyny.

I hope your church have embraced those people.

All that aside, tell us why you think a genocidal son murdering God can somehow be a good God?

Regards
DL

 

Most progressive Christians and I are on the same wavelength. Yes, Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions. Yes, there are harsh passages in the scriptures of both. When I see passages like that that seem to conflict with the core values, I inquire into their authenticity. The words from Luke appear in the Parable of the Ten Minas. Jesus is not giving an order to kill anyone; he's supposedly quoting a fictional character in his parable to illustrate what will happen to people who rebel against God. It is interesting to compare Luke's version with the counterpart in Matthew 25:14-30, where the detail about killing the rebellious enemies is left out. Likewise, in the version which Eusebius paraphrased from the lost Gospel of the Nazarenes. The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar consider this passage as something Jesus did not say the last passage. It reflects the perspectives of a later time, especially as tensions mounted between Christians and Jews, and seems to echo Josephus' account of the abortive effort of a faction of Jews to have Archaelus replaced by Rome. . I'll go with that. I won't comment on the Qur'anic passage until I have more time to research it. My understanding though is that the term rendered as "infidel' does not refer to "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Sabaians), but mainly to pagans and atheists.

If, by my church, you mean Methodists, the United Methodist Church will be taking up the LGBTQ question at the general conference February: whether United Methodism will allow openly gay clergy and same-sex marriage rites, and whether homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” My wife thinks gays should be able to enjoy the same relations we do as a married couple; I agree with that. The church does recognize homosexuals as persons of "sacred worth", and so we embrace them as our brothers and sisters. As for women, they can be ordained as ministers and bishops. Unfortunately, we're a bit behind the Episcopalians on the gay issue--partly, I think, because some are afraid of the split that occurred in that church over the issue years back. Most of the growth in mainline churches is in Third World countries that tend to be conservative on matters relating to sexuality, so the liberals might be out-voted. Personally, I think homophobia is an archaic relic of an earlier time, when there was greater pressure to reproduce. It seems clear enough that the Agape principle cuts in favor of acceptance.

Such shameless question begging. I don't think: God is genocidal or a son-murderer. A person who takes the Bible might come to that conclusion, but I regard the Old Testament as a collection of ancient writings by men with varying agendas. It's highly unlikely that the genocidal escapades against the Canaanites happened, at least on the scale recounted in the Bible, since there seem to have been plenty of them left. And if it did, I think it's highly unlikely that God authorized any of it. The point of those blood-cuddling tales was to make clear that Yahweh disapproved of the Canaanites, that the Israelites shouldn't mix with them, and that Yahweh is a fearsome Being you don't want to tangle with. I reject the notion that God sent His son to earth to die for our sins. That substitution-atonement theory makes no sense. I prefer Luke's moral example theory. Jesus, through his teachings and example, provided a model for us to live by. Jesus died as a consequence of his commitment to champion all people, especially the poor and sinners. His death carries no saving power on its own, no atonement for sins. But it provides an inspiration and example for our own lives and calls us to selfless dedication to humanity--to the cross, if necessary. Jesus died because he preached a message of non-judgmental inclusion against the message of exclusion and purity of the Holiness ideology of Judaism. That is a message for our own time.

 

Quite the God. Love me or roast in hell and enjioy purposeless torture.

Is that what you wish for the girls who rejected you given that you are to emulate your God?

Which include Jews if they refuse to pay that extra Muslim tax.

Yet you have been supporting a church that does not and is oppressing gays and women by not condemning their homophobic and misogynous teachings.

Indeed, and the church is taking full advantage of that to try to have gays murdered.

Death to Gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyuKLyGUHNE

I was thinking more of the great flood, but you seem to take only a very small part of the bible literally while ignoring the rest or seeing it as fiction.

I see that as quite hypocritical.

You are a bright guy with decent morals. Why are you supporting a church with an immoral ideology?

Regards
DL

 

As mentioned, I don't think Jesus said the words you're complaining about. That was an add-on by a Christian at a later time. So I don't hold it against Jesus, and certainly don't hold it against God.

Christians, too.

I support a local church that is, on balance, doing good work. I'll continue to work to improve its attitudes toward LGBTQs and women. Now, the Episcopalians are farther along in confronting the role of gays and women and have split on the issue. I also attend a fellowship group there. But the ritualism turns me off, and there's no substitute for the rapport I have with the progressive Sunday school at the local Methodist church.

The responsibility for that lies squarely with the Ugandan perpetrators.

Well, I look at all of the Bible critically and use judgment to discern what it means and what I think is inspiring. Its Jesus' core message of peace, love and understanding, with special concern for society's rejects, that attracts me. Admittedly, most Chritstians are hypocrites when it comes to those values.

 

All of Christianity is an add on to older and better ideologies IMO. There is nothing new or unique in Christianity religion wise.

Sure. Good work while discriminating against gays and women without a just cause.

If Christianity had decent moral tenets they would have used them to convert people instead of using inquisitions to kill them.

What else could be expected from a genocidal son murdering satanic demiurge.

Regards
DL

 

Wether a christian is good or not does not solely depends on the particular branch they affiliate themselves with. A gnostic christian claiming/arguing his form of christianity is the only one to be a good Christian is not really different in their evangelizing than all those others is he? And you're not fooling anyone. You're affiliated with a certain form of christianity and that's why you post as you do. I am not and recognized your motivation and called it. So it seems arguable who's actually making a subjective point.

 

Of course I follow a line of Christianity. That is why I am a Gnostic Christian.

Those links show why I think we are the only good Christians. We have not let literalism send us into intellectual and moral dissonance and the adoration of a genocidal son murdering satanic God.

Do you not see that as better than the Christians who used inquisitions to grow their religion and who continue to use a low key inquisition against women and gays with their homophobic and misogynous teachings?

Regards
DL

 

Better? Which ones are those? Anyhow, you're ranting a lot, so I see no point to continuing a conversation. I admire some aspects of Gnosticism, especially Valentinus' brand. But you'll have a uphill battle trying to revive it. The metaphysics, demiurges and all that, are far too complex and speculative for the twenty-first century.

 

Christ on a bike

 

Christ on the crapper