Christian writers and readers meet here!

[Hypoxia]

Wow, Hypoxia...you seem to have some rather strong opinions about Christians, and none of those opinions appear to be very positive. I'm sorry if none of your interactions with Christians have been good experiences. I do assure you, I have no intention of attacking, enslaving, or slaughtering anyone. =)

Whew!

I've had a variety of interactions with Christians, having been raised Quaker and Methodist, schooled Lutheran, sent to Oral Roberts University, and more. I've lived in Pagan and Jewish communes and non-toxic cults. Now I follow Sturgeon's Creed: In the winter I'm a Buddhist, in the summer I'm a nudist.

Not every Christian sees sex as a negative thing -- a lot of us see it as a very good thing to be celebrated. Not all Christians see kinks, birth control, oral sex, anal sex, an active fantasy life, or homosexuality as sinful, either.

That's the point I was making -- there is no monolithic 'Christian' community and thus no common standard of behavior and viewpoint among all those who consider themselves Christian. Certain viewpoints are noisily blasted thru the media, voices screaming that they and only they are Real Christians and worthy humans. Those voices do not speak for Christianity, only for their own limitations.

People invent deities that back their own prejudices and principles.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Hypoxia, a lot of what you say is quite impossible to fault. But some of the things fall into the very typical and intellectually lazy argument about the invention of deities - this argument has been around since Plato and likely even well before then.

To some people it will strike them as being dismissive and arrogant about the thoughts and feelings of others, but I prefer to look at the logical flaw in it: it blurs the line between a requirement to understand someone's conception of god (including a realistic technical definition FOR god or 'a' god that everyone generally will accept as the accurate basic definition) and the well-known tendency for people to indeed have biases.

On the one hand you are certainly quite right to be dismissive when it comes to the many labels and 'brands' of ideologies that tie themselves up to the 'Christian' title.

But in being dismissive in only a blanket and indescriminate way you will necessarily leave out a critical perspective and investigation.

There is only a handful of basic items to the moral, ethical, and deistic ideas of Christianity, without any one of which no one can be a Christian authentically.

These are:

1. god is a living god, for people who are alive (meaning alive now, and not at some point in past history with different historical conditions and contexts) now and in the present context.

2. god knows what it is like to be an ordinary human being because he is or has been one.

3. god loves people and is the same as 'people' and in fact 'Love' and 'Truth' ARE 'god.'

4. a human-level understanding of and approach to god, is available.

5. god listens to humans.

6. evil is also a reality, and is against the purposes and the beneficial outcome(s) of mankind.

I suppose the general definition of 'god' as most people would have it be, is that it is the word we use that represents an entity, with a mind, and which is somehow more than physical reality alone and stands above physical nature and has absolute power over physical nature as we generally experience it. I think the reason philosophical humans have devised the concept of 'god' is due to the fact that physical nature changes and degrades in all of its passing forms and there is nothing within physical nature which doesn't - but there is in intangible realms, such as certain maths ideas and geometric and mathematical relationships. And therefore that second area has a different name than the rest of physical reality, but it impacts on it, and it has been termed 'the divine.'

In the latter of these intangible things, it caused Plato to suggest that in fact maths WAS, if not god in total, then part of the make-up of 'god,' and that music, being an expression of mathematical relationships, was a form of the expressions of god, especially what he termed 'ideal music' or what we now call celestial dynamics (physics).

And this is not people devising or 'making up' a god according to their biases, but portraying logical idea extensions outside of the physical material universe - because in fact, they are there in certain intangibles.

But of course people most certainly do also make up 'gods' that fit in with their biases and prejudices; this is most certainly true. But these are not logically 'gods.'

There is of course, an ultimate proof for the reality of the Christian god but you won't see it in many places. It relates to the first point above -, the one about being alive, immediate, and relational to living human beings.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Whew!

I've had a variety of interactions with Christians, having been raised Quaker and Methodist, schooled Lutheran, sent to Oral Roberts University, and more. I've lived in Pagan and Jewish communes and non-toxic cults. Now I follow Sturgeon's Creed: In the winter I'm a Buddhist, in the summer I'm a nudist.


That's the point I was making -- there is no monolithic 'Christian' community and thus no common standard of behavior and viewpoint among all those who consider themselves Christian. Certain viewpoints are noisily blasted thru the media, voices screaming that they and only they are Real Christians and worthy humans. Those voices do not speak for Christianity, only for their own limitations.

People invent deities that back their own prejudices and principles.

Jesus was a Jew, and never converted to anything other, so Christians are Jews.

 

[Jay_P]

No, Christians are NOT Jews, Yes historically, and at the time of the Romans, christianity was considered a Jewish Sect. However, since then there is a very definite difference in the religions. If Christians were jewish, we would still be following the dietary and ritual cleansing rules which are a core part of the Jewish religion. Jesus is the Fulfillment of the jewish religion's focus to the coming messiah. The current followers of Judaism (not counting the reform jews), do not believe Jesus was the messiah and are still waiting on his arrival. Yes Jesus was Jewish and never "recanted", but that does not follow that Christians are all Jews as well, except in the since that we are adopted into God's family.

 

[JKendallDane]

First off... Wow. A thread I though I'd never see here, though I was involved with a very devout woman who wrote erotica. Never read any of it.

Now, here I am, a more than middle-aged guy who has struggled with faith for many years. I still have a faith but abandoned the church, which I'll talk about in a bit.

I endured a mostly sexless marriage for 20+ years. During the tail end, I started having my own awakening about the wrongness of Christian teaching on sex. Even when they celebrated sex, they did it wrong.

Through that awakening, I developed a very dirty mind and it started to come out with girlfriends (after divorce). I'd write them stories to a) get them horny and b) give them ideas.

My abandoning the church had a lot of roots in this depressing story below. The modern church demonizes men and seeks to remove their masculinity. Many men don't know how to deal with it, BTDT, and are conflicted by what they are being told and their very nature. Men are expected to be the heads, but the default authority goes to the woman. Men are chastised, women are celebrated.

That, in a nutshell, is what drove me away.

But I still believe.

Wow. I never thought I'd see a post of mine from 2006 resurfacing, quoted in your post of today.

My heart goes out to you, man.

In case you want an update on me...
My almost-sexless marriage is approaching 30 years.
I think the church has tried hard to think about sex and has not always done a good job. (That's the diplomatic version.)
I still believe, and I am still part of a church.
I am looking forward to reading your stories, but it will probably take a few days until I get past some deadlines and have a bit of time.
I think I'm in an overall better mental state than I was in 2006 - some things are much clearer, some things are getting crazier, but I think I'll get through it. (Dealing with the sleep deprivation of 2006 was a huge first step. Recognizing some of my emotional triggers was a very recent huge second step.)

Feel free to contact me by PM if you ever want to chat over a virtual beer - share war stories, bitch about life, whatever strikes your fancy.

- curl

This is an interesting thread. I'm single, so not in the same situation as the last few posters, but I got burnt out as a high school and college aged male having the church treat me like a sex-crazed monster. I haven't abandoned the church, but I have been having sex whenever I can and just hiding it from my Christian friends. I don't know if I'm ever going to find a Christian woman to marry who has the same views of sex as I do.

{{{hugs & to all three of you}}}

In each of your comments I bolded what is the most important thing you said...there still *IS* belief and faith there. And what did Christ say about even a tiny bit of faith?

https://angelaywilliams.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/matthew-17-20.jpg?w=560

My personal take on religion is it was fine until it "got organized." That was when man started inserting himself between others and God. Take a moment and think of the two men that have walked this earth that have shown the way to God to more people than any other over the last twenty centuries: Christ Himself and Billy Graham...and both had the same basic message in their ministries: Develop a personal relationship with God.

"Church" is fine and I do believe that somewhere you can both worship and fellowship is crucial to your spiritual health. But I also believe attending the wrong church can be more toxic than anything else that can tempt you to question, severely damage, and eventually murder your beliefs. Make certain your relationship with Christ is one that is one-on-one and not dependent on others.

Do a short daily devotional at home. Talk to God...about anything...yes even SEX! (He invented it after all, so He has more answers than Freud, Kinsey, and Dr. Ruth all rolled into one!) Knock the dust off your Bible and actually open it and read a passage or two or ten. Discover the words and stories that are in the Bible that you never hear about from a pulpit or in a Sunday School classroom. Ask the Holy Spirit to help guide you in your quest. And be open to what happens when It answers you.

Do not immerse yourself in all the "Thou Shalt Not's" such as the 636 Levitical Laws that include forbidding the growing of a beard, cutting your hair, eating lobster, sleeping with your wife during menses, and dictates penalties that include even death for wearing polyester, planting different crops side-by-side, or even playing touch football. (thou shalt not touch the skin of a dead pig)

Instead of all that, concentrate on these words:

(16) For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (17) For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. ~John 3:16 & 17 NIV

Now if God didn't send Christ here to condemn, then by what right or authority does ANY man (or woman) wandering the planet have to be taking on that job of their own volition? Also be sure to note that in 3:16 the word is "whoever"...not "whoever except..."

I'm glad to see this thread resurface and people stepping up with their concerns. Together we can find the answers and help each other. I'll end this post with one more meme that says it so well...

http://www.mediumencounters.co.uk/quote%201.jpg

Don't lose your spirituality in the search for religion.

.

 

[Jay_P]

I would like to note, that while I see all the references to the evils of "Organized religion." Please note that it is necessary to fellowship and Worship with Other believers. So that you can share each others burdens and build each other up. Find a good church, become an active member, serve where you can.

 

[Katiecat]

Jesus was a Jew, and never converted to anything other, so Christians are Jews.

Untrue, Paul addressed many of his writings specifically to Gentiles, and in fact said, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." And John 3:16 says "God so loved the world", not "God so loved the Jews." A Christian is simply a follower of Jesus Christ, and it's open to everyone, Jews included.

That's the point I was making -- there is no monolithic 'Christian' community and thus no common standard of behavior and viewpoint among all those who consider themselves Christian. Certain viewpoints are noisily blasted thru the media, voices screaming that they and only they are Real Christians and worthy humans. Those voices do not speak for Christianity, only for their own limitations.

People invent deities that back their own prejudices and principles.

Understood. I am an active Methodist, but actually describe my faith as Christopagan. I believe there is, and always has been, only one God, and that God hasn't been invented by any people or culture, but that people understand and interpret God in the light of their own culture and society.

In the latter of these intangible things, it caused Plato to suggest that in fact maths WAS, if not god in total, then part of the make-up of 'god,' and that music, being an expression of mathematical relationships, was a form of the expressions of god, especially what he termed 'ideal music' or what we now call celestial dynamics (physics).

And this is not people devising or 'making up' a god according to their biases, but portraying logical idea extensions outside of the physical material universe - because in fact, they are there in certain intangibles.

But of course people most certainly do also make up 'gods' that fit in with their biases and prejudices; this is most certainly true. But these are not logically 'gods.'

There is of course, an ultimate proof for the reality of the Christian god but you won't see it in many places. It relates to the first point above -, the one about being alive, immediate, and relational to living human beings.

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote Yes, Love and Truth ARE God -- one of my favorite verses: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them."

Humans have always, since the dawn of time, tried to describe and define the divine. Because we are not perfect, and we are trying to understand and connect with something so vast, so amazing, so outside of our human experience, we try to explain it in ways that our human minds can comprehend. We don't always get it right. But this is what I understand to be "religion" -- man's attempt to understand and connect with the Divine.

I would like to note, that while I see all the references to the evils of "Organized religion." Please note that it is necessary to fellowship and Worship with Other believers. So that you can share each others burdens and build each other up. Find a good church, become an active member, serve where you can.

There are those who have been more than willing to corrupt and twist spirituality for power, and greed, and control, and their own purposes -- I don't see "organized religion" as bad, but "corrupt religion". After all, I'm a Methodist, and you don't get much more organized than that. LOL I agree that coming together with other believers and having discussions like this one is a very good thing. Attending a church for fellowship and worship is a good thing, as long as you find a good church. I have had some bad experiences in Fundy churches, and have been in what could best be described as a Fundamentalist cult, which was psychically and spiritually very damaging. After my divorce and escape from that oppression, and years of avoiding church, I feel God led me to the right church -- full of flawed, diverse, but loving people who truly are trying to do God's work and share the love of Christ with the world.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Although the straighforward perspectives of JKendallDane and Jay_P seem very canonical to me - although I'm inclined to think there also are hermetic Christians who do not hang around with a lot of other Christians or anyone else, really(!), I am tickled by the notion of 'Christopagan.'

Hmn...

I believe I can find some New Testament support for even this rare idea.

So long as 'the mind of god is always One,' then I believe there are some sections in the New Testament which refer to a plurality of 'gods' and supernatural figures and identities that have the authority and know the mind of God... I know a lot of modern Christians don't like those sections, but they are there nevertheless.

 

[Jay_P]

would you provide the passages in Question?

And yes, I am what would likely be described as canonical.

 

[Katiecat]

would you provide the passages in Question?

And yes, I am what would likely be described as canonical.

I would not be described as canonical. I am a red-letter Christian -- I believe fully in the teachings of Jesus and do my best to follow those. The rest of the Bible has some very good things, some inspired things, but also many things that are the words and ideas of humans, not God. I do not believe God would ever condone or command his people to wipe out entire cities, making sure to kill all infants and children, but keeping virgin girls as war booty and sex slaves. That may very well have happened, and it is the historical records of events, but I don't believe it was God's idea at all. I freely admit, I cherry-pick scripture -- because cherries are delicious, but I throw away the pits, the stems, and the fruit that has been spoiled by insects or is clearly rotten.

What Christopaganism means to me is that I follow the teachings of Christ. I believe in God, but I don't see God as the God of the Old Testament, or the God of the Jews. God is the God of everyone. There is, and always has been, only one God. There are not multiple Gods from multiple cultures and religions, all competing...there is only One, and each culture throughout history -- including the ancient Hebrews -- has, to some degree, created God in their own image. They did this so they could try to imagine and relate to God.

Passages in support of Christopaganism? =) How about:

God is the Creator (Nehemiah 9:6, Colossians 1:16)
God is not a human being (Numbers 23:19)
God is Spirit (John 4:24)
God is Truth (John 14:6)
God is infinitely huge, bigger than we can imagine (Isaiah 66:1)
God is Love (1 John 4:8)
There is only one God, no competition (Isaiah 43:10-11, 46:9)
The people of Athens - pagans - who worshiped "An Unknown God", were really worshiping the one true God (Acts 17:22-24)
Gentiles - pagans - who did not have or hear the law could still obey it and be justified because it was already written on their hearts (Romans 2:12-16)
God does not make distinctions between Jew and Gentile (pagan), male or female, slave or free -- all are equal and united in the body of Christ (Galatians 3:28)
All people -- everyone -- will be made alive in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22)
God loves the whole world, not just one chosen ethnic group (John 3:16)
God is the savior of all people, not just a select few (1 Timothy 4:10)

I see truth in every religion that believes God is an infinite and unique spirit being who created us, and loves us, and teaches us to love one another, no matter what name they call God.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I think a lot of modern people - educated in the modern era, which plays pretty fast and loose with words and their meanings - do not understand the ways in which the New Testament in particular, is consistent with fairly intellectual and critical uses of words and ideas.

For example, the leading philosophical minds of the time, made clear distinction between the physical, material realm, and whatever is beyond that - such as the so-called atomic numbers and geometries of Democritus of Cos. And they made the distinction in this way: ice is antithetical to fire, or heat antithetical to cold - and so on. And they regarded the proper definition of the 'divine' as being similarly possessed of a specific meaning that, if nothing else about it could be pinned down due to our own position as human observer having physical and material limitations, then certainly - it was antithetical in general characteristic to the changeable and the degradable and the impermanent which was more like the universe of matter that we saw. Fire is to ice, as it were.

And consequently, as water or ice might affect fire (or vice versa, I suppose), then the decaying and the changing was affected when it came into some kind of direct 'contact' with the 'divine.'

Hence, even simply the 'word' of god, would have a particular affect on the mind of man, or the actual physical being of man or of anything that 'word' came into 'contact' with.

And so the traditional Greek philosophers opined that any god that spoke to a man or even showed themselves to that person, would have a positive and 'divine' effect on that person in some way: e.g. 'were translated into a virtually timeless image among the stars when their physical being died.'

The Gospel writers were highly educated - in spite of popular misconceptions about that, namely that they were fishermen or tax collectors 'only' or whatever. But that could not really have been true, in the sense that, whoever ACTUALLY WROTE the texts were very well aware of fairly subtle philosophical nuances in the meanings of key terms that were used in those texts.

So, John 10: 31-38, uses this traditional Greek philosophical idea that the word of god coming to a human makes the human a god - in some important way. But it goes on into ideas about 'gods to whom the word of god has come' (direct messengers, Old Testament identities - Moses, Elijah, Noah, possibly... Underscored by the transfiguration narrative, on the mountain where three tents are made for 'three shining personages' that are assumed, but not exactly definitely known, to be Moses, Elijah, and Jesus).

Corinthians is full of passages about 'many parts one body' and the clear difference between an 'idol made with hands' and whatever really is from the heavens or from 'heaven' and sharing a common nature with the divine.

So certainly, as Katiecat itemizes, Acts 17: 22 - and onwards, talks about a very important phrase 'the unknown god' - which has a very VERY complicated real meaning that even today scholars actively discuss at great length.

And then of course, there is John 14: 2 'in my Father's house there are many mansions...' But this passage is complex and goes on to talk about 'and greater works even than I do will he do who believes in me BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER.' (Meaning - goes to the Divine realm from the mortal one). Use the fire as to ice metaphor to appreciate the connectedness and the chain linking man (mortal) to God (divine) through the 'god-man' Jesus... This whole section is very complicated because it refers to another ancient traditional Greek idea about many humans not being able to discern god or a god when they actually encounter one - 'if you had have known me you would have known my Father also but you did not recognise me.'

Many times throughough the New Testament, Jesus appears in various forms in which he is not recognized immediately, but only afterwards upon reflection or someone pointing something out.

It is not out of the question that 'Ultimate God' appeared previously to many people across many cultures and was described in a variety of ways and with different names being applied - but, really, the point of the Christian perspective, is that this is - if/where true and not just an invention or tale or man-made incident - the same and unique and sole 'god' personality.

And in fact, that is what Paul exactly says in Acts 17, in which in directly implies that the Athenians did actually have experience of the true and real god but didn't accurately describe the situation.

See the problem with saying that there are NOT certain individualistic personages of GOD, comes in the very words of Jesus himself in which he says he IS Truth, he IS Love and he IS Life - he cannot then escape from the cultural fact that all humans speak of the god personage of Love as firstly a female 'Venus' or whatever other ethnic name is used, at minimum, and also this diminutive male, or child-like 'Eros' figure included along the way - and this is true in every culture which has these narratives. And the same goes for 'Truth' or Wisdom - it is regarded as a female identity, even 'Justice' pretty much across incredibly wide spread of cultures - Indian, Semitic, Norse. Some of the Gospels make it very explicit but we are too far from the terms today to appreciate it fully when the 'Morning Star' phrase is then used. But it is IN FACT used and it meant something very specific back then.

The resolution, as I see it, is simpy this: humans in their uninformed, unenlightened (without opening the illuminati can-of-worms!) state, do not or cannot 'perceive' or 'see' god when it appears - but it is easy for those who have the 'eyes with which to see' realize that a certain instance is an instance of a real and genuine god being present. The test being that all these 'identities' are equivalent in whatever they say, and do, and what sorts of ideas they represent. In makes no logical sense that 'GOD' only ever turned up one time, and one time only, in Jerusalem, even though 'he' spans all of time and all of creation - and that is indeed NOT what Paul or John in particular say, rather, that GOD HAS turned up before and elsewhere and will do so again but that many people don't perceive it properly or understand it fully.

 

[Katiecat]

I love discussions like this -- hearing so many new angles, perspectives and ideas that are new to me and make me think. I also appreciate confirmation that some ideas and beliefs that I have that might be non-traditional are not unique and solitary -- that others have had similar thoughts and revelations, that our beliefs intersect and resonate with each other.

I've read books and articles by authors who describe themselves as Christopagan, but although some of their ideas intersect and overlap, there can be great variations in the details, even more so than variations among Christian sects and denominations, because no one is determining and agreeing upon the specific set of "rules" (for example, the Methodist "Book of Discipline" defines what Methodists believe, even if it is an evolving document and there is always discussion and debate).

The two camps who seem to have the hardest time with the concept of Christopaganism are fundamentalist Christians and Wiccans/pagans who each see the other faith as the absolute opposite of everything they believe and hold dear. I see them as having much more in common than either realizes or is willing to admit.

Virtually all world religions ascribe to the Ethic of Reciprocity in some form: "do unto others", "treat others the way you want to be treated", "what you do to others will come back to you threefold", etc. Jesus said the Golden Rule was one of the two greatest commandments, that all of the law and prophets hang on this. And one of the foundational tenets of Wicca is, "An it harm none, do what ye will," -- do what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Pagans will say they don't worship the Christian God, but are quick to point out that Easter and Christmas were originally pagan festivals, and all of the other religions that worship a God-man who was sacrificed and resurrected. The flood story is found in virtually every ancient culture, many that pre-date the Bible.

Christians will say that they worship the one true God who is God the Father, not a pantheon. But different Christian sects argue over the nature the Trinity -- three separate, individual entities that make up the God-head, or all three are aspects/faces of one single being? Some denominations and sects accuse others of heresy for worshipping a pantheon. The Bible clearly states God is spirit, God is not a man, yet Christians persist in referring to God as "He" (a habit that is hard to break, I do it all the time), and personify God as the old man on the throne, the patriarch figure -- and Yahweh bears a striking resemblance to Zeus, and Odin the All-father, and the King/Father/Provider/Protector/Authoritarian of every other patriarchal society. The Holy Spirit is viewed as something genderless and "other", although the Bible clearly states that God IS spirit, and hints at the spirit/Wisdom/Shekinah as embodying the "feminine" aspects of God -- caring, creative, compassionate, comforting, nurturing, merciful, gentle, wisdom -- the same qualities many pagans ascribe to their goddess, whatever name and face they give her.

 

[PervOtaku]

An interesting thread. TL;DR of course.

I'm not an overly spiritual person, but I was raised Christian and remain so. Not one of those bible literalist fundie sects though, where I'm from we are happy to see science explain whatever can be explained and let faith be more of a personal guidance thing.

As far as being a consumer of porn, well hell, it's supposed to be "wrong" and all but a fellow has needs. Stories with the most vile of sexual acts are just good clean fun after all.

 

[wistfall1]

Hmn...
So long as 'the mind of god is always One,' then I believe there are some sections in the New Testament which refer to a plurality of 'gods' and supernatural figures and identities that have the authority and know the mind of God... I know a lot of modern Christians don't like those sections, but they are there nevertheless.

Will Pslam 82 do it enough for you?
w

 

[Handley_Page]

My personal take on religion is it was fine until it "got organized." That was when man started inserting himself between others and God. Take a moment and think of the two men that have walked this earth that have shown the way to God to more people than any other over the last twenty centuries:
Develop a personal relationship with God.

Do a short daily devotional at home. Talk to God...about anything...yes even SEX! (He invented it after all, so He has more answers than Freud, Kinsey, and Dr. Ruth all rolled into one!)
Knock the dust off your Bible and actually open it and read a passage or two or ten. Discover the words and stories that are in the Bible that you never hear about from a pulpit or in a Sunday School classroom. Ask the Holy Spirit to help guide you in your quest. And be open to what happens when It answers you.

Do not immerse yourself in all the "Thou Shalt Not's" such as the 636 Levitical Laws that include forbidding the growing of a beard, cutting your hair, eating lobster, sleeping with your wife during menses, and dictates penalties that include even death for wearing polyester, planting different crops side-by-side, or even playing touch football. (thou shalt not touch the skin of a dead pig)

.

Perhaps I am lucky.
I reckon God muttered something in my ear when I was ill: it was illustrated by a bright
arc across my brain, like a Disney trademark (Tinkerbell).
I have a quiet word with him occasionally; particularly before I go to bed.

But the Bible was written by Man. and many of those men had a particular point to make.
It is not that authentic, for the most part. Even the order of the books is fairly arbitrary, rather than historical ( the translators started on the most complete or easiest first).

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Death for wearing polyester?

God is gay? Who knew!

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

And so, to place my own levity into the context of reality as we see it or experience it, as the human race becomes ever more complicated in its thoughts and capabilites, this one thing at least ought still to be quite clear:

there is a very great difference between a mechanistic, iterative program-driven though moving and functioning automaton, and an intelligent self-conscious and group-aware human being or human-equivalent being (includes aliens?!!)

Some modern scientists are interested in building artificial intelligence and there is much discussion over what constitutes 'consciousness.'

So much of 'religious' or religious philosophical literature talks in terms of 'so-and-so reported that' or 'he said' or 'it happened that,' and so on. A god, properly defined needs to be more than just a super-powerful - from our human position - intelligent being with whom it is or was necessary to negotiate for some benefit or support or even mercy, if it comes to that.

A god has to be a 'now' intelligence, and one which interacts and has a meaningful conscious relationship with humans as they are and not as they theoretically might be.

Christianity has at minimum, a human social basis that functions, when actually applied, for both an individual and a group psychological benefit. At minimum it is not different to the 'Golden Rule' which one can see across a huge variety of global cultures. At maximum it contains a statement about the relationship of a properly-defined universal eternal and over-arching intelligence which possesses limitless material power, with the ordinary human individual consciousness in the now.

Most critics of Christianity really, do not spell out that what they want from the Christian god is (in order to 'believe' or 'accept') - immediate material benefits (food from the sky, gold coins from fishes' mouths, and bullet wounds that disappear on command and the fulfillment of a Los Angeles vision of beauty and youth that can be instantaneously installed in the prayerful...) and a never-ending life that gives them a QE infinity chance to do anything they please so long as they but believe in a certain 'Jesus Christ' or anyone of that roughly similar name (Aramaic, Phoenician spelling) labelling the actual character in question.

The Gospels are unequivocal and unconditional about God.

The reality of human life is that it is not static and unprogressional.

Jesus Christ, the Gospel story identity, was very human with human social issues that had to be dealt with, such as this kind of thing:

'but but, you gave that swine over there, that sinning, uncaring, selfish egotistical *, a youthful body, good looks, and a bunch of money from a treasure box he magically found in his front yard - now what about all the rest of us! What about us, uh? We want what he's got - or she's got. And let's have it now please.' (Not a quote but you get the idea about what people's honest attitudes are inside).

And then it happens though... And then what you get suddenly is a whole bunch of whimpy worshippers bowing down to material and physical gain. 'Salam Salam, Oh Holy of Holies! Blessed be the name of the great JESUS, who forgives us ALL of our sins and hands out impressive things! Yea Verily!' Or the same ungrateful beggars still at the feast, as it were.

Cure the sick, raise the dead. Et cetera.

(My nine year old is pulling me away). Got to go!!! This is life. As it really is.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

"And Jesus, knowing what their thoughts were in their hearts, said to the cripple: 'come up here.'

And he said to them: 'is it lawful to do good works on the Sabbath Day, or evil works?'

'Stretch your hand.' And the crippled was healed.

Christianity is about moral intent.

Humans can achieve all the miracles Jesus did (or was merely 'meant to have done') through the power of work and science. The moral intent is unresolved unless you have the deepest understandings about what you are and what you intend to be for others.

The consequences of flawed dysfunctional moral intent is that no amount of science or work can fix the problems. And of course, I don't let God off his duty either - according to his scriptures, virtually any of them in any language across every culture and age of history - if you can develop decent internal moral dynamics, God rewards you materially now as well as always.

Now you might disagree with this, but it is no different to what you will read in the greatest financial motivation and money ideas book ever written - 'Think And Grow Rich.' by Hill.

In spite of a recent political zeigeist that stresses 'realism' and crude cynical self-serving overlording, people generally love people who are lovable, and detest the hateful, the selfish, the arrogant, and the overbearing. Money - or 'wealth' - when it comes to the overbearing, really only got there via theft and grasping. And the conclusion of that is always the same - it happened to Cyrus 'the Great'(lol!), Lee Kwan Yew, and Crassus all in the exact same measure.

Cyrus, from memory had his head chopped off by a woman, who dipped his severed head in the blood of her warriors and said over this act: 'see, I told you I would quench your thirst for blood, you *hole.'

...I think that's right, from memory.

I don't do prophecy, but you can see where we are heading in today's world. There's going to be a mess on all sides and all fronts, blind Freddy can see that. And someone's thirst will certainly be quenched.

 

[8letters]

My latest story has a devout Christian as the girlfriend of the main character - link

From the epilogue:

The next Sunday, we started our search for a church that we both liked. We spent months visiting different churches. As part of the search, Rebecca and I had many long discussions about what we believed. We both believed that God wants us to be frugal to ourselves; loving of our friends, family and neighbors; and generous to those less fortunate than ourselves. As a part of that, we discussed the big topics - how we wanted to live our lives together, what our career goals were, whether we wanted kids, when we wanted them and how did we want to live once God blessed us with them. It turned out that once we moved beyond labels, we were spiritually quite close. We’ve recently found a church that has many people our age and has been quite welcoming. We’re thinking of joining soon.

It's a brother-sister incest story, in case that isn't your cup of tea.

 

[lovecraft68]

God is either

A- Dead

B-never existed (easiest one to swallow)

C-doesn't give a rat's ass about his "children" (The most likely)

Christians to me have a lot in common with women(and men) who are in abusive relationships.

No matter how badly he beats you down, you make excuses for him. If something bad happens to you through him, its your fault "I should have prayed more, I must not be worthy!"

When you keep getting beat down you apologize, "I'm sorry god, I'm not worthy!"

And most of all you spend all your time(see it right here in black and white) justifying his behavior to people who point out the abusive relationship.

"No, he really is a loving god, really!"

There should be support groups and therapists for the survivors of "faith"

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Jesus was a man, LC. Christians believe in a man.

 

[Katiecat]

Jesus was a man, LC. Christians believe in a man.

Yes, he was a man. What does the concept fully God/fully man mean to you? I struggled with this idea a bit. I think my understanding is that he was a human being with a human soul (heart), but his spirit (mind) was the Holy Spirit. The passages I think of are -

Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Corinthians 2:16, John 14:7-11, 19-24

How do you see it?

 

[Katiecat]

God is either

A- Dead

B-never existed (easiest one to swallow)

C-doesn't give a rat's ass about his "children" (The most likely)

Christians to me have a lot in common with women(and men) who are in abusive relationships.

No matter how badly he beats you down, you make excuses for him. If something bad happens to you through him, its your fault "I should have prayed more, I must not be worthy!"

When you keep getting beat down you apologize, "I'm sorry god, I'm not worthy!"

And most of all you spend all your time(see it right here in black and white) justifying his behavior to people who point out the abusive relationship.

"No, he really is a loving god, really!"

There should be support groups and therapists for the survivors of "faith"

How about D - None of the above?

And despite pictures we've seen of Medieval and Renaissance art, God also isn't E - an old bearded man on a throne who favors some and hates others for no apparent reason and throws lighting bolts indiscriminately at people for fun.

I would never try to convince a non-believer that they just need to believe in God -- I don't think that belief is even a choice, I think it's a deep internal process that leads someone to their beliefs, and they can't just change what they believe. Changing what you believe is like an organic process that happens as you are exposed to new ideas and thoughts, have new experiences, and weigh each of those out, whether you accept or reject them.

So, lovecraft...I wouldn't even say this to you, except that you did respond on this thread which indicates to me the subject interests you -- even if only so far as, "That God stuff is utter crap, how can anyone with any intelligence at all buy into it?"

I can't speak for any other Christian -- or even anyone else who self-identifies as a Christopagan as I do. All I can say is that I believe God is not a man, God is spirit. God is eternal. God is everywhere. God is Love, and all that entails: mercy, compassion, generosity, grace, goodness itself.

If you believe Love is real, that Love is a thing and it truly exists, then you believe in the same God I do. You just don't see it as God or call it God. But you also believe it exists.

To quote St. John (not that one, the other one):

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together
goo goo g' joob
All you need is love
Love is all you need

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Yes, he was a man. What does the concept fully God/fully man mean to you? I struggled with this idea a bit. I think my understanding is that he was a human being with a human soul (heart), but his spirit (mind) was the Holy Spirit. The passages I think of are -

Philippians 2:5-11, 1 Corinthians 2:16, John 14:7-11, 19-24

How do you see it?

Well... We-e-e-ll... I guess we all of us don't know that TOO much about god. But we do know about about humans 'cuz we is humans.

And from what we experience of human life it isn't static (although admittedly, at the present moment the stock markets and central banks and governments have made it seem pretty STUCK!).

We grow, we proceed, we might progress, things change around us - and we experience the changes and the emotional forces and changes, and we react to them in various ways.

"As for those who reach the end, he knew them from the beginning." It's a quote from somewhere, I think John and/or the Book of Revelation.

So there is an initial state (let's say, a baby, for example) - and then there is a further on, or later on state. Lot's of things happen in between,

Now you take the 'transfiguration' scene. Here, there is some kind of different state being depicted, and it was related by those telling the story as having been 'seen' by them although they were in a kind of a daze - but it's not sleep though, even though critics like to suggest this, and it's not a dream or a 'vision.'

As fully man, Jesus must also have lived and proceeded, progressed and experienced many things, just like humans do.

And so now let's jump to Wikipedia; sometimes it gets things right: the spirit (because you have indicated that god is spirit - and god is, but more than spirit too...), the spirit is, well, let me explain myself this way.

As above so below.

As humans we breathe air. It's all around us. We live inside it, and in it, and it is in our lungs and in our bloodstream very subtly.

When our hearts beat because we're in a rage, or are erotically turned on, or excited - we feel emotions. Sometimes, these emotions are less loud, like when we hear calm music and so on. But as living physical human beings we have emotions and these are contained in our body (chemistry, neurons, endorphines, hormones etc) and actively observed in our mind.

This is the 'below.'

And so for the 'above' there is something we 'breathe' and which animates us and gives us spiritual 'life'- this is 'spirit;' spirit is the breath of the universe in its living being entirety (god).

Wikipedia says the soul is the non-physical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character.

Now really, you can have a pre-formed 'character,' or a preliminary 'character,' or the potential of 'character' - and then, after a lot of experience and having reacted in certain ways, the person THEN becomes a more complete or finalized individual human character.

The transfiguration shows the 'body' or 'being' which can contain and is the seat of a completed character equipped with the kinds of emotions that such life advancement makes the human capable of - in the case of Jesus, this is the 'ideal' completion for what is the potential of humanity (The last man Adam).

The spirit of god is the surrounding 'air' in which such an advanced being exists and from which it gets its life. But the complete nature and ambit of god is beyond 'just' this 'air' alone. Maybe beyond my ability to 'see' totally or express even if I could witness it. And this is just like the passage in the Bhagavad-gita where Arjuna says he desires to see Krisna in his 'true form.' It cannot be done with human eyes. But as far as seeing god with HUMAN eyes, then the perfectly completed progression of a perfect human being - in Christianity's case, Jesus Christ - is the same as 'seeing god' on the human level and on the human plane.

So we, as living progressing humans, move towards also being able to have the capabilities of emotions and character that can fully 'live' inside the spiritual 'air' of total universe - that is what our human life is and its point and meaning.

As man, Jesus was a human physical being moving along his earth-bound physical path of experience and action-reaction to all the forces and events and changes and people he encountered. As god he was the transfiguration form of the same person - emotions and character. This had never changed from the beginning of his human life.

As ordinary humans we cannot 'transfigure' all of a sudden because we do not necessarily have all the emotional tools and capacities and fully-formed strengths, or finalised 'character' although we do have our own individual personalities.

If we breathe hot air we cannot at the same time 'feel' we are cool in our lungs, if you know what I mean. So the spiritual 'air' of Supreme God - the 'Total Universe;' intellect and being, 'God the Father' as it were - is thus always in harmony with the transfigured so-called 'ascended' individuals who live inside it and in it have their being and life.

Now no one has to believe this kind of stuff.

But it is the way of understanding ourselves as mortal humans, and Jesus as a mortal human like us, and then both us and Jesus as next have 'ascended.' Although we haven't ascended yet.

But what seems to me to be eminently logical, is that our emotions and our character in particular, need life or even lives full of interactions, over which to develop completeness and complexity and the kind of sophistication that is implied in the potential of Mankind as an actual 'thing.' That is not a mysterious or confusing idea to me. Frankly it's not much different to the way we burn a program into a hard-disk.

I don't believe the 'as above' is invisible or 'body-less.' It's a transfiguration being, however. Same as in the transfiguration passages.

 

[wallyrutherford]

2012 is treating me well. I put my story "The Hen Party" about Christian wives gone wild up in the Kindle store, did a free trial and ended up having a lot of free downloads and some sales.

This moderate level of positive feedback has inspired me to complete a longer work exploring the themes of sexuality among the faithful.

What a fine line there is between the sacred and the erotic.

What did you discover in your research?

Do married Christian women have sexual fantasies about giving themselves to other men just as much as other women?

Do many engage in sexual affairs outside of marriage?

Do they feel regret or remorse for so easily giving-into their men's godless carnal desires & letting them thrust deep into their "godly" and "pure" pussies?

Premarital sex
Did many of them engage in sex with the nonChristian men they dated before marriage?
Was it voluntary or did their men, particularly in college, pressure them into sleeping with them?

If they did sleep with their guys, did they express remorse or regret about giving themselves to those men before marriage?

Did they learn a lot about men, feeling them thrust deep into them as they "introduced" them to the real world?

Did they still go to church & repent, but later that Sunday afternoon, ended-up in another heavy lovemaking situation?

That part of it seems especially hot.