I had a pretty terrible father growing up. He was a violent drunk who treated my mom badly and made me feel miserable.
I hated him.
Some people have worse fathers. But none of them can hold a candle the “Heavenly Father” in the Bible.
That is the father who put his children in a garden, and set them up to fail. Then, he punished them for falling into his trap, cursing them with death and hard work. After a time they turned away from their cruel father, so he drowned them all — except for one family. Then, in his great kindness, he promised to never do such a thing again. What a guy.
Later the holocaust survivors banded together and built a skyscraper. This made God furious, so he confused their language so they couldn’t talk to one another and conspire together to make tall buildings.
Eventually God decided to create a “chosen people,” and when they didn’t live up to his expectations, he let them be enslaved by the Egyptians. After a long period of pain and suffering, he decided to listen to the cries of his people. He chose a leader, Moses, to get them out of slavery. Moses succeeded, but the people rebelled, so God made them wander around in a desert for 40 years, until everyone of that generation died, including Moses (because Moses struck a rock with a rod instead of just speaking to it).
He told his people to capture the towns of other nations, to kill them all and their animals, but keep the virgins for themselves to rape. He would command them to make slaves of other nations. He even let them sell their own daughters into sexual slavery.
He made an entire book full of laws of things they were not allowed to do. They couldn’t touch menstruating women, they couldn’t eat shrimp or pigs, they couldn’t mix fibers for garments, they couldn’t kill their slaves — only beat them until they’re almost dead, and thousands of other things. It was an impossible list to follow, and he knew it. He was just making a point that they were worthless scum and couldn’t match his wonderfulness.
Later he decided it was time to shake things up, so he impregnated a young women named Mary. He did this so he could have a demigod son that he could kill horribly, in order that a small group of people called RealChristians™ could escape hell, a place he created to torture those damned rebellious angels he screwed up on.
The people, as planned, rejected his demigod son and killed him. The Heavenly Father watched with excitement and forsook his son as he died, but to make it up he raised him from the dead a few days later.
And now he’s chilling in heaven with Jesus, until he decides it’s time for Jesus to come back. That’s when he’ll send plagues and famine to kill most of the earth’s inhabitants, and then Jesus will come down “with a sword coming out of his mouth” to “strike down the nations” and fill the earth with blood “up to a horses bridle.”
In the meantime, he only appears to crazy people, yet demands everyone believe in him. He doesn’t protect the orphans and widows that he commanded his followers to care for. He watches as innocent people are starved, raped and murdered. He sits back as his followers starts wars, molest children, and kill “witches” in the name of Jesus.
If that’s not the worst, most abusive father ever imagined, I don’t know who is.
Thankfully, it’s very unlikely he actually exists.
And that’s what I’m thankful for on this Father’s Day.
(Thanks to Sisyphus Fragment for the idea for this post.)
laura: I wish America wasn’t so hell bent on religion.I mean the some of the brightest and... 
Ronb0116: These are interesting comments that resonate with me. I was also raised deeply religious by a very... 
Mark: Watched the video of Ed from yesterday. There were no answers, just hedging and sarcasm. You know, I... 
Arie: The thing is that in the long term that particular mindset would lead to stagnation. The Middle East has... 
Jerdog: Super long life would almost certainly amplify the differences between the haves and have-nots. Not everyone will be... 
Twin-Skies: And Jews, and Rachel Maddow, and the Dalai Lama XD 
370 Comments
widows, not windows.
but awesome nonetheless.
I kind of like “windows” better… :)
Good catch, too bad it took me 8 hours to get back to a computer to fix it.
No, no, it’s “Windows”–Although in the Geek Orthodox church, only up until XP, the “Promised OS”.
Meantime, this is great. I’ve often had discussions about what lousy “Father”-s gods tend to be, from Saturn on down. In talking to Christians, I’ve sometimes pointed out some of the features you mention here, but I’ve rarely seen the whole lousy pile of baggage in one place.
So, that was depressing.
What would you guys say to someone who has turned to xianity in order to resolve issues with their father or father figure? I mean, hopefully not this, right?
I would tell them to do an about face and march straight to a licensed counselors office so that I could save them years of wasting time that could have been used healing.
And that the God they’ve been using to “self-medicate” is actually a malevolent evil force if he exists at all?
No- I’d let the counselor help them come to that conclusion on their own.
K. BTW, I admire your patience in dealing with John C.
:)
Jon Jon-
Just so ya know, I am a long-time regular here and these fine ladies know me well enough, that I mean no harm. Kind of the resident mystic/christian/theist/fool? lol
I appreciate you…too.
Oh, I have no hard feelings. I’m hoping to come off as, you know, a slightly more rational version of xianity. I think David and I are on the same page.
I’ll leave you to do what you do.
Its not over LRA, you are young. When you say “God failed you” you act as if you are an old woman or something…c’mon girl ya never know what the future holds.
John C,
God needs to pay the child support. You do never know what the future holds, but some men just don’t change. I’d say, cut the bad influences out of your life like a cancer.
Yeah, I learned the hard way that jerks like this NEVER change. Unfortunately, they change YOU. They destroy self-esteem, joy, and love. Note to all abused spouses and xtians: Lose the bastard!!!!
So, you have had a fundie religious experience followed by an abusive husband-no wonder God is a four letter word to you Janet? That’s a terrible platform from which to come to a true revelation/understanding of the nature of God, things were stacked against you. But please know people did this, not God. I would guess we are in a similar age group? You mentioned that you had a son who I think is 18-20ish? So, the end of the story hasn’t yet been written, been lived. There is time, there is hope.
John C – LRA doesn’t believe in god – at least that’s what (she?) said. So god didn’t fail her. And what part of this “father” story would make ANYONE want any part of it? Oh yeah, right. He may be a jerk in the bible, but he’s a hellofa guy when he indwells, or something, right???
I certainly don’t believe in the god of the bible. I recognize that god can’t be proven nor disproven. I hope there’s a god, but I don’t have a “faith” per se and I certainly don’t have any knowledge of such a thing.
LRA is alright with me, she is engaging, relatable, intelligent, passionate and inquisitive. I cant realistically ask for much more than that from someone on this forum. She doesnt agree with me, but states her case plainly (which I have a hard time doing sometimes, ha) and speaks her mind.
“I cant realistically ask for much more than that from someone on this forum”
You can’t realistically ask for much more than that from a lot of people, but should I notice you are despising us?
From this, it sounds like a lot of believers just have a glorified case of Stockholm’s — they come to rely on the one who keeps abusing them, seek his approval, accept his word on everything… interesting! An admirably succinct and concise description of what far too many people still hold to be more important than anything else in their lives…
Faith as a form of Stockholm Syndrome… Never thought of that, but it’s quite believable!
Well put.
Thank you :)
She has a wonderful, loving, perfect Father…just doesnt know it yet! She will, she will for the “hound of heaven” has her in His loving CROSShairs, :)
Yes, I’ve thought of this analogy myself. And it’s called “love”.
Yes- and my abusive father believes in this “Father”, and he claims that his belief in this “Father” has justified his abuse and neglect of me. I gave up on my father a long time ago, but I hung on to this “Father” until I realized that his abuse and neglect is no different. I’m sorry, but the lovey-dovey book of John just isn’t enough to make up for the rest of the bible. If you sincerely believe that biblegod is love, then you are a selective reader!!!
Exactly the same thing was done to me re my bio father and my “heavenly” father. I had another step in between – I married an abusive man. Fit together perfectly.
Janet-
I wrote you a fairly long response earlier today, cant remember where it is but I hope you saw it. Thx
Well done, LRA. Sorry about both you and Daniel’s fathers =[
No worries! It was a long time ago. Plus, as Nietzsche says, what doesn’t kill ya makes ya stronger!
(oh- and cognitive behavioral therapy helped a lot too!)
Lol =P
Which is complete bullshit, says my somewhat schizophrenic, paranoid relative. In the real world, most things that don’t kill you just waste months of your timeand do their best to traumatize you while you struggle to come back to the level you were at before.
I was just trying to be positive about my own trauma. I don’t want to speak for other’s. :(
Yeah, it was probably the therapy. I’ve thought the same thing as Felix’s relative. Hopefully I’m not as ill, but what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger is not a logical statement. It’s true for some people, but others get swallowed by the grief and may never fully recover. It’s a platitude. Some people are alone and/or don’t have the right therapist. It’s not what doesn’t kill you that makes you stronger, it’s how you manage to survive from it, what, if anything, you are able to take from it. That does take therapy, or at least people who care for you, and a determined mind, and a goal. Wallowing consumes a lot of people, you just never hear from them. Or when people do hear from them on the internet, it’s called “drama” and they are roundly battered about until they leave in a huff, proving that people suck and reinforcing that nobody understands.
Seriously, if there’s one thing I never want to hear on an atheist group is people spouting any type of cliche without examining humanity for freakin’ evidence.
Look- whenever I have talked about my past with people in my life, they typically get this uncomfortable look on their face, and I feel a need to relieve it with some positive platitude. I guess some old habits die hard.
That’s more of their problem than yours. There’s lots of awkward times socially when nobody really wants to hear what your problems are – that could be what my problems are. I don’t really want to talk about them, but I was also raised in a family that likes to keep things superficial, and doesn’t know what to say and just make yourself better so we don’t have to look at your sour puss not looking for a job because you’re sad. Some people are good at putting on a front so their loved ones (and especially mere acquaintances) don’t have to be confronted with their suffering, I’m not like that. They want to feel like you’re ok, but they don’t see the part they play. So one bad thing becomes more depressed by that added burden.
I’m not mad at you, but I think there’s a social disease about what you said. People get uncomfortable with reality, which is not always wrong. They don’t want to feel sad, they don’t want to carry your weight also, so you get it all, you put on a happy face, work gets done. Maybe after a while and some therapy (in my case, I think therapy sucks, I have been told I haven’t found the right one, and that’s another thing I don’t think should add to my problems, so I give up on them), your happy face is more and more real.
But anyway, on this social disease. Yesterday, something happened to me, which upset me. I was on line at a food establishment ordering something to go, and I was carrying a weight of about 30 pounds of sports equipment in a bag on one shoulder. I said to the little girl on the floor next to me, when I noticed her, that it wasn’t a very good place for her to play with her toys. In normal society, one doesn’t expect a child to be playing with toys on the floor of a restaurant near the cash register. If I didn’t see her first, I might have lost balance and hurt both of us and/or someone else. Her mother said “WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HER?” and I guess the right thing to have done in the first place was pretend it didn’t exist instead of questioning her right to teach her daughter that it was ok to be an outright moron meanwhile I could have crushed her. But instead I got in an argument with her mother, and several people in the restaurant came to her side. They said I was the crazy one. The daughter continued to play on the floor. This upset me, then for some socially diseased reason, I paid for my food that I had ordered and then threw it away in private. I generally do not want to tell people how to raise their kids, but I’m unfit to navigate socially in cases where people are absolute morons.
I know it’s not the same thing, but it strikes me as sort of an (not necessarily) atheist thing. Society has some weird and inexplicable rules and why are we captive to them? You’re not always wrong if you think you’re the only one who thinks something or everyone else is uncomfortable and it’s your responsibility to relieve them. You could be right and not care and let them worry about it. I was a little upset about the perpetuation of the cliche you mentioned because I know you’re smart enough to examine whether it’s true instead of just saying empty things, but then part of me still understands (partially) it’s just easier to be sociable to avoid being alienated, people will nod, shut up, get back to what they were doing and not start any public shits that turn into ordeals for everyone involved.
I find this to be true. There are traumas from the past that I’m still struggling with regularly, and have seriously held me back and jeopardized my success. Many times, difficulty makes us more fragile. What really makes us strong is a happy, loving childhood. Most of us didn’t have that.
To Kodie and Janet–
I certainly didn’t mean to upset or challenge anyone with my statement– it really was a statement about myself and trying to be positive about my situation… if it came off badly, I apologize. I will say that one of the things I learned about my situation is that my response to what happened to me was a *normal* response to an *abnormal* situation. Having been through what I went through has meant some difficult challenges, to be sure. I wouldn’t want to do it again, and if grow- up me could go back to the past and change things for little me, then maybe I would.
However, I have worked through a lot of the pain and grief and while I speak out passionately against the abuses of religion as it informs domestic violence and hope for a world in which all children are raised in safe and loving homes, I must also say that I have a deep reservoir of sympathy and can recognize fellow sufferers much easier than what I think I could have otherwise. So, in an attempt to make lemonade out of lemons, I have worked on reaching out to people and offering a bit of support in tough times. I found this especially useful when I was a teacher and also when I worked at a women’s shelter. Anyway, it has helped me to find some peace and strength that is valuable and hard won, and I feel a great sense of relief in knowing that my suffering wasn’t completely pointless.
And no- god didn’t do this for me. I did this for myself.
:)
Good for you! Giving past suffering a meaning and direction in your life is one of the best ways to take control of it.
… I’m apparently not good at offering encouragement, ’cause I can’t think of anything else encouraging to say. Be encouraged!
:) Thanks!
You gotta love the Father… he’s so crazy.
Every year on father’s day, the preacher of my former church would compare earthly fathers to our heavenly father. He’d talk about shitty fathers and say that there is hope because of how great our heavenly father is and then he’d talk about fantastic fathers to show just how much more fantastic god is. And every year I sat in the pew becoming even more enthralled with god because I am fortunate enough to have an incredible dad. He’s my idol and best friend. And for me to think that there is something out there that could top him?! It always made me feel so good to have that comfort.
So after I read this, I sat and thought about the god that I believed in for so long, the god that I was in love with, the god that I always turned to when shit hit the fan. It made me so angry to think that I was fooled into believing in something so…so…false. De-converting is without a doubt the hardest thing I’ve ever been through. I am more confused now than I ever was as a christian. It may sound strange, but I want, so badly, to believe in god again. I want to be able to tell my friends and family that I’ll pray for the things they ask me to pray for. I want to believe that someone loved me so fucking much he died for me. I want to believe that there is a paradise waiting for me after death.
But I can’t.
Not anymore. Not after everything I’ve learned and read and discovered and accepted. Not after stepping back and seeing how deluded christianity is. Not after being liberated from the fear of “hell.” I can’t.
But tell me, when will I stop wanting to?
It may be that you are still tied to people close to you who believe. Even harder than coming to stop believing in god is convincing people close to you to do the same.
I think you’ll stop wanting it when you replace old thoughts/behaviors with new ones. I would read anthologies on world philosophy, or keep coming to blogs like this, or look online for a freethinker’s group you can join.
Hope that helps a little! :)
Congratulations Tilly for having the courage to question, and then be honest with yourself about it! It took me years to come to peace with my de-conversion from christianity. Now, I can honestly say I’m thrilled that religion isn’t true. Believe me, there is life after christianity! John Shelby Spong is a writer that’s been mentioned before on this blog, and he’s a wonderful writer who critiques christianity. He works from “within the system” and actually calls himself a christian, but honestly, I’m an atheist and I agree with pretty much everything he says. He is inspirational, and can fill you with gratitude for having the incredible LUCK to have been born, and to be given that gift of a life here on earth. Good luck to you!
Tilly, you’ll never stop the wanting to because He has set eternity in the hearts of man(kind). You want Him because your heart wants love and that is who He is…love (1 Jn 4:16).
The courageous thing you did was to shed “religion” in your search for God. This is a good first step. Your journey is not over Tilly, He has not forgotten or left you, He never will.
Peace girl, peace.
Tilly,
This is a load of crap. You will stop wanting. It just takes time.
Yea, just kill your hearts desire, ignore it and its cries, pleadings and eventually it will just go away…not.
Follow your heart Tilly, it’s the most trustworthy and nearest to God aspect of you. It leads back home, to Fathers heart.
It’s a sign.
It’s a sign of weakness.
I am sorry, I do not have the experience of de-converting either, but I imagine it is a huge transition, but think it is like quitting smoking. You want that cigarette and John says you should listen to the cigarette calling you. Once you know the truth, you can hardly go crawl back inside for the temporary relief. You are built stronger than that, and it takes time to feel comfortable in your new strong wise skin. Nobody’s rushing you, but please don’t do the destructive thing. If your mind can see, that’s the trustworthy. Your heart just wants a fix, but your brain wants freedom.
That’s the same kind of thinking that got us in trouble in the first place and now you give counsel to perpetuate the cycle of separation, of death. There is no independent Self despite our THINKING there is, it only APPEARS that way but if we listen to Sophia (wisdom) she says its just an illusion and not to believe everything our natural eyes and unrenewed minds tell us.
But do we listen? No, and the cycle repeats itself with each and every generation…who will break it off? Who will say to it, even declare…ENOUGH?
The path of the just (ified) is like the shining sun that grows brighter and brighter until that perfect day.
You’re the one who is giving counsel to come back around and believe in something idiotic, perpetuating a cycle of ignorance and you know what? You still haven’t posted anything relevant to this topic. Why don’t you try hanging out with us instead of insisting on creeping us out?
“creeping us out”
Too gentle, try “repulsing us”.
john,
I completely understand what you are saying and it definitely makes sense to the former christian in me. That being said, I don’t want to go back. Going back means trying to make myself ignorant again. That’s impossible. I have no intention of offending you or your beliefs, they used to be mine too. But I cannot un-learn something. I cannot fool myself into believing the supernatural. More than that, I will not. I refuse.
Tilly,
You are brave, and you are strong.
“You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil—you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself.
–Dan Barker, from his book, Losing Faith in Faith.”
Dont go back…please dont go back to “church”. I think you are having a hard time dis-associating God from Church Tilly. Remember, He “doesnt dwell in temples made by human hands”. He is spirit, dwells IN you, even as you (Gal 2:20).
Christ IN you being the mystery of the ages (Col 1:27) That’s where you find Him Tilly, that’s where He lives.
“Follow your heart Tilly, it’s the most trustworthy and nearest to God aspect of you.”
Actually Tilly, your heart is an organ that pumps blood. It can’t be followed anywhere.
Ignore this guy’s babble and use your brain to evaluate the evidence. you will be fine.
Hi Tilly,
I cant imagine what it must be like to de-convert. Even as a child i never bought into the Christian stories trotted out at Easter and Xmas. Power to you for having the bravery to admit that you no longer believe.
If I were to convert to religion I think I’d feel pretty silly having spent so long on the other side of the fence. It’s no surprise you still yearn for the safety of the flock – its warm and familiar, like an old blanket you should have thrown out years ago.
Take comfort in your confusion. I find it liberating to accept that there are so many unknowns in our existence. I dont feel any need to fill those gaps – it’s OK to not know and be confused. It’s not OK to roll up all your fear and uncertainty and call it god.
A question, were you nervous/worried about atheists in general? We are terribly misunderstood by the religious types.
Good luck.
Funny you ask. I definitely was. I was always taught that atheists don’t believe in god because they worship the devil. And… I accepted that. Now, it seems silly that I never logically worked out in my head that if atheist believe there is no god…
First, to the original author, great article. What’s really fascinating is how Christians completely ignore this aspect of their source code – in fact, sometimes even insisting that raping and murdering and committing genocide is part of what a properly loving God does. [I actually have come up with a scenerio in which this is true, which I will detail later in this post]
You know – just because Christianity is wrong – and I agree, it is – doesn’t mean that when you leave Earth, you stop existing. Every bit of information in the universe existed before your body did. Every atom in your body existed before you did, and will continue to exist after your body does. We don’t really know what makes us what we are – what consciousness ‘is’ – but if it’s technologically possible to have backups of us, it’s very likely that it’s being done already. We may not understand what God or Gods the universe has – and they certainly aren’t omnibenevolant – or omnimalivolant either. If anything, it seems likely that they’re into the Prime Directive, a la ST:TNG – but almost all of us can agree that there is more going on in the universe than we understand, or even *can* understand at our current level of development. It seems to me that it’s very unlikely that there’s no entities or systems larger and more complex – or more powerful – than us. It also seems like whatever entities there are beyond humans must tolerate or even like humans, or else we’d have ceased to exist by now. ;-)
(Actually, one theory I have is that we’re parts of God’s body – we’re like individual cells – and the reason we don’t have very much direct communication with God is the same reason we don’t have very much direct communication with the cells of our bodies.)
One way that God’s somewhat horrible behavior in the bible does make sense as the act of a loving entity is if the people who God was tormenting were masochists. Picture this: Earth is actually a video game. A really interesting, really intense one – that people all come to for various reasons of their own. While you’re here, it seems real, and like the total of all reality.. but when we’re Outside – in some other world – this is just like popping a disk in the playstation. And part of the reason people come here is to have unpleasant experiences – like, maybe people want the challenge of having bad things happen to them, or maybe people get too immersed in worlds that are the opposite – have really wonderful things happen to them, over and over – and then need some variety. If we are eternal beings, rather than being mortal – and various things make me think this is probably true – one of the biggest problems we probably face is boredom. Forever is a long, long, long time.
“We don’t really know what makes us what we are – what consciousness ‘is’ – but if it’s technologically possible to have backups of us, it’s very likely that it’s being done already”
Well, all evidences seem to suggest that “consciousness” is a result from our brain activity. so when the brain is death, consciousness should disappear. Do you have evidences pointing in another direction?
I wonder: if there were no consciousness would abstractions still exist? Would 1 and 1 still equal 3? I mean 2?
The answer is, of course, “yes.”
unless its “no.”
hmmmmmmm…
Notice how few comments here on “Father’s day”, how sad. He is the perfect Father to His children. I could tell you amazing stories of His intervention, specific dealings with me but you would only ridicule, dis-believe. That’s ok, still He would Father you perfectly (see Jesus’ relationship with the Father for the true model) if you would only believe.
Happy Father’s day!
Well done for failing utterly to answer the points the post made with anything other than godbot babble, John…
I dont usually read the posts…because I know the truth, love the truth.
So you freely admit that you blindly and stupidly claim to know everything you need to, and when anyone suggests you might possibly be wrong you stick your fingers in your ears and go “lalalalala!”
Instead of just saying “NO HE IS A GOOD FATHER,” how about you actually address the points made here and explain WHY someone who murders babies is a good father.
Communists murder babies!
Well, John C won’t address any of the points; he doesn’t do the ‘question and answer’ thing, so don’t waste your time. His replies are generally religiously-themed non sequiturs. He won’t be questioned, and won’t engage in rational debate. Most of his replies read like the output of a poorly implemented Perl script – written by a person with a religious obsession – who has convinced themselves they can hack together something that will pass the Turing Test.
Fail. =)
Hm, is John C really an Eliza program? I’ll give it a try…
Hey, John C, I feel sad. What should I do?
One Wolf-
There is no sense in me responding for you and yours have already made up your minds to dwell in darkness and not in Light (Himself). I could write till my fingers fell off, tell you amazing personal stories, cite numerous scriptures but all to none avail. I merely herald the truth in the midst of the false, what you do with it is your responsibility.
Convincing you is not my job. It is the responsibility and privalege of fallen, unregenerate man to see himself aright, to awaken to his true self and paternal origins, to heed the internal call and like the prodigal son arise, awaken and “return to his Father” who stands eagerly by awaiting His lost sons return. You can “hear” Him for yourself if you wanted to, you dont need me to “convince” you. He is within, that’s where you “hear” from not from without.
You’ll know when you are “hearing” Him cuz He sounds a lot like…Love. But you have to want to first, have to be found empty and wanting but for now you are full and satisfied, he only fills what is empty and longing. You can hear, yes you can.
“There is no sense in me responding for you and yours have already made up your minds to dwell in darkness and not in Light (Himself).”
Well, it might help if you could give a good explanation (or at least make an attempt at it) for why God is often portraited in the Bible as being such an abusive asshole. That would go a long way in bringing many of us closer to God. But you can’t, so you resort to simple platitudes and never address the issues that could potentially make the difference. Weak.
“There is no sense in me responding for you and yours have already made up your minds to dwell in darkness and not in Light (Himself).”
True, and false. True, there is no sense in you responding until you have evidence to back your claims. False, in that you are incapable of knowing the minds of other human beings, including what they’ve “made up in their minds”, or decided. Per usual, you (deceptively) clump all nonbelievers together, insisting that they have willfully decided to reject your invisible biblegod, when I, for one, do not believe that said biblegod exists TO “reject” it, as do most Atheists I encounter.
Secondly, you imply that all non-christians live in “darkness” and are “lost”, and I resent that implication. And as far as I’m concerned, all bets are off when you make such implications—your “good-natured”, happy-go-lucky approach is unconvincing, as it’s completely obvious to me that under the the “mask” lies a bigoted, condescending, arrogant a$$hole.
“Convincing you is not my job.”
Really?..it’s not? My goodness, I’d hate to see it if it *was* your “job”.
“It is the responsibility and privalege of fallen, unregenerate man to see himself aright, to awaken to his true self and paternal origins, to heed the internal call and like the prodigal son arise, awaken and “return to his Father” who stands eagerly by awaiting His lost sons return.”
In this dose of pseudo-spiritual, godspeak, we are to believe that “God” – a being who is presumably “omnipresent”, “omniscient”, and “omnipotent” – is going to wait “eagerly” by, knowing that our fate could be “hell”. Wow; remarkable. Imagine if real fathers behaved this way? Imagine a father watching his 4 yr-old son or daughter wander off at a crowded amusement park, but his policy was…. “Oh, whatever…I’ll just stand here and do nothing while I wait ‘eagerly’ for them to notice me.”
Is such a person worthy of respect and worship? Is that how a good “Father” would behave?
I never said you are lost, you said that. I only said you prefer the darkness (of unbelief) which is (currently) true.
I dont need or expect your approval, I only desire to interject truth into the forum. And how is it that said truth (that there is a God and that He is Love and therefore loves you) is such a vile and reprehensible thing to you?
I have told you the truth, yes I have. My conscience is clear. All the best.
Yes, and just to add to Boomslang’s point, you said, “You can “hear” Him for yourself if you wanted to.”
When I was a Christian, believe me I wanted to. I prayed desperately to. I sought god in emotions, in music, in intellect– for years. Yet, it my darkest time of need, when I was hurting the most and begged god to make it stop, he was silent. What the hell kind of “father” is that? A pretty shitty one if you ask me. So don’t presume I didn’t want to hear god, JC, I was desperate for him and he failed me big time.
And you still lack a robust understanding of truth:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
That’s why we don’t accept your “truth.”
God is Love… or Wrath:
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
LRA-
Yes, opposing the Truth is a futility, it only leads to a death (separation) which is the very thing Christ remedies…if we would recieve the Rx. Why stay in Adam (the old dead man of sin/separation) when you can step INto Christ, the Ark and be saved from the wrath? The second Adam, the man from heaven (meaning spiritual, God like, God pleasing) man? God see’s the end from the beginning, so when we “step into” Christ, while we are yet being “conformed to the image of the Son” Gal 4:19 God He only see’s Jesus in us, the perfect, obediant Son and says “this is my beloved son/daughter in whom I am well pleased”. Like I always say…its just too good for us to believe…so we dont. But oh if we did!
Stop focusing on the negative, take the cure, the Rx! It’s red.
JC- I don’t NEED a cure because there is NOTHING WRONG with me!!!
“Sin” isn’t the problem. The problem is that “design” is blind.
If we only as aggressive and violent as say, bonobos, what kind of world would this be?
There is the inherent insult in christianity.
Something wrong with the human being.
Let those who believe in a christian god ask “him”, “And whose fault is that?”
They won’t. They’ll twist it around into “humans (you) failed christianity” to avoid facing that it fails humans.
LRA-
You made me think about something. You hit on a good point when you said “…there is nothing wrong with me” yesterday during our discussions. In the beginning God made everything and everyone perfect, declaring all His creation “good” before the fall. So yes, the real you, the true LRA is whole, needs no “cure”. The problem is the “separation” that sin (death) brought in, the veil, the scales over our eyes that keep us from seeing, knowing Father as we once did (and one day will again).
That very separation (our inherited humanity, adam) is what Christ did away with, nailed to the cross and now would re-instate in the original LRA w/o the separation so that you can know and see-again as we once did. I’m sure this concept sounds crazy but the gospel isn’t often presented in this manner, it usually takes on a “religious” tone. Sin (death) is more of an identity than a behavior, its only a dead man (adam) acting up, as if he has any right to usurp the real, the original LRA and keep you “separated” that’s why Jesus said what He did about family, identity, etc. The veil (separation) was torn so the separation would be no more.
Yes, I agree the true LRA is whole, not sick, “good”, as He made you originally. That original LRA is what/who He longs to re-make you into…again! That beautiful one in the garden, playing, dancing, laughing, singing and basking in the glory of the presence of her (perfect) Father in innocence, in purity-that’s what/who He longs to restore. We cant have the garden experience, the Edenic life w/o Him, Christ is the tree of life in the midst of our garden (inner being).
That’s the real gospel (good news). I hope your not upset with me about yesterday, I do care about you and hurt for you, your tragic and painful story, religion does that. All the best LRA.
JC- I am not mad at you. Sometimes I get frustrated, but I don’t get mad. Anyhoo– I am complete with or without Jesus. I know that is hard for you to hear, but the fact is that religion seeks to create a problem that it can solve. If I can get a person to believe in sin, then I can sell them salvation. It’s simple marketing, really. If you are made to feel inferior/ incomplete/ unattractive, then a company can sell you any solution they want. Religion seems, to me, to be the oldest form of consumerism.
LRA-
Thx. Instead of seeing the physical historical Jesus, He is really the Eternal Spirit by whom and thru whom all was made and exists now, by which all is “held-together”. So the irony for me is that when people say “no thx, I dont need Jesus” of course they are thinking of the past figure but He (the eternal spirit essense) is already in them, is the life they have, the breath (in Him we live and move and have our very being) but is not yet joined to, ruling and reigning enthroned in them, has not been given the pre-eminence.
Anyway, just another way to look at it, all the best.
“I never said you are lost…”
I’m not refering to this exchange; I’m refering to past exchanges. In the past, you’ve refered to nonbelievers as “lost”, a “different species”…. and you’ve told them that they live “outside of it[love]“. Please see my previous post as to the type of person your relgious beliefs have made you.
“I only said you prefer the darkness (of unbelief) which is (currently) true.”
Fallacious. You assume that you know the Ultimate Truth, which you equate to “Light”, and that anyone who doesn’t share your belief is “wrong”, which you equate to “darkness”. You are proposing that if we don’t choose “Light”, then we “prefer” the “darkness”. False dilemma.
Man was never intended to live apart from the truth. How is it that truth has become so fashionably abstract, unknowable? How is it that we have bought into that lie? have you ever considered things in this different light?
We settle for far less than He would give.
“Man was never intended to live apart from the truth.”
Unconfirmed; unproven assertion…. or, fallacy of bare asserrtion(which you commit frequently, if not on every single post). There is no objective evidence that “man” was “intended” for anything.
“How is it that truth has become so fashionably abstract, unknowable?”
The issue is not one of whether the “truth” can be knowable, or not. The issue is one of whether or not it can be known, Objectively, Universally, Ultimately. To know such a “Truth”, you would have to be omniscient, if I understand “omniscient” correctly. Are you omniscient, John C? Do you possess ALL knowledge? We know that you’re a “mind-reader” and a “different species” and all, but do you know everything about the Universe, as well?
Boomslang-
No, I dont possess all knowledge, am not all seeing or omniscient, but He is.
“There is no sense in me responding for you and yours have already made up your minds to dwell in darkness and not in Light (Himself).”
Does this mean at last that you will shut the fuck up?
How come the moderation program doesnt catch F bombs? lol.
Because there’s offensive, and then there’s Offensive.
I at least, have shown the ability to admit where I was wrong and apologize where it was correct.
John C you are a lying hateful bigot deserving of no respect.
Sunny-
What have I done this time? I dont understand-just tell me, seriously I want to know.
John why waste time posting something that you admit you will never read anyway. People have posted it before in this thread at least one other time. I guess you refuse to open your eyes and see the truth.
Sunny-
I think we are mis-communicating, I just meant that I dont always read Daniels post (the header articles, if thats what they’re called) because my heart just cant take it. After coming to know Him, taking a quarter century to seek, to know and now having finally found the truth, its just too much for me to go “backwards” again if that makes any sense to you. Didnt mean to be offensive in any way please.
Yes, you are choosing to mis-communicate.
John C – I would really, really appreciate if you would watch this video. Do you have the courage? If you do, you will see the point of view of most people on this blog. You will understand why we think the way we do. Why Christianity is Delusional – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ&feature=related
Janet-
You forget that I wasnt raised in “church”, didnt grow up knowing Christ, rather just the opposite. So I am well versed in both perspectives, its really not a matter of whether or not I am “brave enough” or “man enough” as Kodie so eloquently put it, but rather that He has satisfied my soul-wholeheartedly. My heart has found its forever home. I dont know how else to say it, thx.
Do you ever worry that your god might fire you from your self appointed position of Lying Cowardly Hypocritical Witness?
haha
wha-wha-WHAT? Are you intentionally asking people to take you even less seriously, John? Actually, the more I giggle at your revelation, the less surprised I am.
That’s an excellent summary, right there.
People think that they have the Truth, and they don’t need to see whether it’s actually plausible or coherent. No, True Believers need no such things as facts or evidence.
Yes, you are a very poor model for anyone to follow.
So you talk but don’t listen.
You are hearing (or would if you ever went on “receive” instead of “always transmit”) this from someone who believes in a human soul, something that lives on after death, intelligence and mind in the universe, and has contempt for christianity, and for you.
Really, honestly,it seems that a simpleton’s conscience usually is.
Truth, fact, reality, whatever is real process, can’t be destroyed.
More specifically, if what you believed were actually factual and real, it would stand on its own, and you wouldn’t have to avoid anything to protect it, because it wouldn’t be some delicate thing that could be blown away by your reading something. A belief that is unrelated to reality, however, could.
Your avoiding reading the posts (while posting plenty yourself), therefore, is avoiding, all right, but has nothing to do with truth.
Thx, lol. I was wondering if someone was gonna catch that, ha. Good job Claid’ster!
Ned Flanders….
Yahweh or any other God of a religion is just a symbol for the true God who is beyond all religion. God is a personal matter. Thoroughly inexpressible in words. As it should be. When you have realized this you will see the folk gods of religion simply as cardboard cutouts, symbols and masks of the one true but ineffable God who has no name and no one religion. Make no mistake. You already know God. You have just mistakenly attached this intuition, this knowing to the symbols and creations of men, the Gods and religions and scriptures of the various religious cultures. You have put God in a box labeled “Christian”. Is God bigger than that? Is God bigger than any of our puny human conceptions and names?
And you know that because…?
Yes, God is bigger than “Christian” for sure, no label will suffice.
John you don’t read the posts, because you already know the truth, eh? Do you know how arrogant that is? And how can you say that he is a great father, after all the terrible things I mentioned in the article? He isn’t a great father. If he exists, he’s the worst father imaginable.
I dont always read the posts, some are so vile, so contrary to the truth and some are just redundant…sorry. I think its common knowledge that I am quite settled in my heart concerning the Father, He has nothing further to prove to me, has made His presence, His faithfulness so very known to me so it should not come as a surprise that I am “fully persuaded”. Its not arrogance, its confidence in Him. I really, really believe and trust God.
This concept of knowing truth goes back to an earlier conversation. How have we come to believe that we cant know truth? Why have we settled for so much less than what He said we could have, could know? I dont understand how that is acceptable to anyone here, atheist, christian or other.
Daniel, I still appreciate, respect and value you and all your readers immensely, I really do and I enjoy the many lively discussions and perspectives communicated here. All the best.
“John C I dont usually read the posts…because I know the truth, love the truth.”
I’m glad to finaly see it admit this.
He is just here to babble.
Do you not understand that your posts are redundant and vile? You are not responding to blog posts but instead are responding to comments with the same messages over and over again. I was right when I said last night that if you take your posts out of context, etc., because your posts actually have no context. You are looking for specific comments that feel relevant to your usual response. I think people are mostly settled in whatever “heart” or analog for that may be about what they think without your gnat-like input.
I don’t think you think your communiques are vile because you keep saying truth and love, but they are nauseating. And you seem disturbed that we don’t know the truth and love like you know the truth and love but you keep saying truth and love, truth and love, you’re not telling anyone anything they can work with, you are only saying stupid things. It’s not an argument, you are just compelled to say the same things without explaining, and it comes up that you’re not even reading the blog. You don’t have anything to defend about your lord, you are not basing any intellect into your statements and giving anyone anything to work with. It’s just redundant and vile.
Hey, here is an article, what does everyone think about the article?
Everyone says stuff.
John C skulks around until he finds a juicy comment so he can say truth and/or love again.
But what do you think about the article?
John C: I don’t think about the article. I don’t think anything. I know stuff. You could know stuff. It’s NEATO. It feels like apple pie a la mode in my tummy when I think about god.
Gosh, John, make a valid contribution. Make some effort to participate in the primary conversations of the comment portions of this blog. You may feel settled, but you don’t say why you continue to be compelled to be a useless nuisance to everybody.
HEAR! HEAR!
Just like you don’t respond when people point out your hypocrisy.. to acknowledge that huge flaw in your thinking would destroy your sense of self, so you run away from those challenges. That is quite helpful in the process of deconverting others. That behavior shows so clearly that you are ashamed of your beliefs that other believers will pick up on it and some may accept that those beliefs are inherently indefensible. Your incompetent witnessing helps deconvert people, John. Enjoy that.
Well maybe that would not be persuasive. But what you could do is take some concrete examples from the Bible, as Daniel has done, and show us where God has acted in loving rather than abusive ways. That would be persuasive.
The original post is an interpretation of biblical literature. It is a rendering intended to prove a point. Other interpretations exist, and I hate to say it, but the most commonly accepted one is the one you’ve all heard before. The interpretation with all the good things included will probably be scorned, because it is every basic ‘witnessing-to-others’ template that shows up on this site and others over and over again to little effect. I’ve seen it scorned, you’ve seen it scorned, etc.
Here’s an interpretation of the bible that I wrote just now:
God creates world with the knowledge that free will is a dangerous game, but is willing to risk the almost immediate corruption of the universe in order to give life to people who by and large do what feels good, rather than, you know, thinking for a minute.
It tuns out that, by and large, people with free will are assholes. God knew this before he built the universe, of course, but he decided that not giving anyone a chance to lead a worthwhile life just because he knew most of them would screw it up would be a worse condemnation than if he was forced to condemn them after their creation. Oh the dilemmas inherent to omniscience.
So, in order not to condemn outright all the people who ever lived to non-existence, since he knew before hand that many if not all would be screw-ups, he allowed people with free will to exist. Even with the knowledge that people couldn’t lead worthwhile lives on their own or in the company of others, the more loving, compassionate choice on God’s part is to allow people to exist.
The existence of people with free will who are guaranteed to screw up is still morally better than both the non-existence of people with free will, or the the existence of of people without free will.
So that’s that, God’s ass is covered. No salvation required! He has done the morally correct thing, and chosen the least of three evils. Then he does something cosmically loving: he allows the people who he only made in the knowledge that they were selfish, greedy little twerps, to have one more shot at redeeming themselves. He goes even further, and sets the bar so stupidly low that literally anyone can make it. The qualification is basically: “Acknowledge that I am God, that I made you, and that you like me.” Not that difficult. A child can do it.
Bear in mind, he does this by putting himself in ridiculous constraints so that we know we aren’t alone in the universe. When he makes a covenant with Abraham, the ritual described in genesis is fascinating: sacrificed animals are messily split in half on either side of a ditch, so that their blood drips into a channel. Custom dictated that both parties of the contract would walk through the channel, accepting the penalty for breaking that covenant (that penalty would be their blood, fittingly enough). So normally, animals would be severed, promises would be made, both parties would walk through the blood. In Genesis, God is the only one who walks through the blood. No matter who breaks the contract, whether it is Abraham’s descendants or God himself, only God will bear a penalty for it. That strikes me as loving.
I can literally recast every single example in the original post as an example of God’s love, but I’m not going to do that because everyone here has heard it before, and nobody seems to like it much. It does get old to hear the same old things over and over.
The thing to remember is that while the original post assigns blame for bad things to God, it is a clearly rhetorical interpretation of a text: it is written in order to make a point. Without disputing that point, I simply would like to point out that alternate interpretations can be made, and are probably more helpful as literary, historical, moral, and religious texts, although they may not be as effective rhetorically for criticizing the divine parenting style.
You forgot another option– god could have borne his solitude and left a potentially suffering creation out of it altogether. Creating billions and billions of sentient beings just to condemn them with free will in order to get some love seems inherently evil to me. I would rather not have been created at all than to be created to suffer (potentially for all of eternity).
Ahem…
I believe I covered this, although in all fairness, it was kind of a wall of text.
“The existence of people with free will who are guaranteed to screw up is still morally better than both the non-existence of people with free will, or the the existence of of people without free will.”
Existence is a metaphysical good, it is a prerequisite for all good things, and is itself a particular good, since unjustly removing something from existence is generally considered a moral evil.
Note, within the interpretation I just presented, nowhere did I say that God did his creation of the universe in order to “get some love”.
This is beside the point anyway, however. The point of my wall of text is to indicate that Daniel’s interpretation of scripture is an interpretation. “Cherry Picking” scientific or scriptural facts is something that meets with a lot of criticism on this site, and rightly so, I think. However, in this case, both Daniel and myself have “cherry picked” in order to create certain interpretations. He chose his for its rhetorical impact, and I chose mine as a counter-argument.
We both cherry-picked in order to make a point; my point is simply that his interpretation is not the only one that can be made, nor is it obviously superior to other interpretations.
The problem is that when christians don’t want to deal with the truth of what the bible actually says, they do what John C does and say that the bible says one thing and means another. So all the cruelty, rape of children, death of millions of people by war and starvation; cancer and AIDS; god just sits around “allowing” this to happen because he gave us free will. And the kicker – out of the 600 billion people or so who have inhabited the earth, christians believe that only a couple of million or so will go to heaven. The rest of us will burn in hell eternally for the crime of THINKING. Good plan, this god. I don’t see anything unloving about this at all *ahem*
Thats not even close to the truth Janet…not what I believe anyway.
“Existence is a metaphysical good”
I challenge you to prove that. Or at lease provide some evidence. It’s not like it’s an a priori statement. And I don’t happen to agree with it. I would rather not be born/created at all than be born/created to suffer. Any creator that creates a being to suffer– especially to suffer for all eternity– is evil. And as god is supposedly omniscient and would presumably know who he as created that will suffer for all eternity, it’s a pretty fair conclusion to say that god is evil. Unless you want to concede that all people will go to heaven in the end (although that argument has it’s problems as well).
In other words, it seems logical to me that between the choice of non-existence and suffering existence, non-existence is the moral good. So your statement below doesn’t follow:
“Existence is a metaphysical good, it is a prerequisite for all good things, and is itself a particular good, since unjustly removing something from existence is generally considered a moral evil.”
Metaphysics is commonly defined as the study of “being qua being,” that is, being in and of itself. “Being” then, existence itself and the questions concerning it, are the primary subject of metaphysics. Metaphysics requires existence. So existence is considered a “good.”
Now, given a choice between an existence which contains no good and only suffering (an existence which is composed of 100% suffering, all day, every day) and no existence at all, then perhaps I would be inclined to agree that no existence is better.
I anticipate some sort of argument about Hell will follow this, and I’ll talk about that if you really want to, but I would like to point out that my original point has been dodged a couple of times now.
All I mean to say is that Daniel’s original post is a deliberate attempt to display one side of an issue in order to make a rhetorical point, and that it is therefore exactly as valid as someone picking a different side of the issue and displaying only that side.
That’s really all I intended to communicate. If you don’t want to respond to that part of what I said, that’s certainly fine, and we can talk about other things later sometime!
Well considering that Hell is considered eternal, then as time passed, one’s experience would approach (but never quite reach) 100% suffering– and yes nonexistence if preferable to that.
Now, on your other point (which I wasn’t dodging but is just less interesting to me), Daniel’s post strikes me as a balance to what Christians like to present– namely, only the “good” stuff of the bible. Daniel (and myself as well) is a de-converted Christian. And it’s his blog, so quite frankly, he can post whatever he wants. But I suspect the point of the post may be to show that any omni-benevolent god who claims divine authorship/ inspiration of an inerrant doctrine might should make sure that the doctrine is in fact inerrant and reflects said omni-benevolence.
longer comment incoming, being moderated
nvm
JonJon, I like you. I hope you’ll stick around for a while. :)
Aww!
I feel loved!
:P I look forward to some fun discussions!!!
No, NO, not an even *longer* wall of post!
That’s just more page to skip over!
hehe, its the one that’s already up there. I’ll try to keep things shorter, *pout.*
pfft, whaddaya mean “skip over?”
Everyone reads my posts with diligence and enthusiam!
…right?
*mutters awkwardly to himself*
Directed at LRA, up above me there.
comment limit makes me sad =(
Daniel can of course post whatever he wants to! And to be honest, I have a lot of respect for the site, and for what he’s trying to do with it.
You said: “But I suspect the point of the post may be to show that any omni-benevolent god who claims divine authorship/ inspiration of an inerrant doctrine might should make sure that the doctrine is in fact inerrant and reflects said omni-benevolence.”
This is a decent point, and as a balance against a more typical presentation of Christian doctrine, I ‘get’ Daniel’s post.
It is obviously important that any doctrine belonging to a real God conveys exactly what it is meant to convey. It might be a good idea for omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence to be perfectly represented within such a doctrine. But is it necessary that God provide so much clarity and perfection in his written doctrine that literally everyone *must* believe in the existence of an omni-benevolent God? Or that no dissenting opinions are allowed? It seems to me that if that were the case, God would be guilty of directly controlling every individual’s reaction to and opinion of Him.
As it is, we can have these discussions, where two opposing pictures of God can be presented. Would it be better if belief in God was a logical necessity? I mean, maybe it would. I’m legitimately curious what you think.
As for presenting a balanced picture, I guess I understand that. Surely it can’t be good to hear only one side of an issue over and over again. At the same time, though, does it bother anyone that in order to hear another side of an issue, you must abandon neutrality toward religion? Being devils advocate requires a certain amount of antagonism, you know?
I’m sorry, but when it comes to eternal torture, yes I want absolute clarity. For whatever’s sake, I at least want some kind of Miranda rights situation. Sheesh.
If you were given the choice before-hand, with full-on, advisory sticker style warnings, would you exist? That is, do you think it is somehow wrong to “force” existence on people?
JJ (I hope it’s ok that I call you that!)… when I was a Christian, I constantly prayed “not my will but yours be done”. In other words, all I wanted was to see God’s will in my life and I completely wanted to give up my own. Too bad that this attitude led to…. absolutely no difference in my life! That being said, if God exists, and he enforces the *ideal* that we must be perfect like him or suffer eternal torture, yes I think it was *very* wrong for God to enforce existence on me without giving me a *personal* revolution or at least give me the same benefit that God’s enemies (aka Satan et al) get… face time and proof of God’s existence… for even the demons believe, and Satan met face to face with God to discuss Job…
The better question might be “why” do we exist?
The gospel doesn’t care why we exist, only that we submit to Jesus. Period.
Saw Plato’s Republic in the bargain bin at half price books yesterday LRA and thought of you. You’ll be happy to know I took your advice and I bought it, cost me one whole dollar! lol
A’right! Now read it and get back to me! :)
How can you ask a non-existing being if it wants to exist? If it can answer, and understand the question, if it can have desires -would it prefer to exist?- then, definetely, it already exists.
But when Daniel asked if we would like to exist -to be alive- forever, some of the commenters said they didn’t want to.
“Existence is a metaphysical good, it is a prerequisite for all good things, and is itself a particular good, since unjustly removing something from existence is generally considered a moral evil”
Removing something from existence and bring sth into existence is not the same thing. And if existence should be considered a metaphysical good, we couldn’t do anything. What happens with a glass of water when you drink it? The glass still exist, and the water is in your body. But definitely the “glass of water” doesn’t exists anymore.
So, at least, you should change “existence” by “existence of consciousness beings”. And we could still argue about that
John C, you REALLY need to read the article before you say stuff like this…
Sometimes the articles are just too…sick, untrue for me to stomach. When someone talks about my Father that way, who I know to be Love, its just too much to take, sorry.
They’re just words and sentiments paraphrased directly from the bible, John. They can’t hurt you, you’re just scared they might make you mad at god. You are not mad at us, or Daniel, you are afraid something might take away your security and that you’re not man enough to handle thoughts in your head that come from you.
Sweet words from a sweet girl…:)
But you’re still not concerned with the content of the blog. Your comment is like the facetious “bless your heart”. How about something relevant to the article or some admission of why it would be harmful to you. You are apparently offended by the bible when atheists pick passages, so offended you skip it. God wants you to know him, but only the truth that you choose to see. The true nature of god isn’t what you choose, but it is what… it is! I mean, it’s not really up to you, is it? You agree to take it on whole. Or only the parts you like? Only the parts that saccharine, fake sugar you pour on everything. Are you speaking for god, or are you making it up that this is as much as you’re willing to believe? Why aren’t you able to take a look at the words? Why are you making this the atheist’s fault? You are blaming the atheist for posting, and you are taking your god’s name in vain and believing a false truth, isn’t that something you posted that you agreed with a quote: someone believing a falsehood was the scariest thing they could think of.
You are a coward and a hypocrite now if you don’t look and you don’t have anything to say about it. Don’t dodge and call people sweet or say something you’ve already said. It’s irrelevant and unnecessary. Challenging you, John. I’m challenging you to be relevant.
“Sweet words from a sweet girl…:)”
Lets add Patronizing to the list of qualities of Scumbag John C.
While I obviously disagree with your characterization of God, I’m sorry your father was a bad one. I trust that you will be a better one if/when you have children.
This is what I don’t get. There was nothing in that characterization that was inaccurate. This is what the Bible says. It’s from the Bible. It’s not a flattering picture. But since you obviously disagree, on what is the disagreement based? Let’s have some obviously good refuting examples.
I doubt that would be productive, but I’ll give you this:
A couple of selfish, overindulged teenagers overdose on drugs and commit suicide to spite harried and estranged parents.
Maybe you recognized that as “Romeo and Juliet.” Is it false? Not exactly. Is it true? Not exactly. It’s close enough to be persuasive to certain people, yet still manages to entirely miss the point.
I have no interest in becoming the designated God or Bible defender; in fact, this blog is a bit depressing and I’m on my way out. I’m not leaving because I’m unable or unwilling to see “the truth”; I’m leaving because I’ve yet to read anything particularly compelling. If people really wanted to reconcile these perceived inconsistencies, they would study the scriptures. If not, we’re arguing in circles. If you actually would like to talk, leave a comment with your email address and I’d be glad to email you.
“A couple of selfish, overindulged teenagers overdose on drugs and commit suicide to spite harried and estranged parents.”
Actually I think that is *exactly* the point. Shakespeare is shooting immature idealism down. Kinda the way we do on this blog.
I really intended for the last one to be my final comment, but I could not resist this one.
Is this what atheism leaves us with, LRA? Romeo and Juliet can no longer be a love story, because Shakespeare is “shooting down immature idealism”? And if your somewhat self-congratulatory final sentence is to be true, you all are in the same business?
The irony is that this is the alternative to a “bad father God.” You don’t make a very compelling case from a quality-of-life standpoint. Seems we can either A) accept a bad Father, or B) agree that no real romance is left in the world. I think I’ll take option C.
You’re not so compelling yourself.
None of us is making a case from a quality-of-life standpoint.
We’re making a case from the “is this bullshit?” standpoint.
Do you really think that teen-age angst-ridden obsession that results in suicide is “quality of life”? Really?
Yes, LRA, really. The interpretation that I threw out, that you readily accepted, is an example of a negative interpretation of the tale. I interpret Romeo and Juliet as 98% of the rest of the world does: tragic in parts, yes, but a *love story*. That’s my interpretation. Let’s keep them straight.
Does love enhance quality of life? I’d say so, wouldn’t you?
By the way, do you see how our different critical lenses render two different understandings of the same text? We see what we want to see. That’s my point. Daniel isn’t objective; he cherry-picked what he saw as the nastiest parts of the Bible and turned it into an interpretation, which he’s certainly at liberty to do. But to suggest that he covered the whole thing, even in principle, is completely untenable.
Are you sure that 98% of people have interpreted the play that way? Have you read any Shakespeare scholarship? (cause I have– for a Shakespeare class last fall). And I would argue that it is indeed a tragic tale (with all that this entails) which warns about the foolishness of romantic/idealized/obsessive “love” as you call it. Similarly to the way the tragedy of Hamlet is a warning that nihilism (Hamlet’s failure to act throughout the play) is a state which is relieved through language/story telling (as Hamlet implores Horatio to tell his story). In fact, if you read any significant number of Shakespeare’s play, you see a sort of emerging rationality/neo-classicism that outshines the “christianity” in the plays time and time again (for an excellent example of this, read Merchant of Venice).
Certainly, the world is a better place with love in it. I wish there was more.
Now, as for my critical eye, it is one that takes into account modes of literary criticism, context, form, and language. I could easily offer you a “close reading” of the bible that supports my assertions that it is not the “inerrant” “word” of the “god of love”, but rather a work mythos that contains etiological stories, poetry, parables, and the occasional vague reference to “history” (although history was not a concept in existence at that time) on par with the Upanishads, or the Homeric epics, or even the Chinese “Odes” of Confucianism. The difference between our critical lenses is that there is all kinds of evidence for the claims I make. There is no evidence that the Bible is the inerrant word of god.
1. David, I was raised christian and believed it until my 30’s. It was a thorough study of the bible that started the de-conversion process.
2. I have found joy, love and romance SINCE I left the perverted and oppressive “love” expressed by christianity.
You seem to have a strange idea of what atheists are like and what we stand for.
No Janet, not atheists in general. I’ve met some nice ones and some not-so-nice ones. I never claimed atheists couldn’t experience love. I only asked if that was where atheism left us: turning Romeo and Juliet into “a couple of selfish, overindulged teenagers overdose on drugs and commit suicide to spite harried and estranged parents.” I used that characterization to make a point. LRA was apparently OK with that being the theme of the story.
I don’t know what else to make of the story. All of us have been teenagers and probably know the agony of that kind of love. Thankfully, nothing that required suicide as a remedy. Do you think Shakespeare by accident decided the ending? It’s a tragedy. It’s not a comedy. Nobody should have had to die, and nobody should have volunteered to die in this story. A greatest love story ever has a love situation and a resolution where nobody dies just because they are in love. That’s stupid. Unfortunately, like in “Love Story,” two people love each other but one of them dies because she has cancer. You don’t seem to understand that when two people love each other the best outcome is where they overcome the odds and end up together forever, or so supposed at the conclusion that they won’t later become sick of each other, mean, lazy, cheat, nag, driven apart by something like children, addiction, work, in-laws, but David, Romeo and Juliet is about young characters who yearn so stupidly for one another and they are so immature about it, they decide death is better than life if they can’t be together. TRAGEDY. It’s like Jerry Seinfeld would say, “that’s a shame.”
LRA,
Yes, I’ve read Shakespeare scholarship. I have a BA in English (plus two masters degrees). And you can certainly argue that it means whatever you wish; I don’t really care. Let’s call it a tragedy, let’s call it a morality play, whatever, but please do me the service of ceasing this doomed attempt to demote it out of the “love story” category.
I’m glad you could easily offer me a close reading of the Bible that teases out all the disparate material that makes it up, and your assertion that there is no proof for an inerrant interpretation is impressive. All that’s missing is any evidence of either.
Feel free to provide it, or not, whatever. I’ll give you the last word; I’m growing weary of this discussion.
I have a degree in English as well. In addition to one in philosophy and one in psychology. In addition to a master’s degree in neuroscience (where I completed my master’s thesis in the lab of Nobel prize winner Eric Kandel). I am currently applying to phd programs in the the intersection of cognitive science, philosophy of mind/science, and cultural studies.
Here is an entire course from Yale on OT biblical scholarship (which discusses the evidence in detail):
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/
“your assertion that there is no proof for an inerrant interpretation is impressive. All that’s missing is any evidence of either.”
Are you actually saying the bible is inerrant?
My guess is David will carefully not respond to any challenge to provide information to back up his ridiculous claims.
True Janet…leaving the IC, organized religion always results in greater liberty, good for you-smart move indeed.
David-
You cant defend Father within the confining realms of reason. There is a higher realm than the realm of reason, its good for some things but is severely limited in others. He is Spirit right? (Jn 4:4) and those who would worship (know) Him must know Him by the spirit. This is why scripture is so misunderstood, people try and know God by it, but you can only know something ABOUT God by reading the text for “as many as are led by the spirit, these are the (true) sons (spiritual offspring) of God”. Romans 8:14.
God can not be boxed in, confined to textual limitations, can not be known in this limited manner. Jesus modeled the “way” for us being in union with the Father, even being One with God for “he who is joined to the Lord is One Spirit with Him” 1 Cor 6:17. God is not religious as we think, He is spirit and the truth is that so are we.
This is why we are implored to “walk in the spirit” but very few of us ever progress to that high walk in fellowship with, in union with the Father and the Son. What did Jesus say in John Chapters 14 & 17 about this? Take another, closer look friend for “as He is in the world so are we” meaning in that same manner, same spirit, same union.
All the very best.
“This is why we are implored to “walk in the spirit” but very few of us ever progress to that high walk in fellowship with, in union with the Father and the Son.”
Yes, the rest of us reasonable people are doomed. Because we demand evidence for the difference between the “spirit” and “an imaginary friend” and “the flying purple people eater” and the “Tao” and “Brahman” and “Zeus.” Yet the “spirit” provides no evidence that is verifiable and expects us to wander, lost, as we attempt “progress” that is indistinguishable from self-delusion about the “reality” of a higher plane that we have NO ACCESS TO. And if we screw it up… eternal torture.
Yeah, that’s fair. And loving.
I say you are imagining things, and given modern neuroscience, I can make a really good case for that. But you say it’s “real”. By what MECHANISM is it “real.” The burden is on YOU to explain it. And how can you provide EVIDENCE for this supposed REAL thing that isn’t real in an empirical sense? Again, the burden is on YOU to explain this. And if you don’t feel that it is, they I say the burden is on GOD to convince us to buy into this crazy system. The burden isn’t on me anymore than the burden is on me to believe that the sky is green.
Love is the gatekeeper LRA…its not so hard, has nothing to do with science, etc. I know thats a stunner but its true. Children just love, so should we and see where that takes us…
Prov. 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
You know, I love Harry Potter. I do. He is courageous, smart, humble, has been through an awful childhood that I relate to. When I read about him, I feel compassion, admiration, and even frustration sometimes.
But I know he’s not real.
@ LRA,
Notice how the religionist “addresses” the very pertinent points you raise with more of the same nonsensical, entirely useless godspeak. It had this to say….
“Love is the gatekeeper LRA…its not so hard, has nothing to do with science, etc. I know thats a stunner but its true. Children just love, so should we and see where that takes us…”
When it may as well have said……
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe!!!!
Come on..it’s not so hard!..just believe!
There should be a yearly programming contest on this site to see who can write a script that best emulates John C’s ‘exchanges’. Then we can put it up against the original for a shoot-out!
Maybe I should fight fire with fire…
You mean spout nonesense and praise your own knowledge without citing reasonable examples?
Nah, you do more to defend your beliefs (read: critical thought) by what you have already been doing. Keep up the excellent work.
: ) Thanks!
“but you can only know something ABOUT God by reading the text for “as many as are led by the spirit, these are the (true) sons (spiritual offspring) of God”. Romans 8:14.”
You are circling around a deeper truth. Paul said in Corinthians that the New Testament was of the Spirit and not of the letter. The New Testament was NEVER MEANT TO BE WRITTEN. This idea of a written New Testament is in direct contradiction to the practices of Jesus the early church and the words of Paul who, incidentally, never referred to his writings as “scripture”.
The onus should be on god to communicate like people do, not the other way around. It’s absurd to think otherwise.
Since humanity is allegedly the creation of this entity, and has (at least, according to the Bronze Age tales) communicated directly with humanity in the past, it would stand to reason that if this entity wants 21st Century humans to be convinced of its existence, it would, oh, I dunno, communicate directly to humans in the fashion in which it allegedly created humans to communicate to each other.
I hope none of the places I shop online shares my email with god. Ha ha.
Anyway, with your comment, I start to think that is “too easy.” The people who believe in god now believe so because he is amazing. The signs that appear, the little apparent interventions into their lives are too amazing to be just how life goes. Meanwhile, those things would still happen, but if we got newsletters from god, and I mean we all got them, I wonder how that would shape society. Not that I want to believe in god, but I guess I would have to? if that happened. I think it might reduce the mystique of god for the faithful – I honestly think in the face of the actual god, people would still believe in the* sky daddy and deny the one who appears readily to anyone. I think we’re aware of the people who claim to be god now, I think “communication-friendly god” would put them off similarly and they would still cling to this one they think we have now.
*(testing)
Kodie-
No such thing as a “Sky-Daddy”, not a Christian concept. Its not Him “up there” and us “down here”, actually quite the opposite.
*(testing)
Well that was fast. You have a compulsion to search for key terms and respond to words “sky daddy”. Not that I’m surprised, but you are busted busted busted.
The reason I respond to the sky-daddy reference so often is because atheists use it so commonly, inappropriately but dont seem to care that its not even true Christian theology they are bashing. If you’re going to bash something, at least take time to learn a little about what you dont believe??
“No such thing as a ‘Sky-Daddy’..”
@ Kodie,
On more than one occasion, the Chrisitan biblegod has been refered to by John C as humanity’s “Father”, which as we know, “dad”/”daddy” is an informal substitution. Then of course, biblegod is presumably everywhere at once, per his attribute of “omnipresence”. The “sky” is certainly part of the set of “everywhere”, thus, biblegod is technically a “sky-daddy”.
Peace.
I don’t usually use the term “sky daddy.” You seem irrepressible over this. It’s a metaphor and I planted it for your response. You missed that because you don’t read for comprehension. You are accusing people over and over again for their “misuse” or mischaracterization of your precious lover, but you’ve been busted. You can relax now. Nobody’s calling you.
Well Kodie, that’s your take on the thing. I would love to hear an example of a great love story that doesn’t have a healthy dose of tragedy.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of tragedy. Most fictional love stories have a healthy dose of trial. Most do not contain the element of tragedy. I remarked on the one actually called “Love Story,” in which two people fall in love and their plans are dashed because one contracts a fatal disease, which doesn’t craze the other party so much they electively die in empathy. If you are conflicted about how to compare and contrast a fatal disease with the stupidity of suicide, considering one faked death, caused the other person to commit suicide, and then woke and committed suicided rather instantly as a response, then I don’t think you’re advanced enough of a reader to continue having this conversation.
But really, most people find someone, they love each other, they get married, it’s not as pleasant as they thought it would be, but they don’t crack up by far.
Despite my poor reading skills, I was able to find the work in question. “Love Story”! By the great poet Erich Segal! How did I miss that on the classics aisle?
I said “*great* love story,” Kodie, not 1970’s movies that no one remembers.
I thought it was convenient because it’s called “Love Story.” Well, don’t you have any other suggestions? I remember for some reason my 9th grade English teacher (and I think according to curriculum) proposed “West Side Story” as a modern reworking of “Romeo and Juliet.” Again, what we have here are gangs, instead of families. Tony’s gang assaults Anita, so she tells them Maria’s dead when she’s not. So Tony in his grief kills Maria’s brother Bernardo for some reason? And then Chino kills Tony. STUPIDITY.
No, I am trying to figure out what your purpose is here. You are saying all good, no, “great” love stories have a “healthy dose of tragedy.” Tragedy is when something awful and irreversible happens, and going by your favorites, occurs after someone says or does something stupid for stupid reasons. Like I could say to a shopkeeper, hey your floor is kind of slippery, and instead of “accidentally” falling and suing him, which is not even what I was going for, he shoots me and he has some “people” take care of it, and I go “missing.”
Only really relevant case of a great love story involving an actual tragedy in which no one is stupid is a fatal disease or accident. In all other cases of tragedy someone was stupid. In everything else, it falls short of tragedy and is called something else, usually trial. People who are meant to be together, that we’re rooting for, are usually involved in the plot device where they overcome one or more obstacles. People who start off madly in love are usually involved in the plot device where one of them or both of them dies, possibly for stupid reasons. If we shift over to reality where these are not the only two outcomes, people may be in love or like and aside from these plots, continue to be in love or settle into a semi-vacant relationship in name or divorce either amicably or not. If we include the aforementioned plot devices, some of them increase their bond over obstacles or one or both of them dies, possibly stupidly. Back to movies, another one you get is “War of the Roses.” Madly in love, divorce non-amicably, die stupidly.
Why don’t you prove your own rule, stupid. That is great love story, “healthy dose” (whatever that means) of tragedy. And convince us all that is the only way to have a love story that’s great enough to broadcast in print and/or film and/or theater (doesn’t have to be a musical).
David will just redefine all great love stories to be tragedies. Typical shifting of the goalposts for self serving reasons.
Why? Gonna turn the tide of human belief with your powerful, persuasive oratory and convince us to turn to Jeeezus?
You’re already ineffective and irrelevant, while accusing others of not being compelling.
You’re already promising to leave while bouncing back like a bad check.
David: “If people really wanted to reconcile these perceived inconsistencies, they would study the scriptures.”
And what makes you so sure that people who perceive inconsistancies in “the scriptures” haven’t studied them already? In some cases, studying the scriptures actually leads to deconversion. Also, at what point would you say the person doing the studying has been throguh enough? What?….when they can rationalize every single discrepancy, as most Xian apologists can?
Correction above: meant “thorough”.
And what makes you so sure that people who perceive inconsistancies in “the scriptures” haven’t studied them already?
I’m not at all sure. But it’s pretty easy to find websites with contradictory proof texts that can be cut and pasted to buttress a beef with Christianity. (Yes, I know, to be fair you can find websites on both sides)
In some cases, studying the scriptures actually leads to deconversion.
True enough, if the testimonies on this blog are to be believed.
Also, at what point would you say the person doing the studying has been throguh enough?
I have no idea what this means. When you have had enough of a book, you stop reading it. And in most cases, you stop talking about it.
What?….when they can rationalize every single discrepancy, as most Xian apologists can?
Either that, or when they have a ready cadre of contradictory proof texts to throw out at believers (see item 1).
“I’m not at all sure.”
Then why come across like you are sure?
“…if the testimonies on this blog are to be believed.”
Yes, it’s always the *person* that is suspect…never the “God”.
“When you have had enough of a book, you stop reading it.”
I made correction on the statement this is in response to. The intended word was “thorough”, not “through”. Here it is context: “Also, at what point would you say the person doing the studying has been thorough enough?”
“Either that, or when they have a ready cadre of contradictory proof texts to throw out at believers (see item 1).”
So, the implication, if I understand correctly, is that nonbelievers(or some of them) set out to debunk Christianity because they don’t want it to be true? Is that a fair assessment? If so, I’d be curious to hear what you think some of the reasons for that might be. For instance, why would someone opt to cease to exist, as opposed to having a post-mortem existence of perpetual, unadulterated bliss, when being eligible to do so is presumably as uncomplicated having “faith”? Or, why would someone want to take responsiblity for their poor choices, as opposed to just blaming “the Devil”??? I’m curious.
Then why come across like you are sure?
Um…because it’s harder to “come across” as being unsure?
Yes, it’s always the *person* that is suspect…never the “God”.
I really have no idea what this means.
I made correction on the statement this is in response to. The intended word was “thorough”, not “through”. Here it is context: “Also, at what point would you say the person doing the studying has been thorough enough?”
I can’t decide that. When they decide they’ve been thorough enough, I guess. You’re asking all of this, as far as I can tell, on the basis of a single sentence of mine.
So, the implication, if I understand correctly, is that nonbelievers(or some of them) set out to debunk Christianity because they don’t want it to be true? Is that a fair assessment? If so, I’d be curious to hear what you think some of the reasons for that might be. For instance, why would someone opt to cease to exist, as opposed to having a post-mortem existence of perpetual, unadulterated bliss, when being eligible to do so is presumably as uncomplicated having “faith”? Or, why would someone want to take responsiblity for their poor choices, as opposed to just blaming “the Devil”??? I’m curious.
I have no idea; I’m being descriptive, not explaining. Why do people drive without seatbelts? Because people are not always rational.
Maybe you could also give your reasons as to why some Christians set out to debunk Islam — why would someone do that?
“Um…because it’s harder to “come across” as being unsure?”
Um….you didn’t have a hard time clarifying it after the fact, did you?(rhetorically asked)
“I really have no idea what this means.”
“You’re asking all of this, as far as I can tell, on the basis of a single sentence of mine.”
And? Is that uncommon? You recommended “study the scriptures”..and I simply wanted to know what you qualified as thorough enough. Dare I ask another question? I’ll take my chances—-do you believe it’s possible for someone to “study the scriptures” just as thoroughly and objectively as you did, and still come up unconvinced? Yes or no.
previously, David: “if we are to believe the testimonies”
I thought “if” implied doubt. In other words, doubt the nonbeliever/former believer, but never doubt “God”. It seems the nonbeliever is always accused of failing the “faith”, but never the “faith” failing the nonbeliever. That’s basically what I’m getting at.
‘Loved the “seatbelt” comparison, BTW. Assuming that people put as much time contemplating wearing a “seatbelt”, as they do contemplating their “eternal fate”. Uh-huh…good one!
Because ceasing to exist is not actually up for option, having faith has nothing to do with the actual outcome, and blaming the devil doesn’t negate who is really responsible, plus nobody would reasonably accept that as an answer.
Kodie,
That sounds great, except I’ve pretty much lost all interest in convincing any of you of anything. This has gone so far afield of my original intention that I barely know what we’re talking about. I think I’ll let your little tirade be the last word here.
Your responses don’t line up with the right posts. I don’t know what you’re responding to.
We beat him, so he’s taking his ball and going home.
Study the scriptures. People always ask me to study the scriptures.
The thing is, I *do* study the scriptures.
Stories of genocide, jealousy, fear, slavery, polygamy, and the repression of women provide revealing glimpses of scripture. The more I study the scriptures of Christianity, the degree to which they seem absurd and implausible increases strongly.
The claimed links between Jesus in the New Testament and Old Testament “prophecies” are tenuous and ambiguous at best – sometimes, they verge on ridiculousness. Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled prophecy that he was wounded by friends – yet the person who says this in the OT original is a false prophet!
There are many ways in which studying scripture may leave one unimpressed with the claims of Christianity.
So I agree, study the scriptures. But don’t study them only to find ways to confirm what you already believe. Be prepared to call a spade, a spade, when you see one.
So I agree, study the scriptures. But don’t study them only to find ways to confirm what you already believe. Be prepared to call a spade, a spade, when you see one.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
It shouldn’t be hard to do. You know the Bible. Certainly you’ve read it. Daniel is obviously biased. He picked and choosed over the narrative of the Bible. You can do the same. Just pick the good parts. Give me your History of God.
I think JonJon already covered this. With the expected result.
I think it’s a very compelling statement against christianity and a “loving” christian father-god.
(For those who still actually believe in that particular mythology.)
“If people really wanted to reconcile these perceived inconsistencies, they would study the scriptures.”
I agree wholeheartedly. I think everyone should try a dose of higher criticism to get a feel for how the Bible came into existence and why it says what it does.
I’m currently reading “How to Read the Bible” by James L Kugel (recommended in a previous post by vorjack, thanks dude!). Suddenly a lot of the dodgy stuff in OT makes a lot more sense, from outright contradictions to small details. It’s very interesting stuff – but also devastating to the Bible’s authority.
Oh wait, I suppose that wasn’t what you meant by “study the scriptures”?
No, feel free. It’s odd, though, how higher criticism yields a “higher critical” result from scripture.
Just like a feminist reading of literature results in (altogether now!) a “feminist” result. And a Marxist reading, a Marxist result. It’s just a critical lens, trj, not a conversation-stopper. There still has to be evidence.
Well, the general advantage of higher criticism is that it it looks at a broader picture, and I also think it’s fair to say that it is considerably less biased than a classical interpretation that insists on a divine purpose behind every word. Using literary criticism, archaeology, contemporary culture and folklore, comparison of religions, etc – these will give you a heck of a lot more insight than studying biblical literature on its own premises.
“There still has to be evidence”, you say. Yes, exactly. And the evidence often disagrees with the Bible’s claim for truth and infallibility, like when archaeology doesn’t agree with the events from, say, Exodus (Jericho being one example), or when we can recognize elements of OT from earlier religions and scriptures.
You will always find what you are looking for, trj. You claim that higher criticism is “less biased,” yet the critical methodology of events such as the Jesus Seminar is popular vote, the popular vote often being based on nothing more substantial than scholarly hunches (anonymous; no accountability). Taking a suspicious hermeneutical tack that ignores authorial intention is no more unbiased than assuming inerrancy.
I’m glad we agree about evidence. I’d be interested in hearing about the Exodus/Jericho thing. Recognizing elements of OT from earlier religions and scriptures doesn’t prove anything, though. As author James Reason once noted: “humans are furious pattern matchers.” Similarity doesn’t prove ancestry.
“the critical methodology of events such as the Jesus Seminar is popular vote, the popular vote often being based on nothing more substantial than scholarly hunches (anonymous; no accountability)”
Hmmmm…. kinda like biblical cannonization at the council of Nicaea, maybe?
@David:
Biblical scholarship is more than simply a club with an anonymous voting system. The Jesus Seminar approach does sound surprisingly stupid, I’ll agree, but it’s hardly representative of how higher criticism works or how it produces new results. And I don’t get your point about ignoring authorial intention. Analyzing the intentions behind the texts is a defining part of higher criticism.
Regarding Jericho: The main problem is that Jericho was apparently destroyed about 150 years before it was supposed to according to the Bible. This is based mainly on the archaeological work done by Kathleen Kenyon in the 50’s (google “Kathleen Kenyon Jericho” and you’ll find lots of material).
For obvious reasons, this conclusion is fiercely contested by Christians. Usually they refer to Bryant Wood to counter Kenyon’s claims. However, Wood’s claims were solidly refuted in the mid-nineties, which of course has done nothing to stop biblical literalists from referencing him ever since.
Jericho is far from the only ancient city with such a chronological discrepancy. Numerous other Canaanite cities mentioned in Exodus turn out to have been undefended or unoccupied at the time of Joshua. More than a dozen sites which were reportedly conquered by Joshua and his people have been identified and examined, and of these, only two, Lachisch and Hazor, have yielded signs of destruction in the appropriate period, although even they were destroyed years apart (source: Kugel).
A good example is the city of Ai which had been abandoned for 1000 years before the Israelites supposedly came along and destroyed it in ca 1400 BCE. A small unfortified village existed there around 1200 to 1050 BCE, but it was subsequently abandoned and never rebuilt.
Another problem is that Joshua, according to the book of Joshua, allegedly destroyed, exiled, or subdued all Canaanite opposition, while the very next book, Judges (and other parts of OT as well) directly contradicts this.
Interesting stuff, although Kugel only scratches the surface archaeology-wise. I recommend The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman for a more archaeology-intensive approach.
You are attempting to comprehend a spiritual text by the faculty of reason, logic. It cant be done. The truth will not be manifest that way. But, if you would believe Jesus, receive the truth Himself as a little child does (trustingly, foolishly) then He would open up to you the deeper words, that truth from the beginning that He longs to impart TRJ.
Jesus said “you search the scriptures for life, but wont come to me so that I can give it to you” (paraphrased). We dont come to scriptures, we come to Christ, He comes to us then reveals His true heart for us, Fathers great love.
So we can’t make logical sense of the Bible. Gotcha.
Although I don’t think it has anything to do with its spiritual nature, but rather with it being written and compiled by a lot of different people with different opinions and motives through the ages.
Believe what you will TRJ, but I told you the truth, all the best.
“Believe what you will TRJ, but I told you the truth, all the best.”
Correction—you told him what you *believe* to be “the truth”. ‘ Huge difference.
Ahhhhhahahahahahahaha!
soooo, how would anyone know of christ if it wasnt for the scripture’s teachings?
and we cant use reason when reading them in the first place. We have to be childlike, foolish, unreasonable, and trusting. Gonna go with a no on that. Feel free to live life in your padded room, ill live with eyes unclouded.
LRA: “Hmmmm…. kinda like biblical cannonization at the council of Nicaea, maybe?”
Hmmmm….clever comparison, but no, not at all. For one thing, I think you mean council of Trent. For another thing, at no point were people randomly casting votes about books to include and exclude. Instead, they were ratifying the canon that had already begun to be accepted by the church…the OT was the Judaic canon, and the NT was being widely circulated in the Western churches.
Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages (Col 1:27).
I did mean the council of Nicaea, but I was mistaken. Not biblical canonization, but doctrinal canonization. Which was done by vote, essentially.
Wonderful post!
There is a very good parallel between the people who love the Christian God (as vile, capricious, mean spirited as he is) and the people in North Korea who show complete praise to the North Korean “Leader” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU
I’d rather not live in North Korea thank you very much.
I always thought of it more like a woman in a violent relationship. The husband will beat her up, but she’ll keep desperately loving him and stay with him because she believes that it would still be worse to leave him than to stay with him and endure the abuse.
I’m not saying this is a fitting analogy for the majority of believers. But for some I believe it fits – especially for those living in constant anxiety of God’s opinion of them and the people they know.
You dont know the true nature of the Father or His heart for you, or you would love Him too for He IS Love. That is the truth and you deserve nonetheless.
You were challenged on a point like this on another thread, and ran away from the conversation rather than admit that you wouldn’t take the beliefs of another religion as gospel yet insist on speaking as if we should take your as gospel. You are a coward and a liar, John. You run away from the chance to speak the truth because that truth makes your beliefs appear hypocritical.
You gutless douchebag.
I would encourage everyone on this blog to cease engaging John C.
I’d like to hear a Christian defend these verses (among many, many others)
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB
2 Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Tell me the morality in that? No, all you can do is state that the good outweighs the bad. But we are talking about the supposedly benevolent/omniscient deity. This suggests the very apparent truth behind all holy books, that it is man made. It is generated from the wish-thinking of a barbaric, ignorant peoples with a desire for total power and the escape of death.
The OT? Its like this:
Every man within himself has Moses & the Israelites, the Sadducess and the Pharisees. the Patriarchs and the kingdom of heaven and hell. Thus the events described in the bible and looked upon by the pious as being things of a past history, are actually descriptions of eternal processes taking place within the constitution of man…himself. JB
You see everything in the physical realm, but its all an internal, spiritual process. Consider Joshua (yeshua, sounds familiar huh) marching thru the unconquered kingdoms/lands within us, defeating the foes of Israel (God’s chosen, spiritual people, “he is not a jew who is one outwardly but inwardly” Romans 2:28) until He is King over all again and peace reigns (within you) when all is restored, is as it was in the beginning before sin (death) separated us from our union with the Father in the original, pristine, paradaisical condition. This is who Joshua (Jesus) is, He restores, offers a beautiful reconciliation back to the perfect, the original. God is “jealous” for us, for our hearts, our love for His love for us is eternal.
The OT is God seen thru the lens of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the NT is “a new and better covenent” indeed and shows God thru the physical manifestion of Christ, (when you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father) in grace and truth. Christ came in the flesh to remind us of our true paternity and origins, he showed us what InChristed man(kind) looked like before the fall.
He is the perfect Father.
“You see everything in the physical realm, but its all an internal, spiritual process.”
You’re right. Jesus did not really rise from the dead or ascend into heaven from this physical realm.
“he showed us what InChristed man(kind) looked like before the fall.”
Then why did he wear clothes?
John C’s had a good run on Unreasonable Faith, but his song is now tediously well-known. I propose a ban on him until he can demonstrate an ability to communicate on a wide(r) range of topics with some intelligence, and can cull the ’single-minded godbotting’ that seems to be his sole purpose here.
Before I get criticized for wishing a frequent contributor be banned, I’d just point out it’s *always the same* contribution he makes. If there were good, argued, reasoned points in what he said, believe me, I’d want him to stay, to alk and learn something. I’m learning nothing; he’s an intellectual black hole of pseudo-religious vacuity.
Time to pull the plug on John C.
You can’t be serious?
He said most of the time he doesn’t even read the posts. So, he’s just spamming. I kind of like having religious people on the blog who help and explain things I don’t understand, it’s good exercise, at least I think it is. If John were reading the posts and having something to say within any particular context, he’d be more like you. I don’t say we should ban anyone to this extent, but I can’t believe you don’t feel the idea has merit on the basis of spamming and irrelevance.
I agree, Kodie.
I also like having John C here. He may not answer questions directly, but he’s kind and at least we can keep TRYING to understand why people will not question irrational beliefs….
I would prefer a vehement godbot to his “Minnesota nice” brand of proselytizing. I don’t think he contributes anything to a conversation about belief and reason other than circular reasoning, high-handedness, and sophistic gobbledygook.
Hey! Not “Minnesota” nice, “Texas” nice. I think that’s why I bother. I understand him better than most… being a former fundie from Texas myself…
LRA, you understand him? You need to put out a “John C-to-English” dictionary.
Do you think it would sell? LOL! I need some cash-ola to pay off my student loans!!! ; )
*You* can’t be serious?
“Time to pull the plug on John C.”
Second.
*Third
Good enough for me.
When the raving half wit who doesn’t even bother to read posts before it spews more preachy airheaded bigotry, asks for it, you should at least consider following through with its request.
@ JC- HAAAAAAAAAHahaahahaaahahaha! Good one!
I was wondering if anyone would notice-ha, I got a good chuckle out of it too.
: )
I think Jesus pulled on a heart string when he started addressing God as Our Father. The relationship is immediately understood by any human being. Everybody desires a loving father, especially those that weren’t born to one. That Father image hooks you. Holds you. Your reverence is virtually guaranteed.
Nomad-
Good point, but it goes back to what I’ve been saying all along. That the truth (God really is our Father and He is love) is simply better than we could ever dream, cant hardly believe it and so most of us dont, just like…fairy tales. I know, I know but its…true.
“Good point, but it goes back to what I’ve been saying all along.”
i.e…..I don’t care what you people have been saying along. Heck, I don’t even read the replies! Therefore, it’s only about what I’ve been saying all along, because my spiritual beliefs have made me impervious to any and all information that contradicts what I already believe! See?!?!
~ John C.
Yea, truth has a funny way of being…true. I do read the replies (except for AOR) but dont always read the headline articles, the posts all the way thru because I have lost my stomach for what is not true, that’s all I am saying. That should not come as a surprise to anyone, should it? Am I “open” to the false? No. I spent too many years, too much heartache, trial and suffering to attain the true, have too much joy, liberty and peace to ever go backwards again, makes no sense. And isnt that “reasonable”?
“Yea, truth has a funny way of being…true.”
Yeah, funny……now if you could only offer some demonstrable proof that you actually *know* “truth”, such statements might actually have some meaning. For the time being, I might as well be listening to John T. tell me how Scientology is “truth”. There is more!…..yes, you too, can be a clear!
“I do read the replies (except for AOR) but dont always read the headline articles, the posts all the way thru because I have lost my stomach for what is not true, that’s all I am saying.”
Good; I’m glad the articles make you sick.
” Am I ‘open’ to the false? No.”
This is just another way of saying that you know Absolute Truth, and that you have no intention of entertaining any position that conflicts with your own. Nothing new; the same conceited, arrogant attitude we’re accustomed to…::yawn::.
“I spent too many years, too much heartache, trial and suffering to attain the true, have too much joy, liberty and peace to ever go backwards again, makes no sense. And isnt that ‘reasonable’?”
Yes, it’s “reasonable”…. if being perpetually happy at the end of the “search” is more important than what is actually true. Uh-huh.
But its the truth that makes one “happy”. Remember…”you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. Wouldnt that make anyone “happy”?
Yes, we can know ultimate truth, and I view that as a wonderful, powerful…truth.
Stop settling for less than Father would give you Boomslang, you’re selling yourself short my friend.
You keep talking about it like it’s… true!
Why don’t you go bother somewhere else.
okie dokie kodie
So now you are claiming that the truth MUST ALWAYS make you happy. Is it raining outside? Does that make you happy? Does whether it it makes you happy or not affect whether it is actually raining?
Again, you have said something that is patently false. Utterly ridiculous. You will not defend it, you will not clarify, you will just leave that lie out there and pretend it is the truth. This shows people a great deal about how you really feal about the truth: you can and will lie about your beliefs in order to witness to them. You use lies to defend your beliefs, while claiming to believe the complete truth handed down by the invisible man in the sky.
You are a liar, a coward, and out of your mind.
Isaiah 14:3-5 reads like this:
“And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give you rest from your sorrow, and from your fear, and from the hard bondage wherein you were made to serve that you shall take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How has the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, and the scepter of the rulers”.
What is this “hard bondage” he refers to? The bondage of believing a lie. The lie that He isnt or that if He exists He is a brutal tyrant, a ruthless dictator. What you believe about God is the most important thing about you. That’s why agreeing with God is so vitally important, so life-giving. I heard a man say once “the scariest thing for me is to believe a lie”. How very true. I see your reactions from my comments, the name calling, the disbelief, the suspicion etc and realize how binding it is to believe something other than what God says (He is love-1 Jn 4:16). God is in the lie breaking, truth revealing business.
You shall know the truth and the truth shall MAKE you free! If you want to be.
‘the name calling’
Oh, boo-hoo. Your poor soul, all these nasty, nasty people not beweeving in your ickle gwod and your obvious Truths!!
I think you’ve been treated surprisingly courteously here; correct me if I am wrong but I don’t recall you’ve been called names very often. Ridiculed, yes, but that’s not the same thing.
As for the ‘bondage of believing a lie’, well, you haven’t exactly demonstrated great discrimination in your ability to detect one from the other – given what you repeatedly say you believe on here. I would certainly think twice before accepting as fact anything you said, on just about any subject, given your strange internal rules for assessing what is ‘true’ and ‘real’.
I have never had a problem with being called names and I have been called many. I dont retaliate and dont repsond unkindly. I do speak the truth to anyone who has ears to hear.
“I have never had a problem with being called names and I have been called many.”
Your special ability to block out whatever you don’t want to hear probably helps you with that.
“I dont retaliate and dont repsond unkindly”
Not “unkindly”?? ‘Sorry, it is not kind to tell other human beings(people you’ve never met) that they “prefer darkness”, “live outside of it[love]“, and that they are “lost”.(f%ck you, BTW) What’s worse, is that proselytizing “True Christian”, John C., tells other human beings these things because he believes he has some sort of “spiritual license” to do so.
” I do speak the truth to anyone who has ears to hear.”
Wrong; no you don’t…. you speak what you *believe* to be “the truth”. Again…’big difference.
Why the F bombs Boomer? That’s not necessary, its uncalled for. I didnt say you were lost…you did. I thought we already had this discussion today? No?
“Why the F bombs Boomer?”
It’s not me; it’s the Devil, biblegod’s antagonist.
“That’s not necessary, its uncalled for.”
Neither of us are obligated to navigate onto this blog.
“I didnt say you were lost…you did. I thought we already had this discussion today? No?”
You’re right—we did have this conversation. The difference is, I actually read the replies. If you did the same, then you’d know that I told you that your calling nonbelievers “lost” is from past conversations, not a recent one.
I dont recall ever saying you are lost, can you “prove” that Boomslang?
Sure…I could probably take the time to dig far enough back to find it. But my goodness…. why on Nature’s green earth would I do that? Denying your own words while they sit in front of you is not beneath you…..or wait, perhaps you’ll insist that you didn’t mean that way, similar to the recent “I don’t read the replies”, comment. You know…the same disingenuous “True Christian” tactics we’re used to; the same “Curly shuffle”.
You just misquoted me again, I never said I dont read the replies, where did that come from? That was only last night, go back and read what I actually said. I said I dont always read the entire posted, headline articles because they are sometimes too vile, too much for me and redundant. Of course I read the replies, like now, how do you think I have ongoing conversations with you, LRA, etc?? Now you’re being silly.
I thought you would at least quote me correctly, c’mon thats only fair play Boomslang.
So, setting things straight, I never said you were lost, never said I dont read the replies. Now you’re drifting precariously close to the AOR line.
More accurately, you use the find function and browse around for someone to say sky daddy or some other choices we haven’t sussed out yet and interject something inane for the thousand and twelvth time. It’s either that or stalk boomslang.
I have no idea how to use, or even where to find the “find function” button miss Kodie. Regarding Boomslang, he has always engaged me, not the other way around. He has to get the last word in which is fine (right now he’s probably writing his response to my last reply) and he uses strong speech, has called me every name in the book, ha. Take care.
Lets add “Self Important” and “Paranoiac” to the list of John C’s loathsome qualities.
You were caught in a lie in this very post, John.
Your credibility is zero, and has been zero since the day you started posting here. You were caught in a lie in the first topic you spoke on. Lying about your lies is not going to convince anyone. There is not the slightest possibility that you actually believe those countless contradictory lies you tell, so the only possibly conclusion is that you deliberately and knowingly lie in an effort to convert people to a religion that you claim is the truth.
I like when that happens. When you make those crazy claims and back them up with lies so obvious that a child would point and laugh at you, believers who might agree with your point may react by having more doubt. Your lies make our case stronger and your weaker, and the fact that you repeatedly and habitually lie in this manner is a fabulous thing to watch. Your efforts here play a major role in deconverting other people who are slightly less insane than you are. Good job, you lying coward.
John C., I recommend you take yourself and your ‘truths’ and try them out on the community over at P.Z. Myers site (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/). I think you’ll find the experience educational; you may even learn something.
Do come back and let us know how you got on.
Oh, please, EinWulf. Don’t inflict him on Pharyngula–there are more than enough kooks, woomongers, and outright dimwitted crack monkeys there already.
Oh, come along now. Where’s your sense of adventure? Just think, you could dish out some heartening truth in response to gems like this!
‘The news from a small UK survey is heartening: teenagers are abandoning or never had much belief in religion. Two thirds don’t believe in gods at all, and
“It also emerged six out of ten 10 children (59 per cent) believe that religion “has a negative influence on the world”.
The survey also shows that half of teenagers have never prayed and 16 per cent have never been to church.
I came to the enlightenment late, so I’ve been in church. Really, they aren’t missing a single thing. Not one thing. Funny, isn’t it; the religious insist that we need the fellowship and ritual and sermonizing, but it’s all the most dreary crap and superficial ‘community’. We won’t miss it when it is all gone.’
Surely, John, surely, you must have some comment on this? PZ is just waiting to hear your words of wisdom!
Nice job of baiting Ein…but no thanks.
Yes, religion is truly a dead, ritualistic thing as you say, we are in complete agreement there Ein, thanks.
Is that a veiled attempt to rid yourselves of John C? (good try) ha, trying to throw me to the wolves there Ein Wulf? :)
No thanks, one atheist community at a time please (why have you guys assumed a label/title that Father didnt give you?) ugg…
You are just afraid, John. You cowardice has been shown many times. If you truly care about witnessing, and it is painfully clear that you do, then why wouldn’t you spread that witnessing out to more and more people?
Oh, wait, I forgot that you are actually just a lying coward.
Exod. 22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.
Deut. 28:62 And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.
28:63 And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will *rejoice over you to destroy you*, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Prov. 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
And ISAIAH (the very book you just quoted):
9:17 Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly
13:15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. (13:15-18)
If God can find you, he will “thrust you through,” smash your children “to pieces” before your eyes, and rape your wife.
13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
13:17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
And from Jesus’ own mouth:
Matthew
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
More special words of kindness from Jesus:
Matthew:
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Yeah, “God is Love” my butt.
Tell me what those words mean LRA…do you know? Obviously not because you think it is something bad, something to fear.
So the words magically change meaning because you think they do?
“Sword”– an metal object used to kill people. Associated with war.
To “set” someone “against” someone– to cause conflict among people.
“Foe”– enemy
“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”– Pretty self explanatory.
What is your point? Don’t give me a bunch of metaphorical claims with out TEXTUAL EVIDENCE to support a symbolist reading, because I promise you I’ll counter it with a literal reading given that Jesus’ apostles left behind their wives and children to follow Jesus– unless you think that metaphorically happened too.
LRA…ok listen then, fair enough?? Jesus is asking/imploring us not to identify with our earthly parentage, the adamic consciousness that breeds further separation just like God told Abraham (a practicing heathen, idol worshiper) to “come out of his father’s house, his country and come out of it, leave your kin and follow me to a land that I will show you” Gen 12:1. Abraham was the “father of all who believe…father of faith”. So we “leave our earthly, natural identity and follow Jesus, “Follow me”, where was He going? To the cross!! Now He says pick up your cross and follow me (die daily to your old, false identity that you received from your earthly parents cuz its not who you really are! Do you see this?? This is why I say its not about frickin religion!! Then there’s the resurrection…”its no longer “I” that lives, but Christ who lives in me”? Gal 2:20…are you beginning to get it?
He also says…call no man on EARTH your Father. Why is this? He is asking us to identify with our true, spiritual Father, Father God. If you keep thinking you are LRA of 1000 Main St, Austin USA (that adamic, earthly identity) you will continue in the flesh, in the matrix (movie reference) and wont see the illusion. Our true identity is in Christ! That’s the offer. But we insist on living this false identity, our (adamic) lives but what does Jesus say? If you seek to save your own life (greek word psuche meaning earthly, adamic, inherited soul life) you will LOSE it, but if you (voluntarily) lose your life for my sake (let Him live His life thru you) then you will find your life! Why? because He is our life, the only eternal (not subject to death and decay kind of life) in the entire universe! The great exchange, He LOVES U that much!
What utter rubbish. There’s not a shred of evidence for anything you say. If you stood up in a court with claims like this they’d throw you out without a second glance.
Well, JC. You win. I mean, Jesus did a great job of setting my father against me. My father tried his best to beat the sin out of me. I was a sinful child and I deserved to be the foe. When I was getting beat at 6 hears old, I deserved it. The bible clearly says so! I mean, my dad loved me so much that he just wanted to save my life. Because I’m a sinner, JC and I need Jesus. Yes– keep telling me that I’m adamic/fleshly/sinner. Maybe if I come over to your house, you can beat me too. But hey, you don’t have to hit me! You can brow beat me by telling the that wrath is really love. You can tell me that God’s silence all these years was somehow my fault. You can tell me that the god of love has chosen to turn his back on me because I’m too defensive and not child-like enough. Yes, if only I make myself vulnerable again and pray and pray that I don’t get taken advantage of. Keep blaming me JC. I mean I deserve it, don’t I?
One Wolf-
I just described the Gospel in a nutshell-even tho you have never heard it put that way…it was a quick, rough go but nonetheless a summary. Like I always say…the truth is TOO GOOD for us to believe, so most of us…dont. It took me a quarter century of seeking, following, longing with all my heart to see the truth, I am not speaking for any personal gain, how could I, only speaking the truth…in love.
Not fair LRA…I didnt blame you, I just want you to see you are interpreting the text incorrectly and that always happens when we dont know the true heart of the Father for us, our vision is clouded. God loves LRA…very much.
All the best.
It is fair. You are asking me to buy into a belief system that you have no evidence for– one that is used to control and hurt people, like me.
I’ve approached this intellectually just to be told I’m fleshly/adamic, in other words, blinded by reason.
I’ve approached this emotionally by trying to appeal to people’s sense of compassion for my situation, just to be told that it wasn’t God that failed, it was ME that failed.
I’ve approached this psychologically by talking about the fact that if one vests one’s hopes in idealism/perfection, one is sure to be disappointed/disillusioned, just to be told that perfection is a perfectly fine standard to be held against by a “just” god.
I’ve approached this from a literary standpoint– stating that good fiction does move us and that the bible has value for that reason, but not as an instruction manual for life.
In each instance I have backed my claims. So yes, I think my criticism is fair.
And a text as “important” as the bible shouldn’t have to be “interpreted correctly.” It should be crystal clear. But, hey, God messed up languages at the tower of Babel– so we’re stuck with “interpreting”.
Unless of course, languages evolved over time and this is all just an old story…
LRA, you won out posts ago. Give up with John C., he’ll keep you dancing around trying to decipher his gibberish forever. Sadly, he doesn’t know when he’s been beaten (in his mind, he never has).
Kids, be warned. John C is what you could end up like if you ‘get Jesus’!
Thanks, Wulf!
=) Welcome. Just had to say it.
Now, as it is a beautiful afternoon I shall enjoy what remains of it in the sunshine with a nice glass of Chilean red.
Best to you!
One Wolf…
That’s cuz I dont see it as a competition! I really dont. I just enjoy making new friends…lol.
LRA…
If you will start with…God is love, from that point as opposed to God hates women, etc then you will be putting yourself in a much better position to see truly! That’s all I’m saying girl. Hang in there LRA, please.
It isn’t just women…
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
LRA…
He is speaking of the beastly nature, the flesh man who was perverted, twisted away from the true image and likness in the fall. Thats what Jesus does, He “destroys” that beastly, adamic nature and “pre-empts it with Himself!
Ok- JC. You’ve convinced me. The bible is just one big ol’ metaphor! Yes indeed!
So, God is just your higher moral conscious… your superego. And the spirit is just your emotive conscious that feels… emotions that feel like… you.. your ego. And Jesus is the god-flesh that suffers that feels and connects your consciousness with the world… the senses.
And you– your adamic self– are the hunger and thirst… that craves pleasure … sometimes to the point of harm… the id… the inner child. And sin is just the conflict of these differing parts of your consciousness and senses with your id. Yea, verily I am childlike… I am an id. And my id-ness longs for my superego, my ego, and my senses which are in a higher plane– a higher consciousness– above my id and making my id less sinful, but never replete of it’s id-ness.
Indeed, my higher consciousness is inseparable from my id and loves my id, for my higher consciousness protects my id from harming itself and from self-destruction. And that is LOVE!
Yes– I see the light (well, my god-flesh of senses see it) and I understand the metaphor (well, my super-ego does) and I am entering a higher heaven now (well, my spirit ego feels it)– and my id is under control, but I’ll have to keep my id under control for the rest of my life to keep that higher heaven, but all hail the prophet, Freud!!!
“Our true identity is in Christ! That’s the offer. But we insist on living this false identity, our (adamic) lives but what does Jesus say? If you seek to save your own life (greek word psuche meaning earthly, adamic, inherited soul life) you will LOSE it, but if you (voluntarily) lose your life for my sake (let Him live His life thru you) then you will find your life! Why? because He is our life, the only eternal (not subject to death and decay kind of life) in the entire universe! The great exchange, He LOVES U that much!”
Holy crap! I mean really. God is some unknown guy who makes a lot of promises I swear to you he will not keep, by the way, so you have to love him more than your own family. I can understand if you believe the promise, you will have to have your priorities, but a god who instructs someone not to love their family as much as him? From the get go, who wants to believe a god that finds himself so important? If he loves people, he should reward them especially for loving their family, he should encourage that. God’s a dick, you know that? He’s like, see that fascinating thing over there? Enjoy this thing over here too much? Well, screw you, earthling, you’re not coming to heaven. I don’t like you no more because you think stuff’s cool and you love your family. Really, What. A. Dick.
John C – I give you credit for trying to address questions to you. However, you have to “interpret” everything – in the political world, that’s called “spin”. I thought that the gospel was so easy a child could understand it…yet it takes somebody like you to explain how it doesn’t mean what it says…over and over again…yes, jesus SAID this, but what he MEANT was…How do YOU know what he meant???? (this is all assuming jesus existed, and that he said anything at all).
Janet-
Thx. I know what He means because “the oracles of God have been entrusted to His people (Romans 3:1&2) and “one is not a jew who is one outwardly, but who is one inwardly” (Romans 2:28). Why did Jesus speak in parables so often?
One of the benefits of foolish, childlike trust is that you learn to comprehend the spiritual language, the native family tongue, not that I am anyone special-He is all. Mostly Romans 3:2 answers your question.
“One of the benefits of foolish, childlike trust is that you” believes everything someone with authority says. Be either your parents, your teachers or your priest. You can’t distinguish between “right” and “wrong” so you have to trust other people.
Well, at least it is a benefit for your priest.
“God is in the lie breaking, truth revealing business.”
…but evidentally, sits with his holy a$$ firmly planted in a Lazy-boy, while expecting his horribly underqualified peon “employees” to do all the leg-work. Good grief, no wonder the business is an utter failure!
Maybe what you think is His business is actually just a man made, poor facsimile? I’ve warned you against looking at the IC for Him, the long-robed wearing pious ones dont leave much room (in the stable of their hearts) for the King to be born amongst them, they have their own agenda’s. And the world has had quite enough of it for sure.
Wouldn’t that make me a representative of your god, John? I catch you in lies regularly, and you run away from those challenges. Doesn’t that mean you are running away from your god?
Or are you just lying again?
“Maybe what you think is His business is actually just a man made, poor facsimile?”
When does it matter what *I* “think”? You have made it crystal clear that you have zero intention of entertaining any position that doesn’t agree with your own. ‘ Best I can see, you are turning people AWAY from “His business”; not toward it.
“I’ve warned you against looking at the IC for Him..”
I’m not “looking” for what I don’t believe exists, much in the same way I’m not out “looking” for leprechauns. On the extremely off-chance that your invisible biblegod actually exists, the burden is on it to “find” me; not the other way around. And certainly, don’t expect me to be sympathetic to this alleged being if it intends on me, a limited being, to seek it out while it “eagerly” awaits me, but doesn’t lift a god-damned finger. Your “God”(if it exists) knows precisely what it would take to convince me, but does nothing. ‘Not my problem, pal.
I understand, when I said “I warned you” I didnt mean that in an ugly way Boomslang, I meant it in the context that you are making the mistake of blaming God for the pedophiles, the manipulators, etc, thats all.
“I understand..”
Lip service, anyone?
“….when I said ‘I warned you’ I didnt mean that in an ugly way Boomslang, I meant it in the context that you are making the mistake of blaming God for the pedophiles, the manipulators, etc, thats all.”
No(again)….I am not “blaming God”, because I don’t believe in “God”. I don’t believe in “God”….::hic’p::….I don’t believe in “God”…::hic’p::….I don’t believe in “God”. However, for sake of argument, if the biblegod that you (pretend to) worship actually exists, and it stands by and does nothing while pedophiles exercise their “free will”, then said being is not worthy of my worship. That’s right—if the “free will” of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc., takes precedence over “God’s Will”, then there is something seriously wrong with “God”, unless you’re willing to concede that said “God” is not “omnipresent”, nor “omnibenevolent”, nor “omnipotent”.
So which is it? Do you want Godbots or free will? Be assured, each of us will be rewarded according to our works, good or evil. God is not mocked, we will reap what we sow. When we really love God we will want to obey, to please Him, to do righteousness, not evil.
When the consequences of free will are either being a Godbot anyway or being tortured forever… why give free will at all? It’s a non-choice.
Dad to 4 year old:
“Here, son, here’s a loaded pistol. Go play.”
It would seem that if God was going to give his child something so potentially dangerous as free-will, he would have done a better job of warning him about the dangers. He would communicate more. His communications would be clear and unambiguous. Before the Fall he could have given Adam and Eve a preview of the potential consequences a la Milton’s Paradise Lost.
JohnC, I’m trying to understand something. Why is it when someone references the OT to make a point, and you don’t like that point, you give the answer that the NT is the new covenant. But, when you are trying to prove a point, you reference the OT and it is good.
I see so many Christians do this. They become very selective with what is and is not applicable when it comes to the OT. However, they will say that God is never changing, and never ending. Well, if that is true, and they have accepted the OT as part of their doctrine, then, they cannot pick and choose which parts they like. They are all from the same God, who is never changing. Just because it doesn’t fit into their concept of God, doesn’t change what is written, supposedly by Him through his chosen people.
Yea, the more He reveals Himself, His true nature the more beautiful He becomes and the scales begin to fall off our eyes that have been hiding the truth from our Father longing hearts (inner being). IF we will believe the highest, the best beyond our wildest dreams He will come and *certify that leap, that wonderful, beautiful truth. For thats who He is…Love.
Thanks for proving what I already know to be true… when Christians don’t like what is true, they dodge it. I used to dodge it to… but then the scales fell off my eyes and I realized that the Bible was not quite the perfect book that it had been presented to be. It was written by a bunch of men who had something to prove.
Thx…take care.
So you get caught being hypocritical again, and pass it off with more tired bullshit. Who do you think you are convinding, John? When you admit you don’t read the posts, when you lie about being here to proselytize, when you run away from simple challenges and never concede easily proven points, you make it clear that you are horribly ashamed of your beliefs and how indefensible they are. That feeling you get when people remind you of your hypocrisy? Yes, thats shame. You feel it so often perhaps you have become innured to it.
“Cafeteria christianity”!
Well, one can argue for a difference in the applicability of OT and NT creeds. OT with all its commandments is often described as the divine laws for the Israelites/Jews, who were God’s chosen people at the time. NT, being the new covenant, expands God’s chosen people to encompass all of humanity, and a new set of rules are put in place accordingly.
The (Christian) rationale seems to be that it was necessary for the Jews at the time to have this incredibly convoluted relationship with God – for some reason. But NT introduced new rules – for some reason. So a Christian can argue – with some right – that he doesn’t need to take OT’s frankly rather ridiculous commandments seriously.
Of course, this doesn’t stop many Christians from cherrypicking OT, like when they need a reason to disapprove of gays. They’ll gladly quote the commandments of Leviticus on this, but they will of course ignore other commandments regarding food or clothes. Neither does this distinction explain how abominations such as genocide or slavery in the OT times (and for that matter in NT times) can be compatible with a loving God, even if they don’t take place today. Neither do Christians agree whether the laws of OT are still valid or not, for that matter. They can agree on the Ten Commandments still being valid, but that’s about it.
Well, you probably know all this already, but I chose to point it out anyway. I’m not saying the distinction makes a lot of sense, though.
Thx TRJ, comments appreciated.
Yep… have heard all of the reasons you point out and more. But, ultimately, the Christian Bible includes the OT. If it was not meant to be part of the doctrine, then why did they leave it in? They could have taken it out, just as many Christian sects have done with other manuscripts. They could have kept those parts critical to Christian teaching and taken out those parts that no longer applied.
But, they didn’t. Apparently the hand of God led them to keep it in. As the Christian Church will tell you in their statement of ‘what they believe’, they believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and perfect in its entirety. This includes the OT… and I’ve never seen a footnote stating otherwise.
LeavingReligion,
Btw…thats a good thing…leaving “religion”, ha. Think of it like this…its not so much about the external print (bible) but rather the internal blueprint, His nature within us. When we know His true nature and heart for us, the external print comes into focus, even morphs a bit in the Light. We “see” aright. All the best.
Yeah, the OT/NT relationship is somewhat schizophrenic.
That is a very good way of putting it.
Not to be a nudge, but schizophrenia is not the same thing as multiple personality disorder, and that continuing misidentification in common parlance and popular culture causes serious problems when attempting to make effective social policy and insure that sick people get the help they need.
I’ll second that – never understood where schizophrenic = multiple personalities comes from.
Respect what you are saying, and as someone who grew up around a couple family members with mental illness, it is something I do not take lightly. Below are a couple of definitions, which, while not the only definitions out there, defend the use of the term above (and my agreement with the original poster of the word).
–
From dictionary.com:
schizophrenia [(skit-suh-free-nee-uh, skit-suh-fren-ee-uh)]
A form of psychosis marked by a strong tendency to dissociate oneself from reality. Schizophrenia is often characterized by hallucinations, delusions, and inappropriate reactions to situations. The word schizophrenia is often used informally as well as scientifically to indicate a split personality.
Another definition on the same page:
a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.
“schizophrenia is not the same thing as multiple personality disorder”.
Neither did I intend to use it that way. Rather, it was intended to indicate the inherent contradictory nature of the messages of OT/NT, in that they both draw support from each other and detract from each other. IOW “a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements”, as leavingreligion points out.
I know I was being a bit annoying, but my objection is to the informal definition, and the metaphorical meaning (i.e. “a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements”) which is derived from it. I know it’s a losing battle; just call it a pet peeve. :-)
Funny. Topics. Some interest some people but not others. For example, I am going no where near that UFO topic. If you knew what I knew, you wouldn’t either. Why am I interested in this topic? It’s the heart of the issue. And yet no Christian offers a cogent rebuttal.
I tried nomad, i think my post is being buggy, or was too long or something
or no one read it. one or the other :P
It was put into moderation for whatever reason (probably some trigger word). I just got a chance to look through the comments, and approved them.
Thanks!
Happy Father’s Day. I’m grateful to have a wonderful father and the faith that has been passed down through him and both of my grandfathers.
Ah, Brgulker!
Put some meat on those bones.
I love my father, the grandfather I still have, and the grandfather who’s already passed. I’m grateful for the life they’ve modeled for me and for showing me a life of faith that doesn’t remotely resemble Daniel’s opening remarks.
My dad and god liked a good BBQ, except my dad liked pulled pork.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt66kbYmXXk
Very well written. If only Christians would realize how terrible their god is. Even if they believe he is real, why would anyone want to worship a “Father” this saddistic?
I am a proud father of two wonderful children on the Father’s Day. I can only be thankful that my former Christian life didn’t inspire me to emulate the sky daddy in the Bible.
Thanks!
No such thing as a “Sky-Daddy”, at least not in Christianity (the one and only).
“The one and only…”
Must suck for all the other people who never even heard of it, eh?
Ahhhahahahaha!
That would be everyone, since none of us can live in John C’s imaginary world. The repeating, unthinking looped tape audio replay would drive others as nuts as he is, rendering actual conversational exchange of information addressing specific issues impossible.
That’s the catch, isn’t it? You can’t know him via a reasonable interpretation of the scriptures and you can’t know him via religion – only via a mystical experience that, apparently, you are entirely too powerless to control and is virtually indistinguishable from any other mystical and non-mystical experience. You have to abandon reason but not fall for the myriad similar, if not equal, lies – you have to believe, yet you cannot rely on those who (supposedly) know it, because each and every one has a different view of it.
To paraphrase Neil Gaiman, it’s like playing a variation of poker, in the dark, with blank cards, without knowing the rules, with infinite stakes and with a dealer who smiles all the time…
Ahh but if the Spirit is utterly trustworthy AND He is Love…then all the “risk” is gone eh? We dont trust the Father because we dont know what He is like. But if we did…
“Ahh but if the Spirit is utterly trustworthy AND He is Love…then all the “risk” is gone eh?”
Ahh, but no……like clockwork, your godspeak fails miserably, for there is always risk, uncertainy, anxiety, etc., when/if a “father” stands idly by and lets a child make all. of. the. effort. That is actually the antithesis of “fatherly love”—a *real* “father” has duties and obligations, and follows through with those duties and obligations. A *real* “father” doesn’t sit back and say, “I’m here!…come find me!!!!”…nor do they rely on another party to convince the child that they are loved. The “God is Love” canard doesn’t demonstrate jack’—”love” is verb, as well as a noun.
“We dont trust the Father because we dont know what He is like.”
Who’s “We”?…’you got a turd in your pocket?
I only have/had one “father”, and he is dead. I don’t trust your biblegod as a “father”, nor a “God”, because it hasn’t provided me with enough evidence to believe that it even exists, let alone that it is “trustworthy”.
God says He is your Father but Boomslang says it ‘taint so. And so for you, it isnt, or is it? ha. We are powerfully opposed to ourSelves aren’t we?
That man of pride we inherited, that one He nailed away, banished never to assail us again yet given deathly reign, resurrected by our own, unrenewed minds which have never seen the Light? If we could “see” beyond ourSelves, beyond the temporal, beyond the false and into the Potential, would we leave it all behind, could we?
I tell you there is more, more than meets the eye. And I tell you the truth.
“God says…”
Bzzzt!
“He is your Father..”
Bzzzt!
“but Boomslang says it ‘taint so.”
No. Try actually reading my words without putting your spin on it, and you’ll know what boomslang “says”.
“We are powerfully opposed to ourSelves aren’t we?”
Does make two turds, now?..one in each pocket?
TURD = Totally UnRenewed Dude or Truth UnhearRD? Is that the two you were searching for? :)
Go Boomer go!
No, John C….”turd” as in, each and every time that you attempt to speak on the behalf of other human beings…i.e..”We know..”(this, that, and the other thing)….or, “We need…”(this, that, and the other thing), you are not speaking on my behalf, nor anyone elses, and thus, the “We” must be someone or something other than the rest of us. If it’s not a couple of pocket-turds, then fine…. perhaps it’s you and the biblegod that you (pretend to) worship.
And how *do* we know if we can’t trust ourselves, can’t trust the written words (which you have to mindbend out of recognition to make any sense of, accepting the nice parts on face value and interpreting the hell out of the bad ones), can’t trust the church, can’t trust anything but a very unreliable tale by some Bronze-Age goat herders who weren’t even competent enough to write things as they are and some indistinct warm fuzzy feeling that could easily, ever so easily, be attributed to something else altogether?
No. All we have to follow is your word that your special flavor of God (opposed to every other flavor of God, whose followers are as convinced as you are) is Love, that Reason is Wrong and he sent a mythic warrior we only know of from legends we can’t trust (since they reside side by side with tales of genocide, prejudice and hate) because someone we don’t know did something in a time we can’t know of and was impossible to stop.
It’s impossible to win. The stakes are either abandon all reason, all rational thought, all humanity and become a slave of some perverted interpretation of ‘Truth’ (and possibly lose anyway, as you may just believe the wrong flavor of ‘love’ or trespass some invisible rule you didn’t even know was there or was powerless to stop, like eating shrimp or loving another human of the same gender) or simply burn forever. Believe, or else. Trust the unknowable, or else. Be reckless and childish and ignorant, or else.
All because of something you never asked for and was powerless to avoid.
That’s your Christianity, John C. Call it love, call it Jesus, call it Truth, but it’s no less horrific and disgusting. I can say Hitler loved Germany all I want, but a genocide is a genocide and the dead are still dead.
Boomslang-
I’m just tryin to have a little fun along the way, heck I get called every name in the book and let is slide like water off a ducks back. I appreciate you, your willingness to engage, discuss, etc.
I will leave you alone my friend, take care.
Siberia-
Yours is a good description of mankinds dilemma. The problem lies in our unwillingness to believe the Solution which has been provided for us. I say things like “God is love” because that has been my experience upon believing, trusting, following for a quarter century now. This is not a conclusion I arrived at casually, but intensely, experientially, etc.
When I say things like “listen to your heart, its the nearest aspect of you to God, its trustworthy”, etc I mean just that. We have lost touch with what (and Who) matters, we dis-believe His very existance, believe we have been essentially orphaned and dont believe that if there is a God, a Father that He is for us, loves us with an everlasting love, etc. These are all positions in opposition to the Truth, and opposing the Truth is a great vanity, futility.
So, many will ridicule what I am about to say (heck what have I got lose now, ha), but here goes. Think of me as a “spiritual scientist”. I have tried, examined, proofed, tested, failed, succeeded, observed the many “promises” of God and have found Him to be utterly trustworthy, to be Love, to be for us, not against us. I have spent most of my (adult) life in pursuit of Truth. He is who He says He is and in that one thing, His unwavering, trustworthy Character (of Love) is our only hope. But He is “above” our natural mind and limited ways, His ways being “higher’ than ours. The only way we get to come up, to see, to fellowship is, ironically in the paradoxical ways of God is to humble ourselves, give in, be childlike, trust Him…just like Jesus said.
I dont know how I can say it any plainer than that. Its like we want “the way” to be academic, methodical but this King is childlike Himself, in His innocence, Oneness, etc.
Just today I went to the bookstore and sat in an old leather chair. The Lord began to speak to my heart about how He takes one who isnt a child of God and makes them a people of God. I saw for two hours the process that He initiates, conforms and completes, it was beautiful. The problem is this damned thing called religion, its not representative of Him and we must divorce ourselves from any association with it. Anyway, I’m off on another tangent now…but thanks for the comments, I appreciate you, all of you.
John C – you say:
“I have tried, examined, proofed, tested, failed, succeeded, observed the many “promises” of God and have found Him to be utterly trustworthy, to be Love, to be for us, not against us.”
What promises? What happened that was so miraculous it could not have been chance? Did a limb grow back? Did the children of Somalia suddenly stop dying of starvation? What makes you think anything that happened could be attributed to god? And why does he choose not to show this side to billions of people around the world who are abused, tortured, raped, murdered and who never know a joyful day in their entire life? Don’t you think THEY pray too?
Makes me happy I never new my Father.
In John C’s latest barrage of unproven, unconfirmed, pseudo-spirital godspeak…. towards the middle of it all, he interjects….
” I dont know how I can say it any plainer..”
Once again, John C., this is *not* about how “plain” you make your position. Please……..please let it penetrate your noggin—–this is about you being unable to offer one scrap of objective evidence to substantiate your position. Yes, “reason” and “evidence” are unimportant to you. Yes, we know this. Yes, becoming like a wittle child is necessary. Yes, ‘got it. Yes, we know you believe “God is love”. Yes, we know you believe “there is more!”…yes, we already know all these things, due to you asserting them daily. Notwithstanding, people who have NOT had the personal “experiences” nor the “successful” track-record you claim to have had with your “God”, are skeptical, and rightfully so. Again, with “faith”, ANY set of spiritual/religious beliefs can be “true” to the one who simply turns off their intellect and “just believes”, which is essentailly what you are asking us to do. Again, if your biblegod actually exists, and it actually wants us to be convinced, then it can do just that. And BTW, for the bazillionth time—it’s not that I “don’t want to believe”…..it’s that I am UNable to.
Thanks Boomslang…believe it or not I actually understood your comment, the why’s, etc- it registered! ha. True, sometimes my reference point must be very difficult to follow being wildly unique, unorthodox or just plain weird, ha.
I suppose the only thing that may be informative, useful to you about what I share is that, like I said, its not something I came to quickly, hastily. I doubt that means much to you but I’m trying hard to find some commonality, some small bridge from which to communicate more effectively to you. Thanks.
I dont agree with your theory about God. It is so easy to see all the hurt that the devil caused but for every wrong the devil done our God done so much more to show His love for us.
The fact that you lost God and say that you were a Christian and now a athiest, then you should remember that you still believe in something, all do. And I will pray that your life will be saved and that you will have the best meeting with the Heavenly Father before it is to late for you. God still love you and is reaching out to you!!!! Be Blessed
You can’t lose something that doesn’t exist in the first place. Logic FAIL.
Its really sad to see people cling to these childish, primitive beliefs. Thankfully all religions are based on the same un-truths. It is only until we can emancipate ourselves from these silly, wish-thinking, nonsensical cults will we ever be able to achieve the full potential of our species.
Thank you. You have brought a smile to my face with regard to Father’s Day. My father disowned me over 20 years ago and so it is a bit of a sore point with me. But my father, compared to the Heavenly Father, described in this article, is a sweety pie.
So, thanks.
What an interesting and fascinating perspective. I never thought of all these things at once this way. Thanks for writing this.
John C – I saw your comment, and made detailed response – also not sure which thread that was on lol
Reminds me of this:
One can’t look at the mathematical beauty of the laws of physics, trillions of galaxies, countless stars, and immediately conclude that the God Who was responsible for it all also took a special interest in the Jewish people back in the Bronze Age, that this interest culminated in the birth, death, and resurrection of some wandering rabbi a couple thousand years ago in a far-off corner of the Roman Empire, that this rabbi was an incarnation of this God, that this rabbi’s death somehow satisfied this God’s wrath which was somehow provoked by our prior actions, or that his resurrection somehow guaranteed us eternal life in some alternate plane of existence for which there is no scientific evidence.
I think this cartoon emphasizes your point nicely.
I keep reading comments that say “He dwells inside of us”. Where?
From all the dissections I’ve carried out I’ve never seen a “god organ”. Where in the body does this being dwell? The brain? Perhaps the cecum?
That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit, spirit.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? It has no meaning other than to further obfuscate a fluff filled philosophy. (i.e. non-answer)
JC -
Yours is a good description of mankinds dilemma. The problem lies in our unwillingness to believe the Solution which has been provided for us. I say things like “God is love” because that has been my experience upon believing, trusting, following for a quarter century now. This is not a conclusion I arrived at casually, but intensely, experientially, etc.
You’re assuming I am unwilling to believe. That is not the case, JC. For a long time I have wished to believe. For a long time I’ve tried to understand what people seem to believe so effortlessly. I live in a very religious country, JC. There is a reason why I seek these types of forums – because it is so much harder to do over here. Trust me, JC, I wished to.
When I say things like “listen to your heart, its the nearest aspect of you to God, its trustworthy”, etc I mean just that. We have lost touch with what (and Who) matters, we dis-believe His very existance, believe we have been essentially orphaned and dont believe that if there is a God, a Father that He is for us, loves us with an everlasting love, etc. These are all positions in opposition to the Truth, and opposing the Truth is a great vanity, futility.
Maybe I am vain, maybe I am futile, but I am not sorry, JC. I can only work from what I know (with my unreliable, “adamic” senses) and what I feel. What I feel is no faith, no presence, no extraneous love. I have spent countless nights begging for God or Gods to talk to me and show me the way, to open my heart and my mind to what other people see and I don’t. I sensed nothing. I never did.
I was six when I started to realize that maybe something was wrong. I see my mother pray for me and nothing change outside the realm of science. I saw it then and I wondered.
I still sometimes test it, JC. I’m not such a staunch atheist that I never question myself. I do. I think, “what if I am wrong?” I even tried other religions, other faiths. I’ve tried to be pagan. I’ve tried to be Buddhist. I’ve tried so many things, JC, and I’m only twenty four. I questioned and I begged and I cried, and all I got was silence.
If I was vain, I was vain even as a child. That’s when I started to deny your ineffable, unknowable Truth.
So, many will ridicule what I am about to say (heck what have I got lose now, ha), but here goes. Think of me as a “spiritual scientist”. I have tried, examined, proofed, tested, failed, succeeded, observed the many “promises” of God and have found Him to be utterly trustworthy, to be Love, to be for us, not against us.
I won’t ridicule you. I’ve seen so many believers who have the utmost reason to believe what they do. Do I think they are deluded? Yes. I think they are seeing patterns where patterns do not exist. Spiritual pareidolia, if you will.
So I ask, which promises? Which promises that you had answered, as I have not?
I don’t have a story of deconversion to tell – I have a story of one who failed to be converted at all. Let me tell you a story: I was eight months old when I had a painful, crippling, incurable illness. I have a very religious mother who believes in miracles (but, thankfully, believes they work through science and doctors). I prayed; I prayed as a child prays. Do you know what I asked for? I began thanking the God of my mother, the Christian god, for everything (even if everything meant a crippling, incurable illness). Do you know what I asked next? For little children in Africa who had lives so much worse than mine. I swear to you I asked such a thing. Why not? I always heard God can do anything. He’s limitless. He loves his creations, yet he leaves them to die and be tortured for one particular event that we, the children, are powerless to alter.
I asked for my mother’s health, for my sister’s health, for my father’s health, I asked for my own cure. Then I gave up trying to force myself to pray. I felt nothing when I did; I had no prayers answered. There was no consolation. Nothing.
I have spent most of my (adult) life in pursuit of Truth. He is who He says He is and in that one thing, His unwavering, trustworthy Character (of Love) is our only hope. But He is “above” our natural mind and limited ways, His ways being “higher’ than ours. The only way we get to come up, to see, to fellowship is, ironically in the paradoxical ways of God is to humble ourselves, give in, be childlike, trust Him…just like Jesus said.
I dont know how I can say it any plainer than that. Its like we want “the way” to be academic, methodical but this King is childlike Himself, in His innocence, Oneness, etc.
I was not childlike even as a child, then. I did not believe Santa, I did not have imaginary friends, I did not trust the unknown – I never did – I questioned even my own shadow’s existence! I have tried to humble myself, I have tried to given in, yet I felt and heard nothing. Maybe I have not done it enough. But I did so honestly, sincerely, and nothing changed. If I am doing it wrong, how can I know? To me, I was honest. To me, I cried. Yet nothing happened. Nothing. I can no more force myself to believe than I can force my own heart to stop beating. I cannot force myself to love something I have no reason – none – to even know exists, let alone love. I cannot force myself to trust something that was never there for me in the first place, at least not in any way I could recognize. If I cannot trust my own perceptions and feelings, what then? What? Do you see? There isn’t a hope. You can’t trust even your own perceptions. Maybe you feel you know yours, but what makes you so sure you’re not as deluded as I am? My reality feels real. Yours does too. Who is right?
Just today I went to the bookstore and sat in an old leather chair. The Lord began to speak to my heart about how He takes one who isnt a child of God and makes them a people of God. I saw for two hours the process that He initiates, conforms and completes, it was beautiful. The problem is this damned thing called religion, its not representative of Him and we must divorce ourselves from any association with it. Anyway, I’m off on another tangent now…but thanks for the comments, I appreciate you, all of you.
You’ve seen something beautiful. Kudos to you.
It saddens me that people of faith need spirits to see beauty. I’m quite happy with my fallen adamic nature, if that’s what it is. I have seen beauty there. They were there when your mythic hero was not. Maybe I will burn for it, and you know what? I don’t care. Fine. It’s what he wanted, isn’t it? Even as a child I did not believe. I could not. I cannot. If He made me, He made me this way – skeptical, atheistic.
You can have your truth, you can have your mystical love. Fine. You’re happy. I’m glad you are. I will keep my own flawed understanding and my own falsehood, if that’s what it is. I refuse to throw myself against a metaphysical brick wall out of fear and a desperate hope. If that makes me proud, so be it. If that makes me sinful, so be it. Your God made me that way. It’s His problem. I tried and He didn’t meet me halfway. I tried with all that I have and had no answer. I don’t know what else to do but think He isn’t there at all or, if He is, He doesn’t give one iota about me (or the little children in Africa I prayed for), only his chosen happy friends.
Sorry it’s long. Sorry it’s emotional. Maybe your God made me do it.
It’s funny and disturbing at the same time to see how this text jumbles fundamentalist beliefs (which it rejects – oh, surprise!) and laying the blame for human errors at the doorstep of a God the author does not believe in!
I would say take your hatred of your father out on your father or better try therapy to rid you of his firm clutch! Your strategy is transparent and obviously self-defeating!
It’s funny and disturbing at the same time to see how this text jumbles fundamentalist beliefs (which it rejects – oh, surprise!) and laying the blame for human errors at the doorstep of a God the author does not believe in!
If I make a faulty software and it breaks, whose fault is it?
If I write an insecure piece of code and it’s hacked, whose fault is it?
He’s the maker of everything, right? He knows everything, right? He’s all-powerful, right?
Of course, He isn’t ’cause He ain’t there, or at least acts as such.
I really appreciate this article. It reminds me of the beginning of my own skepticism a few short years ago. Everybody who ever talked to me about God told me how good and merciful he was. So I began to read the Bible. My jaw figuratively dropped as this grotesque image emerged. I was at a loss as to what I was supposed to find comforting and appealing about it. For a while I, surrounded by fundamentalists as I am, I thought I was the only one that saw this ominous image. I wondered why. Was I just an incorrigible reprobate? Then I realized, these people have not even read the Bible. What they were presenting me with was the sanitized version (God is love) that comes from the pulpit. It’s good to find people with a similar perspective to my own. Thank God for the Internet.
“The Jew, Your Majesty.” –Disraeli
ADD A SHARE THIS BUTTON! PLEASE!
5 Trackbacks
[...] friend, ex-evangelical Christian Daniel Florien, has a Father’s Day provocative post on his site, unreasonablefaith.com. It’s titled “The Worst Father Ever Imagined.” [...]
[...] a day late I’m posting it a day late, Daniel has the ultimate Father’s Day post: The Worst Father Ever Imagined: Later he decided it was time to shake things up, so he impregnated a young women named Mary. He [...]
[...] The Worst Father Ever Imagined | Unreasonable Faith Quote: [...]
[...] The Worst Father Ever Imagined [...]
[...] law that says that a man who rapes a virgin must marry her. That is just one of many things. This article from Unreasonable Faith pretty much sums up most of my issues with the Christian [...]