In the last few weeks I have been having a conversation with a number of Christian apologists about the basis of Christian belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible. This conversation has mainly been about the way in which the Bible was put together and the influences on this process. When we look at the history of this process we find violence, bribery, torture, and political maneuvering. It is very difficult to find anything spiritual within this history.
When the evidence is finally sifted through the “faith” appeal usually is the final appeal for believers. Basically it means that we need to have “faith” in those things that can’t be defended through reason. An interesting application of this “faith” approach is by quoting J. B. Phillips. He used the term “ring of truth” to refer to the Divine nature of the Bible. He noted, as he was translating the Bible, he felt a general “ring of truth” unique to the Bible as compared to his work translating other ancient documents. To be fair to J. B. Phillips, he didn’t believe in verbal inspiration, that Satan was real, nor in many of the “miracles” of Jesus. He would relegate them to either parables, alternate explanations, or myths.In his autobiography he stated, “...I felt bound to abandon the `God-dictated-every-word- from-cover-to-cover' attitude, and won an attitude which commends itself to my intelligence as well as my faith..." (The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 150).
I want to look at, more specifically, the gospels. I think if there is a "ring of truth" around the gospels, its because of the profound wisdom of some of the teachings of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus is divine or is the only source of true wisdom. Much like J. B. Phillips, I don't find a "ring of truth" around the historical account because it appears that there are accommodations for later orthodox beliefs and for several doctrinal problems encountered in the first few centuries of Christianity.There are some contributions that Jesus makes that, I believe, go unrecognized because of all the emphasis on his death as a sacrifice, the claim of his divine nature, and the need for salvation, which I have come to believe have their source in the strong Greek, Pagan, and Roman influences on the early Christian church.
I would also note that many of us, who grew up in Christian cultures, are working under a fair amount of conditioning in regards to Christianity. And that conditioning has a fair amount of fear involved. This "faith based" reasoning has its counter parts in other traditions that most Christians would find unbelievable. One simply has to note the strong hold the Qur'an has on most Muslims as the final revelation of God or the Book of Morman as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.
Christians dismiss the mythology of the Qur'an and the Book of Morman for reasons they are unwilling to apply to the Bible because they have "faith." When I look at what is typical of most religious beliefs systems I find the same types of myth building within Christianity. These are powerful cultural influences that are linked very deeply to a person's view of the world. They are not easy to change because they have such a strong momentum.When I step back from my cultural momentum and view Christian history and belief from a rational perspective, I find the same problems as I find in other belief systems and if I am going to retain an intellectually honest perspective, I need to apply the same types of tests to all belief systems no matter how painful that process may be, because, ultimately, I have found that, as Jesus said, the truth does set one free.
And this brings me back to what may provide a “ring of truth” to the gospel account of Jesus and his teachings. There are a number of themes that Jesus addresses, but the one that is often the most recognizable is his statement that we love our neighbor as our self. This statement is not unique to Jesus since we find the same statement in the Torah. And this is not simply some wise saying, but it is one of the two statements that define the law of God in Jewish belief. The first one being the requirement to love God with all your heart.
In the Torah the statement reads like this
“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:18 NKJ
In this context the idea of one’s neighbor is only within the children of one’s own people. What Jesus adds, through the story of the Good Samaritan, is the idea of one’s neighbor extends far beyond one’s own people. We empathize with the poor man beaten by robbers, abandoned by his countrymen and feel his relief at being taken care of by the Samaritan, who is considered an outcast. And when Jesus asks us who was this beaten man’s neighbor, we feel the injustice of excluding the kind Samaritan from our love simply because he is a Samaritan.I think this is the key concept that Jesus brings to us. He takes an ethical principle (love your neighbor as yourself) that is based on empathy and uses that empathy to extend this principle to all people. He further links this idea to empathy when he states “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” This is quoted in both Luke 6:31 and in Matthew 7:12.
This idea of empathy, rather than authority, as the basis of ethical behavior puts a lot of confidence in the human heart. It puts confidence in the human capacity to imagine how it might feel to be in another’s place and experience. It also puts a lot of confidence in the ability of one to love one’s self. For me, love for one’s self is the ability to imagine how it might feel to see one’s self from another’s perspective of grace.
This idea, to be fully realized, requires elements of both eastern and western thought. Eastern religious practice has made an art form of the exploration of the inner self. Its practices have the ability to awaken the capabilities of the heart and the capabilities of awareness. Western religious practice has emphasized much of the practical application of belief. Empathy, to be fully developed needs a rich and full inner life and a clear awareness of the world around. Empathy, to be fully applied, needs to know how to turn the gifts of the inner life into connections with others.Eastern practice tries to avoid dualistic types of thinking to find the middle path. In Western terms this would be a form of Grace, where one gives up the need to punish and refrains from judging. All of these were explored by Jesus within the context of Jewish law. Jesus stated that to judge others was to judge oneself and to be free from judgment one had to refrain from judging others. He was also very practical in his application of love. He references acts of kindness and love as the determining factor of one’s inner life. Acts of kindness done to others was doing them to God. This may have indicated how Jesus saw connections between all and the spirit of God within.
Paul, who claimed to be an apostle, said “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” 1st Corinthians 10:24 This is a major shift in ethical emphasis. I believe this created a competition for goodness within Christianity. If one takes away the love for one’s self, empathy is taken away as well. For I no longer have a self to reference other’s feelings. And if I don’t seek my own good at all, then my ability to sustain my own life will take my gifts away from others eventually and in the mean time reduce their effectiveness.
With the introduction of Jesus becoming a sacrifice for our sins, we no longer have a self sustaining philosophy of empathy, but a sacrificing god who we are now required to emulate. The focus is taken off our connection with others through empathy. It is now focused on how much we can sacrifice. The suffering of Jesus and its contemplation holds front and center rather than love for our fellow beings. Ultimately this becomes a practice of self contemplation. The contemplation of one’s worthiness or unworthiness as it may be.If we can tease one more thing from Jesus, we might contemplate the possible intent of this statement.
'I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink'...Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?...'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Matthew 25:35, 37, 40
If we see Jesus as human, then we could say that any kindness or harm we do is done to everyone. If we see Jesus as Divine, we could say that the Divine dwells in everyone. If we see him as both we could say that everyone is a member of the family and everyone is Divine. I’m sure there are infinite variations of how we might see the nature of humans and Jesus.
What I have observed within communities that I have participated in is that when a person is allowed to tell their story from their heart and is really heard within that community a bond develops and actions naturally come forth. It is clear that when these empathetic connections are established there is a natural desire and motivation to love one another. It comes from the stories of people’s lives told in honest and nonjudgmental ways. And it doesn’t matter what people believe or don’t believe in these moments. That empathetic connection communicates much more than ideals, doctrines, words, philosophies, theologies, or ethics could ever instruct.So if there is a “ring of truth” in the gospels, for me, it is introduction of empathy as the basis for the expression of love toward each other. May we learn how to more fully feel and express our empathy. I think it would be a far better world if everyone knew how to do this well.
17 comments:
You seem very intelligent even if your views are, like, in another world compared to mine :) I can't sound that smart even if I tried, but I was wondering if you could tell me your theory on mental defects like sociopathy and why a new study of over 30,000 teens says that 1 in 5 have a personality disorder like bi-polar, sociopathy, borderline personality disorder, etc. I heard that on CNN not too long ago and it freaked me out even if it didn't surprise me.
When I hear stats like these I think it is very important have a strong sense of doubt. There are several factors that may be involved.
The first is that a criteria has been applied to a population that has never had it applied before. This can make it look like a syndrome all of sudden came to be, when in fact it was always present but never analyzed.
We may be looking at a difficult stage of growth in which it would be normal to be more self centered and many of those "diagnosed" simply grow out of it. One criteria for the diagnosis for an Antisocial personality disorder is that the person be over 18 and have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of 15. So any study of teenagers on sociopathy would have to be only 19 year olds with a long documented history of anti social behavior to make a diagnosis. It seems unlikely, to me, that this study of 30,000 teens would meet this criteria. It makes a good news story though.
We would also have to learn how they selected those included in the study. The selection process can artificially concentrate a particular disorder. We would also have to exclude drug use, because this introduces a whole new set of organic influences. Addiction involves a whole different set of influences.
If we find a group of teens that doesn't include addiction or any organic cause including exposure to toxins I think we might be looking at a lack of training in empathy. This requires frontal lobe development.
I know that hyper-religious training that discourages rational thinking and teens that have a lack of discipline can create teens that have a lack of empathy. This involves the frontal lobe of the brain and once these critical development years have passed, retraining this area of the brain becomes very difficult because now the bodily emotional responses to the feelings of others have not been developed or connected in way that makes them available.
If you want a very graphic illustration of this just go to the web site of Mark Horner called beyond 90 seconds and look at the interview of Esther, who is fasting in protest of the imprisonment of Wayne Bent. She has been trained to have a value system that only responds to authority and may never develop a personality of her own. You are seeing the result of a conditioning process that began at the age of 5. Its obvious that she has emotional responses to the questions asked of her, but she suppresses these and goes into that vacant auto response mode. It is very sad and hard to watch.
It is obviously a very complicated system of development and any answer I give is going to be a reduction. What is hopeful is that an intelligent application of love and care has demonstrated success in many cases of children with non organic personality disorders.
You're right, it did make a good news story. I wasn't surprised though. Remember the parenting rationale of the 80's? Encourage your child to follow their own path, decide what is right for themselves, don't push your beliefs on them, and it was all about self-esteem. Esteeming SELF. It doesn't really sound bad on the surface, but I was a child of this rationale and I can honestly say I was probably, no, most definitely a sociopath by all definition up until God changed my heart...which took years to undo all the world had twisted my brain into. It was all about me, I am the master, I decide what is right or wrong based on my own wants and desires, and by the way that selfish way of thinking made my life very difficult. I was miserable. So when I see all the craziness and rampant crime and just plain psychotic stuff in the world I can't help but relate it to selfishness. Of course it has always been around, but it just seems like its on the rampage. I can't help but think that all the indulgence in self has come to fruition in a society with children and teens as sociopaths. They eventually turn into adult sociopaths because you can't just grow a conscience with a few cognitive restructuring classes that are mandatory programming for anyone in the justice system. I don't need a previous study to see my 11 yr. old neices as being swayed in this direction, do I? I can even add the theory of organic influences to that since both their parents were active drug users during and after conception. Have you watched Disney or Nickelodeon lately? All those teen shows and the influence, as well as reflection of society is just crazy. So, I guess I pretty much think the world is crazy, right? And headed to hell in a handbasket?I guess it would seem that way. Try raising kids in this world and not look at it as dangerous and devastating. Doesn't it all come from selfishness?
Some can carry it too far, like everything else, and renounce self to the point of becoming a brainwashed shell. If this is the teaching of Ellen White that you say is responsible for Esther's state of mind then I can see where you might draw that conclusion. Selfishness should be eradicated in the heart in order to conform to the image of God that we had before the fall of Adam, right? Empy self, fill with Christ,to sum it up. Well, then you have someone else coming along and twisting that teaching into something unhealthy. She has obviously emptied out her self and given into total obedience, but it isn't to Jehovah she has given herself over to. There are some very real and deceptive spirits out there, and what can feel like God with all her senses, if it isn't in harmony with the Bible then it is not Jesus. I believe what she is experiencing is real, oh I know its real. When these people talk about laying naked and being healed, I most certainly do believe its a spirit that has entered them and "they are the spirits of devils working miracles". I think I believe in the Bible more because of things like this.
I have many of the same concerns over values for my own sons as you have expressed. I also hear that you found something in Christianity that helped you transition from a self-centered world view. I agree that self-centeredness creates misery. I think that its normal for teens to go through a self-centered period of development. The challenge is helping them through that period into something that brings them meaning and satisfaction. Part of that process is allowing them to experience the results of being self-centered in a safe way.
Just as you learned that being self-centered didn't bring you what you wanted, each person can learn this as they grow. In our culture Christianity has been the most vocal vessel of looking outside ourselves, but that doesn't mean that it is the only source or that everything Christianity has to say is helpful or good.
I wouldn't claim that kind of certainty about any particular approach to meaning and happiness. I think a common misconception that Christians have about secular approaches is that there is one unified counter to Christianity. This is simply not true since many humanists use the philosophy of Jesus to engage ideas around love and forgiveness. And yet they see the claims of his divinity, virgin birth, and miracles something that was added on to satisfy a primitive culture's need for mythology.
We don't need the Bible to tell us that self-centeredness doesn't work. Life and suffering tell us that. And solutions are often a combination of mentorship, love, wisdom, and life experience from a wide variety of sources. These may present themselves under the umbrella of Christianity, but they can be lost when Christian belief is applied too literally and without critical analysis. I observe this happening far too often within Christian cultures.
I have found that when we simply accept things because they are "Biblical" or some other authority has blessed them, this makes us vulnerable to cultic manipulation.
The point where my sons began to really find satisfaction in life was when they discovered the value of personal responsibility and finding meaning outside of themselves. This happened for my older son when he took a course on philosophy and he began to realize that life is quite a bit more complicated.
I think we underestimate what we are capable of. I have found that just being open to the possibilities brings with it some pretty wonderful resources. And this involves some very simple things like hope, love, and compassion.
I have at one time or another thought the exact same way as you when I was an atheist. I thought Christians were delusional when they talked about the Holy Spirit, I thought they were just weak and needy, or uneducated and trying to fill some void with a religion they were conditioned or taught to seek out. I've had every humanistic thought pass through my own head, so I totally get what you are saying. My question is, what is your belief on spirits or the spiritual world. Do you believe in the devil as a literal being? How do you explain the deepest evil like the rape of infants, or that guy in Belgium that just knife-attacked a daycare center and stabbed a 6 and 9 month old to death? How does our intelligent society allow human biengs to sink so far into depravity and what is the humanistic solution?
Blogging is so impersonal, its easier for me to talk to people, but typing a stranger...it's so, well, culturally popular that it's weird to me. :) I'm just dying to know what turned you off from religion so bad, please don't think I'm prying, I am fascinated to know why what maybe drew me in is what turned another off.
Well, I'm not an atheist as far as a creator, but an agnostic. I am an atheist when it comes to the god of the Bible. I also understand the concept of a spirit world. I don't have any critical points on the inner spiritual life of Christians. I experience a connection with what some people call the Divine, but as an agnostic the most honest answer I have for this experience is that I don't know.
To claim that there is a devil or some hidden source of evil that causes people to do crazy things has no evidence that I can find. There are plenty of other explanations for the actions of these people that you have mentioned. Fortunately these people are the minority. I think you will find some sort of drug abuse within most of these examples and when you don't, I think we have recognized the presence of mental disease. Assigning these to a devil, to me, is a step backward.
I think that humanism has recognized the need for meaning and religion seems to meet this need for many people. For me, I shifted because of my own search for truth. When I study the history of Christianity and the vast amount of ancient literature now available, quite a different story of how Christianity came to be, begins to emerge.
I had intuitionally recognized that many of the things I was taught to take seriously were simply not true and the more I began to understand the political and cultural reasons behind these beliefs within Christianity the more I recognized that Christianity is simply a stage of religious evolution and doesn't have a Divine origin, but has a much more human one.
As far as a solution to these problems Christianity has no better solution than anyone else. Just as we have solved many other problems through experience and reason, these tools are the best we have. And even if you are a Christian, reason and experience are required to be successful. So many Christians talk like they have already solved these problems when there is no evidence that they have done so.
Because I have confidence in humanity means that I embrace the use of compassion, insight, wisdom, intuition, attention, meditation, and other tools that religion seems to think are exclusive to religion. The problem I have with Christianity is its exclusiveness and its general unwillingness to subject itself to critical analysis even though there is so much evidence that many of its beliefs have been wrong in the past and many of its current beliefs need to be updated. And for me personally, its whole basis is on mythology, so I chose to search else where for my own solutions.
If reason and experience is all I need to prove success, then boy have I got it :) I'm a very reasonable person, and God is not beyond appealing to reason; it's not all faith. He says,"Come, let us reason." That's why after getting a firm grasp on scripture and its meaning as a whole, then it was like a light bulb was floating over my head. I guess for me, after my journey for truth took me just about everywhere, when I had experienced everything else and turning to the Bible last, it really made me appreciate the truth I found in it even more. So I guess I do feel I have the evidence you talked about because my life is evidence. My mental health being restored, my intense inner struggles and pain were replaced with genuine happiness. And that's not something that one can just trick themselves into feeling, that is divine intervention. I know there is something outside of myself, a power and a love that no human reason can explain. To me, knowing what I went through makes it a miracle, and not a card trick.
When you say you are connnected to the divine, tell me what you mean. Are you connected to that "universal spirit" or journeyed on what some call the astralplain? Have you experienced spiritual awakening? I'm using the language that's recognizable to those who have been on that level. I've been there, and that is what ultimately had me running to a God I had always denied. I see spiritualism and its deceptions from a unique perspective. It is also why I believe in demonic activity. What I've seen could be turned into a movie, and no, there were no drugs involved. If you doubt the existence of the devil, go to Haiti. Demonic possession is very common. And I don't believe these are people driven crazy by poverty and the stresses associated with it, if you knew their rituals then it makes sense. Especially when you know that the battle raging is a battle for the mind.
Also, what is this ancient literature you talk about? Give me some titles, I'd like to see what they say.
I obviously invite the critical analysis that you talk about because I'm talking to you. As for mythology, I used to think that too, then I had to ask myself why everything was so intensly anti-Jesus. It took me awhile to understand why He was such a big deal or even part of the equation. But now that I know, it just makes all the sense in the world. Once I really opened up to Bible truth it was just one light bulb after another.
I'm fascinated by your quest for truth, I think it is awesome. I like how you said that you have to be just as critical to other theories as you are to Christianity. Critically analyze EVERYTHING. I was the same way, and in the end I was the fool I had always criticized, I became a Christian.
When you ask me what the Divine is, I will tell you that I don't know. As you have said this aspect of life is not explainable. It is just as inexplainable to me as it is to you. Unfortunately Christianity claims to have certainty about this thing that is really unknown. They claim that the Bible is the best description and best source of this connection to the Divine and that it is the only means to salvation. And if you don't take this path you are condemned to die in a lake of fire and for some you are condemned to burn for all eternity.
This whole system of claims really doesn't hold water when reason is applied. This is not a plan of salvation, its a threat and reveals that in the final analysis it is not love that motivates, but fear.
I am not hostile to Jesus at all. The teachings of Jesus are revolutionary by themselves. If we really followed all the teachings of Jesus capitalism would be completely destroyed and the defense of this nation would be completely abandoned. And yet Christianity defends these national values against the teachings of Jesus.
I have found far greater peace and joy outside of Christian belief than I ever found within it. So my experience is quite the opposite of yours. I know a great number of people that live very productive and giving lives completely outside of Christian influence. This tells me that Christianity is not the exclusive source of this experience even though it claims to be. Historically Christians have tended to kill anyone who didn't agree. We are presently in a very short period of Christianity where this does not happen. And it is not Christians that have restrained themselves, but a secular government inspired by a secular philosophy.
Now I can understand how having a Christian framework for a world view could be very helpful. It provides community, purpose, meaning, and sense of certainty. Christianity can also provide fear, shame, a sense of never being good enough, and make a virtue of low self esteem. These are very common results of taking Christianity seriously. So, while you may not experience these, many others do.
This tells me that Christianity, just like every other approach, is flawed. And while I take things from Jesus that do work and do provide happiness, I am wise enough to know that this is not the whole story.
If you want to read informed scholars on the Bible and its source there are a number of good books by Bart Ehrman. His scholarly look at the Bible is called "Misquoting Jesus: The story about who changed the bible and why." And a book that he just published that I haven't read but looks very current is "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer."
He is very thorough and was once a very devout Christian and studied both Greek and Hebrew to prove that the Bible was true. The problem was that once he could read these ancient languages he discovered quite a different story than the one taught by most Christian denominations.
These are difficult things to wrestle with and I have learned to let go of a lot of ideas I thought I needed to hold on to. It is quite humbling to come face to face with the truth. The truth is that no body really knows and because of this, we need to be much more careful about what we claim about god and god's motivations. People do very cruel things to hold on to their cherished ideas about god.
I never said I couldn't explain that aspect of life; I actually can. Whether or not you'll believe me is a different matter.
I can't imagine that the whole system of Christian claims doesn't hold water. The whole lake of fire "prepared for the devil and his angels" thing does make sense. It will consume the wicked, and that does make sense to me. We have laws and rules in our society, and there are consequences, so why wouldn't there be consequences to breaking the holy law? Even eastern religions teach karma, and evil being repaid for evil, good for good. The concept is not new. I think it holds water, I haven't seen any proof that it doesn't. I guess when it comes to proof, there is as much and as little the other way as there is in the Christian system of belief. I don't think there is anything that author you mentioned can bring to the table that another archaelogist, master of Greek, Hebrew, etc., or any other scholar could not contradict. Like with the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance, it is word for word with the Bible. So if I take his word, I would have to throw out the scholarly debates from more qualified people than he. I can answer the question his second book poses though, it's not such a profound question, I have an answer for him.
Also, Christians are followers of Jesus, and those other people who wage wars under the banner of Christianity are breaking the 3rd commandment and taking his name in vain. Jesus would never do the stuff these people do in His name. You can't keep confusing the false with the true followers, or making blanket statements to cover all who put on that nametag. The majority are false because narrow is the way. Jesus had nothing to do with the government at the time except told us to follow the laws and pay taxes. His revolution was one of the heart and not through appeals to the political leaders. Religion and politics should be totally seperated, yet those who mingle the two just twist one to justify the other. And you said that Christians have historically tried to kill anyone who disagreed with them, well I have never personally tried to kill anyone.lol. Seriously, and I know plenty of people who have never tried to kill anyone who disagreed with them. That's the government who uses one thing to twist another, that's not TRUE Christians.
You said its very humbling to come face to face with the truth, yet you keep saying "I don't know." If the truth is that you don't know, then you have to admit that you really can't say what truth is, because you don't know. So while you say "I am wise enough to know...", it doesn't make sense that your final answer is " Truth is not knowing."
Christy, I believe you when you state that "My mental health being restored, my intense inner struggles and pain were replaced with genuine happiness."
Where I say that we don't know is the part where you state, "And that's not something that one can just trick themselves into feeling, that is divine intervention."
I agree that its not a trick, but I know people who have used many different methods other than Christianity to have their mental health restored and their pain replaced with genuine happiness. So it is quite evident that Christianity is not required for this to happen.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions that you have. You stated, "I can't imagine that the whole system of Christian claims doesn't hold water." I think I was quite clear in saying that I still find many things that Jesus said to be very valuable, so I would hope that you wouldn't assume that I was being critical of the whole system.
You also stated, "The whole lake of fire "prepared for the devil and his angels" thing does make sense. It will consume the wicked, and that does make sense to me. We have laws and rules in our society, and there are consequences, so why wouldn't there be consequences to breaking the holy law?"
Well the problem with this concept is that it based on the first stage of moral development. I would think that the God of the universe might be able to express himself at a higher plane of moral development. Plus, if the devil is so smart, why would he continue on such a stupid path? The other problem is that most of these wicked have already died and yet within the SDA theological narrative God raises these wicked from the dead to simply kill them again. And not only does he kill them again, he chooses to use the extremely painful and torturous method of being burned alive with some of the more wicked being required to burn longer. This is hardly the actions of a god who espouses forgiveness. Again this doesn't sound like a very mature god. There are so many problems with this concept that there isn't enough room to cover them all in one post.
I would also like to clear another thing up for you. You stated, "Even eastern religions teach karma, and evil being repaid for evil, good for good." This may be a Hindu understanding of karma, but it is not a Buddhist understanding. Buddha taught that Nirvana, which mean to extinguish, is a achieved by not producing any karma at all, bad or good. This is the equal of choosing to not judge combined with the idea of forgiveness. It has a much more subtle application and understanding that has its roots in eastern assumptions about the world. It is difficult for the western mind to understand these ideas because we come with different assumptions. Jesus is a much more effective communicator for the western mind and in many ways is the origin for many western assumptions about values and ethics.
You stated, "I guess when it comes to proof, there is as much and as little the other way as there is in the Christian system of belief." In determining what is true or not, the volume of material for either side has nothing to do with proof. Factual discovery is not a democratic process, it is a rational one. You can't say anything about Bart Ehrman until you actually read what he has to say. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest and that's the 9th commandment which states that you shouldn't bear false witness.
You stated, "Also, Christians are followers of Jesus, and those other people who wage wars under the banner of Christianity are breaking the 3rd commandment and taking his name in vain." Well you would have to throw out Saint Augustine and his work on a just war. If you throw Saint Augustine out you will throw out many major Christian doctrines that he was responsible for. Most of the violence that has been carried out in the name of Christianity is based on the Old Testament which was the Christian Bible until about the 4th Century. And since Jesus quoted authoritatively from the OT, the OT was taken very seriously and the OT teaches that everyone who is not a true follower of God is to be killed. Christians simply took this instruction and applied it to non Christians.
You stated, "And you said that Christians have historically tried to kill anyone who disagreed with them, well I have never personally tried to kill anyone.lol." Well you live in a very small period of time where Christians aren't killing everyone else. And you are part of a small sect of Christianity that has a persecution complex and feels that they are the only true Christians and are waiting for Jesus to come and destroy the earth and kill everyone else. God simply does the killing for you. It is still fear based, not love based.
And separation of church and state was a secular idea. It has been implemented with the vigorous protestations of Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant. The SDA church simply adopted the idea because its own practices were threatened by mainstream Christianity and have claimed ownership of the idea as a Divine mandate even though the OT is absolutely against the idea of separation of church and state.
Let me clear up one more thing. You stated, 'So while you say "I am wise enough to know...", it doesn't make sense that your final answer is " Truth is not knowing.'
This is not a true representation of what I said. I didn't say that truth itself was not knowing. I said that the truth is no one knows what god wants or is. You claim to know what god wants and who god is based on what? A personal experience? To me that is quite a jump. I am wise enough to know when people are taking shortcuts. I don't try to claim to know things I don't know.
Hello, how are you? Hope all is well. I don't know what the first stage of moral development is that you are talking about. "Higher plane of moral development"? Are you saying He should figure out a smarter way of doing things? What would you suggest? I believe the Bible says that the judgment will be just and righteously judged. I know His character is just and merciful, and no one could be a more merciful judge. I do believe that our reward or punishment will be equal to our deeds. Anything else would be unfair, wouldn't it? I believe He will be fair, and that in the end He will be able to say, "What more could I have done to show you my love?" And out of love for unfallen worlds and the redeemed, we will no longer have to endure the works of lawlessness. I actually do look forward to the day when the wicked will be able to really see and feel the effects of their actions on other people. I really do want the rapists of the world to see how they affected their victims. If they repent and forsake their ways I am all for it, but those who continue to rape and molest all their earthly days...what do YOU suggest be done?
Do you really think the wicked will want to be in His presence anyways? No, they will cry out "Hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb." A wrathful lamb? Oxymoron. They will see God as they always have and want nothing to do with Him. Heaven to them would be painful. I know people who can't stand to be around 'good' people or even hate them for no other reason except they think the 'good' people are better than them. Cain killed Abel because he was accepted of God, not because he did something bad. Now imagine how painful it would be for the wicked to be in the presence of a truly holy God. They would cry out to the rocks to fall on them.
The devil is crazy, and his followers are insane, too. Have you ever met an evil-genius? I have. Super manipulative, subtle, intelligent, and totally insane. I think sin=insanity. So yes, I do believe that someone being totally intelligent, even genius, can be purely evil and have evil intent. We all have talents and gifts, we choose whether to use them for good or for evil. Satan has rejected every chance for change, he will never admit he is wrong or turn away from the destructive path he has been on for thousands of years. My experience with the criminally insane has just confirmed what I already know to be the end of sin. Insanity.
That author asked why we all suffer. Well, my question to him is,"When was the last time you personally made someone suffer? And why did you do it?" Try taking away free choice, then Satan's claims about God's character would seem true. But we demand free choice. Ever since the garden of Eden people have tried to blame God for their choices, "It was the woman YOU gave to me..." How crazy is that? Show me one criminally insane inmate in the DOC that doesn't have a million excuses for breaking the law...yet even our earthly and faulty courts don't allow excuses. I know one lady who has at least 3 good excuses for the robbery she committed,"That person was a child molester anyways."(Untrue by the way. The victim was a fellow meth user and a female with no criminal history indicating crimes against children.) "She stole my purse and I just went down there to beat her up and retrieve my own property." (The purse recovered by police was proven to be that of the victim.) And her third excuse was, "The cops have been trying to get me for years anyways, this was just their chance to really stick it to me." Zero personal accountability, and the list goes on. It all goes back to the devil blaming God for his own fall from grace. You say it doesn't sound like a very forgiving God, but that's just like blaming Him for everyone else's choices. Forgiveness and restoration is open for everyone, and you can't blame God for everything. Personal accountability is the #1 thing our society lacks. Intelligent? No. Smart people don't blame others for their own actions. The action God takes to eradicate sin once and for all is a merciful action, a necessary one, and I don't think I am qualified to judge the Creator of the universe on His methods. What would Buddha do? If his way is more appealing, how much sense does it make in the face of the increasing evil in this world? Does evil just change when faced with good? No, maybe in the movies. Does someone who has been pure evil their whole life just have an epiphany one day and decide to change? I think some people think that all the world would have to do is see that God is real and they would choose Him, love Him, and I do not agree.
You said you don't think God is mature? Obviously He knows more than our limited knowlege about the effects and results of sin. It all started with Adam, and now there are millions of pedophiles cruising the internet and exchanging baby-rape tapes. I just don't think we are as all wise as we think we are sometimes when it comes to explaining the ways of the world, much less the universe.
I don't know who Saint Augustine is or how he has influenced doctrine, I hold fast to the Bible, not necessarily what someone tells me about the Bible. And if I claim to know God based on personal experience, how is that quite a jump since isn't your views and beliefs based on your own personal experience? What a way to minimize everything about me, like intellect, common sense, ability to comprehend, etc. You basically said that in all my 30 years of experience I don't know diddly. If you think that's a misrepresentation of what you said, please correct me. It's like what you said about not knowing, that's, like, the theme throughout almost everything you write, so how did I not get that?
Hi Christy,
Before I reply further, I want to be clear that what ever experience that you had to help you change your life for the better is certainly a sacred experience and I want to respect that. And that most often these experiences defy explanation and in most cases are reduced by an explanation. That is why when I hear Christians declare with such certainty that the mechanism of change was god doing this or that, I find myself feeling like the explanation cheapens the experience.
"I don't know what the first stage of moral development is that you are talking about." The first stage of moral development is obedience and punishment orientated. This is the ethical default of most children. If you read Jesus the way I read Jesus is that he is saying that God is NOT condemning us and he presents the paradox of the obedience/punishment model. This is illustrated by a number of his parables including most dramatically the prodigal's son.
Jesus presents the morality of need rather than deserving, the wisdom of forgiveness over justice, and the social contract of empathy.
These are not the characteristics of the OT God who institutes the death penalty for the most minor of offenses and who is jealous and punitive, who makes laws that keep women as property and support slavery. These are not even laws or instructions that would be considered just within a punishment/obedience model since they punish the innocent at times. For example when god orders the killing and destruction of every man, women, child, animal, and structure. It is not just to kill children. Plus, this "justice" is not carried out by god himself, but god asks the Jews to participate in the violence. The average parent has a more advanced moral compass than this god.
"I actually do look forward to the day when the wicked will be able to really see and feel the effects of their actions on other people. " The side effect of most evil behavior is misery and loneliness. No one really gets away with anything. The reason most things are wrong is that they cause misery not only for the victim, but also for the perpetrator.
I think we need to hold people accountable, but I don't believe that punishment is really all that effective. It doesn't address the problem which is often much deeper than a person simply being "bad." If we want transformation, we need to study how this can work for everyone. The great thing is that we have learned a lot of things about why people do violent and cruel things. We certainly don't condemn a dog for being violent when it has been beaten and conditioned to be violent, and yet we don't tend to recognize the same effect within humans.
"But we demand free choice." Well, true freedom of choice does not exist. True free choice is an informed free choice and would involve more than two choices. What if we don't want to choose god or satan? We also don't really have all the information and this is evidenced by all the many different claims about what god wants. Free choice would also involve the power to carry out that choice and we don't have that. So free choice is a nice marketing label, but it really doesn't exist.
We have limited choice and within that limited choice we have the freedom to choose, but that is manipulated. Its like when I was a kid and I was told I could eat peas or corn when I didn't want to eat vegetables at all.
"Show me one criminally insane inmate in the DOC that doesn't have a million excuses for breaking the law." Well most crime involves substance abuse at one level or the other. And this often includes an inability to empathize with others and take responsibility. The problem with addiction is that it doesn't respond to reason or punishment at all. I'm not advocating the removal of responsibility, but the solution is not the lake of fire either. The problem with the lake of fire is that its based on fear and fear is often the driving factor of addiction.
Punishment only works on people who have a moral compass and sometimes punishment can turn people who have a moral compass into people who are immoral, particularly punishment that involves violence. And the primary tool of reform that the god of the OT uses is violence and fear. This is not a god who has a highly sensitive moral awareness. It is a primitive god typical of the iron age.
"now there are millions of pedophiles cruising the internet and exchanging baby-rape tapes." Well, this is clearly an exaggeration. This is often a technique used by evangelists to increase fear. The facts are that we live in the least violent era of recorded history. There are more people today who have safe lives than in any time in history. We may have death on a larger scale, but percentage wise we enjoy the most peaceful time on earth. That doesn't mean we don't need to strive to improve the quality of life, but the most violent times on this earth was when Christian religion ruled.
"I don't know who Saint Augustine is or how he has influenced doctrine" Saint Augustine is a pivotal influence on modern Christianity, including Seventh Day Adventism. It is quite certain that without him the Christian church would not exist. The problem with you is that you dialog with certainty on things you haven't even read about. You even admit that you don't know.
"You basically said that in all my 30 years of experience I don't know diddly." This, too, is another exaggeration. I am very specific about what you don't know. I have never said that you don't know anything. What I have attempted to do is to point out where you are mistaken on the facts. And unless you read and understand what the facts are, you can't speak on those issues. That is simple reasoning.
"It's like what you said about not knowing, that's, like, the theme throughout almost everything you write, so how did I not get that?" You tend to take a specific example of what I state that is unknowable and generalize it to everything. Be specific and you will avoid communication problems.
Now, I have stated repeatedly that I believe you when you state that your life has changed for the better. I believe your experience. I don't believe the reasons that you give for that change. Now I know that you believe them and that may be part of what has helped you change. Belief is very powerful.
And I'm sure that you have learned a lot in 30 years and would never suggest that you knew nothing. You look very happy and I would expect that you are probably very fun to be with, but your experience is not mine and you may project your own motivations and experience on me to try and understand why I make the decisions that I do. We all do that to some degree.
I'm not completely void of experience with very unhealthy people and I have seen quite a number of people transform. And from that intimate experience with them, I have a much different understanding of human beings than I did in my 30's.
It is a difficult process and involves a lot of skill, a loving community, patience, and a will to love others. The art of loving is not sentimentality. Sentimentality is lazy and is looking for a quick fix. It sounds like you are contrasting your experience with mine and suggesting that I am advocating sentimentality. I'm not talking about letting people off the hook. That is not a loving thing to do. The loving thing and often the more difficult thing to do is confront people and to set boundaries.
Most churches that I have been to are not equipped to do this level of caring. It is simply beyond much of their experience and quite frankly few people are willing to invest effort in a segment of society that is much easier to condemn.
I understand that you have a very powerful connection with your own experience and it might be disturbing to have that threatened by a different perspective since it obviously holds a very deep meaning for you.
That connection and meaning ARE very important, and what I have learned is that I don't have to give that connection up when my world view shifts and I have a deeper understanding of what it means to be human and that maybe my view of God is too small. And when I say God, I'm not talking about the god of the OT or any specific god or gods. God, to me, is not contained in words. God is unknowable in the conventional sense.
It's actually not an exaggeration about the number of child porn sites visited on the internet. And that information came via law enforcement, not from the pulpit. I have never heard this subject discussed in my church, or any other for that matter. The number of child rape victims is not an exaggeration, that's actually a modest estimate from someone who works in the human trafficking division of homeland security. You can also go to the website for missing and exploited children.
I also do not believe we are living in the least violent era in history. That may be true in your neighborhood, you may not see it. If you want to look at the statistics of crimes in schools it is quite disturbing. Back in the 1950's teachers' biggest concerns were chewing gum, cutting class, and talking out of turn. Nowdays, it is weapons, drugs, sexual misconduct, and violence. I don't think I'm exaggerating either, I saw all this in my middle and high school. Plus, it was a national survey. I just can't see how you could say we aren't living in an increasingly violent world. As far as causing fear, oh yeah, why wouldn't it? Was my fear of not locking my doors at night from something I heard at church, no, it was the evening news. And in that sense, there is nothing wrong with a little healthy fear.
Misery and loneliness for the perpetrator? You've never spent time with an actual sociopath have you? It would certainly change your perspective. And yes, I even know one who doesn't have a drug addiction, or as you use try to use addiction, as an excuse. Yes, the effects of addiction on the brain are pretty profound, I have read extensively on the subject, and I have a lot of experience in this area. I also know that the human brain is nothing like that of a dog, so comparing people to dogs conditioned to be violent via beat-downs just doesn't jive with me. It's an excuse. Take away personal accountability and we are no more than animals anyways. Deny free choice and you have reduced humanity to nothing.
Maybe you don't want peas or corn, but you do have a choice. I understand that you mean that you don't want to choose between God and the devil, but it seems to me you have chosen an alternative, so yes, you do have the choice. You can believe whatever you want, and you are free to do that. Tell me one thing you want to choose that the God you don't believe in is stopping you from. How can you blame God for not giving you all the information you need to carry out said choices? You sound informed and decided enough, what choices of yours are being hindered?
I do believe that the OT and NT God are the same. There is just as much love and pleading with the nation Israel to "turn away from wickedness that I may heal you." There is also a lot of violence and war, and my understanding (which may not count for much in your estimation) is that when God said,"Do not spare woman or child or beast." It was sometimes because of the disease these nations were infected with. I have heard historians and archaelogists investigate cultures where nothing was untouched by a venereal disease. Even children and animals were infected. They used certain forensic stuff to determine this, but it just showed me that, yes, entire communities can be infected. I also believe that God said not to spare some nations because "their sons will one day rise up against Israel." And when the Israelites didn't listen and took for themselves wives from the nations they conquered, there were dire consequences in the exact form God had predicted. It is difficult to imagine a God of love having to do these things, but He is also dealing with a flawed humanity in a way we can understand. I know that there were reasons for everything that had to be done in the OT in order for God to eventually accomplish a greater good. His ultimate plan, I've come to realize, is to set a people apart, to give them his laws and statutes and teach them to walk uprightly as opposed to those surrounding heathen nations that "made their sons and daughters pass through the fire." And by the way those nations that were destroyed were not innocents by any means. Take Sodom and Gommorah for example, God said He would not destroy it if but one righteous man were found. So I take that as a big indicator of why certain nations were destroyed. "As I live, saith the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." So, it seems to be something that was necessary and not something He enjoyed.
There are plenty of things in the OT that could be pulled out of context to show God as harsh and exacting as the portrait you have painted. But you have to ignore even more texts that show His patience and longsuffering, grace and mercy towards Israel. I think the reason behind the many statutes that require death were to really drive the point home that, "the wages of sin is death." So, it was His job to show them what sin was, tell them the consequences of sin, as well as the blessings of obedience. They had just come out of Egypt and had Egyptian concepts their whole life so it was necessary to do things the way God did them. And I ask you again: WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
It's a huge task to get the point across to a stiff-necked people, and I really don't see any approach God did not try in order to restore order to a nation. He did the whole punishment thing, He pleaded personally and through Moses as well as all the other prophets, He eventually had to come down here Himself to show us His true character and show us personally the way and the truth.
You said, "I don't believe the reasons that you give for that change." Why not? It's not like I think that I'm going to somehow convince you that you are wrong or that you will change your whole system of beliefs, or like I expect to change anything. I am just saying...hmmm...what am I saying? What is the point of all this? I guess I met someone who likes to debate as much as I do, and who can remain respectful. Well, to a degree, regardless of what you specifically say, I do "feel" like you think I'm an idiot. I might run into "communication problems" when I hear things like, "And yet they see the claims of his divinity, virgin birth, and miracles something that was added on to satisfy a primitive culture's need for mythology." "So many Christians talk like they have already solved these problems when there is no evidence that they have done so." I'm not into mythology, I'm far from primitive, and I am intelligent enough to know what I've experienced. I don't think an explaination cheapens my experience, and I'm not stupid by any means. You talk about proof and how I don't have any, but I do. It reminds me of all the people who asked Jesus for proof He was from God, although He went about healing the sick and raising the dead. They asked for miracles even though miracles had been performed in abundance, so this tells me that no matter how much proof a person has, there's not enough proof in the world to convince someone who is determined not to believe anything other than what they have set up in their own mind. So please don't think I am determined to change anything you think, I just hope I've brought up enough points to possibly show there are holes in your theory? and maybe be less harsh towards people who believe in the God of the Bible? and maybe there are answers out there, and there are explainations, and there are also solutions...which, I believe, humanism completely is not equipped to deal with. The way humanism deals with evil is to either ignore it, downplay it, assign it a mental condition, yet there remains no solution. I've even asked you personally,"What would you do?" It's like the Republicans who have done nothing but criticize Obama's stimulus plan yet brought no other solutions to the table except the failed policies that got us into this mess. Not you personally, but others who have a million criticisms, yet can't bring a better solution to the table. Governments and philosophers have tried unsuccessfully to deal with the global problem of sin, yet there remains no real solution. I have personally found it, and that's all the proof I need. And you can't prove otherwise :)
"Well, to a degree, regardless of what you specifically say, I do "feel" like you think I'm an idiot."
Well, that's something you are making up in your own mind. I wouldn't dialog with an idiot because it wouldn't have any purpose. I think you are uninformed on specific things that I have mentioned and speak about things you haven't fully investigated. That is quite different than being an idiot. I don't speak harshly either. I speak as truthfully as I can and I have a commitment to rigorous honesty.
Let's look at your first statement about child porn, "now there are millions of pedophiles cruising the internet and exchanging baby-rape tapes." This is quite different than your second claim that states, "It's actually not an exaggeration about the number of child porn sites visited on the internet." Multiple sites can be visited by the same person and that person can return to that site multiple times. If you count each visit as an individual pedophile then you have exaggerated the number of pedophiles in this country.
I don't want to minimize this crime, but to use figures this way to suggest that we are going to hell in a hand basket is dishonest and spreads unreasonable fear. I'm not advocating inaction, but exaggerating the problem doesn't help either. It creates an environment where we fear that there is a rapist and child molester around every corner.
"I also do not believe we are living in the least violent era in history. That may be true in your neighborhood, you may not see it. If you want to look at the statistics of crimes in schools it is quite disturbing. Back in the 1950's teachers' biggest concerns were chewing gum, cutting class, and talking out of turn. Nowdays, it is weapons, drugs, sexual misconduct, and violence." We are not talking about the same period of time. There are certainly variations within a period of 100 years, but the chances you would experience some type of violence in the first century was much higher and even higher earlier than that.
"Misery and loneliness for the perpetrator? You've never spent time with an actual sociopath have you?" Again you are using an individual example and generalizing it. We can always find exceptions, but a sociopath is not the norm. I was talking about the norm, not the exception.
"Yes, the effects of addiction on the brain are pretty profound, I have read extensively on the subject, and I have a lot of experience in this area. I also know that the human brain is nothing like that of a dog, so comparing people to dogs conditioned to be violent via beat-downs just doesn't jive with me. It's an excuse. Take away personal accountability and we are no more than animals anyways. Deny free choice and you have reduced humanity to nothing." I didn't say to take away personal responsibility. If you read what I posted I outlined a program of personal responsibility as the loving thing to do. The fact is that if you want to increase the chances of having a violent son, you beat him as a child. This is not an excuse, but a fact of life. Even if you are beaten as a child, if you want to recover you HAVE to take personal responsibility.
"Tell me one thing you want to choose that the God you don't believe in is stopping you from. How can you blame God for not giving you all the information you need to carry out said choices? You sound informed and decided enough, what choices of yours are being hindered?"
Well since I don't believe in that god, I am not being hindered at all. The problem with the Biblical god is that there simply is not enough evidence to indicate that the biblical god, with all the characteristics described in the Bible, exists.
"There is also a lot of violence and war, and my understanding (which may not count for much in your estimation) is that when God said,"Do not spare woman or child or beast." It was sometimes because of the disease these nations were infected with." Well, the point is that this all powerful god, who had the capability to heal this disease thought it was a better idea to violently kill everything and thought it was a good idea to teach his people to kill. That, to me, is clearly an inferior god. What is more likely is that the leaders of Israel needed a justification for genocide because, yes, by killing everyone, there would be no problem with revenge. This is a policy of many primitive cultures, except the Jews had the justification that they did it because god told them to.
"The way humanism deals with evil is to either ignore it, downplay it, assign it a mental condition, yet there remains no solution. I've even asked you personally,'What would you do?'" This is a complete misrepresentation of humanism. I did outline what I do with individuals that I have worked with. It is a program of personal responsibility combined with compassion, accountability, and personal growth. When people stay with their program, there is great success. I have seen it happen over and over.
Christianity has had over 2000 years to demonstrate success and yet its legacy is some of the most violent and cruel treatment of humanity based, many times, on what the Bible says.
"You talk about proof and how I don't have any, but I do. It reminds me of all the people who asked Jesus for proof He was from God, although He went about healing the sick and raising the dead. They asked for miracles even though miracles had been performed in abundance, so this tells me that no matter how much proof a person has, there's not enough proof in the world to convince someone who is determined not to believe anything other than what they have set up in their own mind. "
Well, I don't see anyone in the Christian church going around healing people and raising people from the dead today. That is a rather high quality form of evidence. If I saw someone restore a amputee, that would get my attention. So simply giving up providing evidence because some so called lack of belief in the ancient past doesn't really hold water.
"Governments and philosophers have tried unsuccessfully to deal with the global problem of sin, yet there remains no real solution. I have personally found it, and that's all the proof I need. And you can't prove otherwise :)"
Well the Christian church doesn't really have a very good track record either. Its a problem that no one has complete solved. You may have an individual solution, but so do many people who are not Christians. Like I said before this would indicate that Christianity is not the exclusive source of a successful happy life.
I don't think I have questioned your personal success. I just don't believe that it can be universally applied, just like my experience can't be universally applied. The burden of proof is on Christianity since it claims to be the only way. I don't claim to be the only way. So if you ask my solution, I can only give you specific successes with the knowledge that each person is unique and has different needs that many times can be met through the methods I have already outlined.
I'll give you points on some of the things you said :) I've enjoyed the rousing conversation, but I'm afraid my time on the computer is taking me away from some of my responsibilities. I notice my girls getting upset when they see me at my desk instead of playing with them. I wish you all the best and will probably blog again sometime in the future.
1 Corinthians 10:24
A major shift in ethical emphasis? To see if I agree with you I found a bible and went through corinthians. Firstly I found that that passage was in the middle of a big discussion on the freedom we have. It certainly doesn't say that we should take away our love for ourself, but it does suggest that we sacrifice ourself. It also says we are a temple that God will not have destroyed, and elsewhere Paul takes as given the idea that we should love and care for our bodies. He doesn't propose it, he uses it as an obvious example to prove other stuff, showing that it is implicit in his thinking!
So what does it mean to carry a cross, if not to kick your own ass? If we say that Paul did not see it that way, then it is not a shift. It's just a contradiction to be dissolved by understanding.
Jesus tells the big crowds that they must give up everything, other times when he has big crowds, he tells them they must drink his blood. When he talks to the disciples, he says that his blood is the new covenant, and some wine that they drink to remember his death. When he talks to the disciples, he says that generosity and sacrifice brings rewards kept in heaven, he said that a servant must make his masters food before eating his own. He said that the humble will be built back up and those who lose things for him will get given much more in return even during this life. That's just Luke 14 onwards!
We don't emulate Christ's suffering, but his Love, although suffering is a consequence of this. He went through it for "the joy set before him", and it is also said he went through it for us. I see no difficulty in saying that the joy he saw _was_ us, seen as the church is supposed to be the bride of Christ, and the apostles, who imitated Jesus, saw the church's growth as their own joy.
So what is this version of sacrifice? We dedicate ourselves to others, though insuring to look after ourselves, in confidence that a supernatural God and his community of believers will help back us up.
Now there's more to it than that, to do with the spirit of god's direction and the fact that in acts Paul was prevented from doing what he planned, even though it was a sacrifice, because God had something else for him. And I'm sure there is even more than that, but the principle remains throughout the whole of the new testament, that we become living sacrifices, bodily dedicated to the good works and "fruit" that God has prepared, being encouraged and restored by the blessings of God.
I only hope this has encouraged you to see the good news in a form that fits the name better! And maybe expand what wonderfulness that ring of truth applies to. Even if not, thank you for the reference and the lovely reading it inspired me to do!
After reading these comments I was inspired:
I have seen people use the sacrifice of Jesus as a beating stick, to make people feel inadequate, when it is an expression of what supreme effort God thinks we are worth.
I have seen people turn promises into constraints, and gifts into prices.
I have seen people claim to know everything, when as that corinthian passage suggests, the important thing is not to be a superbrain but to love God and be known by him.
I have the radical transformative power of the good news monochromed into chucking verses at people to make them feel bad, so they feel too scared to open their bible and never check if those interpretations match the book at all.
I've seen fear dragged out over weeks and years, when Jesus said "fear God not man, but then don't be afraid" the forgiveness God gives claimed to be an illusion or "covering" when God said he will remove sins and give us new nature.
But these people are loosing, people are walking away and not looking back.
So I'm glad you've stopped being a "Christian", I hope you run far away from it, and maybe just maybe, run so far you come round behind their backs and meet the Jesus they claim to represent! :P
Post a Comment