Not sure where this is coming from. "Deny" what, exactly? What do you mean by "improperly worship"? If you are denying God, then you probably don't have any real desire to get into heaven in the first place. As far as "worship", "worship" has changed its face greatly since the New Testament. With that in mind, I'm not sure what "improper worship" would look like.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here that I hear a lot. People who deny God don't want to get into heaven? I think it's a bit more fuzzy than that. I think there's a lot of people who just don't see that the Judeochristian idea of God and creation are very plausible. Others have chosen a religion for themselves and for them the Judeochristian tradition is simply other than their own beliefs.
I guess an effective analogy would be Egyptian mythology. Loads of people don't believe in Ammon-Re and the cosmological model where he guards the sun across the heavens and through the underworld to keep it from being eaten by a giant snake. Or else deny him in favor of their own religion, perhaps with no ill will toward the egyptian believers whatsoever. Now ask these nobelievers if that means they want their hearts eaten out by Ammit the big crocodile monster rather than live with the blessed in Ament. They'll probably at some point concede that living in a nice pad forever is better than getting eaten by a big monster.
That said, most folks still aren't going to build a pyramid in their back yard.
I need to find a happier avatar. Between Sebastian, Vendle, Grimcleaver, Andrew Turner, and myself -- we all look pretty pissed.
I prefer to think of my avatar as thoughtfully brooding...heh.
|
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here that I hear a lot. People who deny God don't want to get into heaven? I think it's a bit more fuzzy than that. I think there's a lot of people who just don't see that the Judeochristian idea of God and creation are very plausible. Others have chosen a religion for themselves and for them the Judeochristian tradition is simply other than their own beliefs.
If I deny Buddha's teachings, and it turns out that he was right, then I fully expect to get the full consequences of that denial. Same thing for any other religion for that matter. Why should I expect to reside with Allah if I was wrong? Actually more than wrong -- denial implies an action and a conscious choice.
I understand what you are implying where "I grew up with a family worshipping the flying spaghetti monster and I didn't know anything else." That is different than denying God. And Andrew Turner used the word "deny" which is why I brought it up.
I'm still not entirely sure of the "process" or what hell will be like. Jesus himself said that people will be surprised as to who will make it and who won't. (I think that it was more addressed to so-called "believers" though than anyone else.) C.S. Lewis has some interesting and controversial ideas on it. The Great Divorce and The Last Battle from the Narnia series get into it a bit. In The Last Battle there are some that make it into heaven but still refuse to believe it. There are some that get to heaven but worshipped an entirely different god. I'm still not sure where I stand on the whole thing -- I just have faith that God is just and will do it right.
|
... but to also have such a place as the repository for people who are in all other respects 'good' people, but who deny or improperly worship?Not sure where this is coming from. "Deny" what, exactly? What do you mean by "improperly worship"?...
I should say, when I wrote that yesterday-ish, I was talking about an individual denying the act of worship individually--the person who believes in God, but not church.
But looking at it from another perspective, denying God or a certain god also brings up an argument.
An atheist wouldn't expect to go to heaven (and denies God), of course, but let's assume the atheists are wrong--take an atheist and a good Christian, as examples. Both have led an extremely good life and exemplified the values taught by Christ, with the obvious exception, on behalf of the atheist, of belief in God. While Vatican II might leave some wriggle room for the guy to not go to hell, most Christians, I think it's safe to argue, would say he is most definitely going to hell.
Many, many Christians, of all persuasions, actively argue that there is a single, prescribed way to worship, and everything else is improper. If you're Catholic, you might believe that the bad Catholic/good person will simply need some rehabilitative time in Purgatory; but if you're Southern Baptist (and I'm not, so I am admittedly generalizing based off my limited interaction with Baptists [my sister's father-in-law]), you might argue that the bad Baptist/good person is still going to hell (Abigail, your brother [that's me] is a fine person, but if you don't get him to leave those Catholics, I guarantee he's going straight to the pit, and he'll lead his children there too!).
I need to find a happier avatar. Between Sebastian, Vendle, Grimcleaver, Andrew Turner, and myself -- we all look pretty pissed.
I prefer to think of my avatar as thoughtfully brooding...heh.
...as he stands on the crushed skulls and mushed brains of his enemies.
If I deny Buddha's teachings, and it turns out that he was right, then I fully expect to get the full consequences of that denial. Same thing for any other religion for that matter. Why should I expect to reside with Allah if I was wrong? Actually more than wrong -- denial implies an action and a conscious choice.
Well than you, my friend, are more the happy martyr than I. If it turns out, at the end of a giant double-blind test, that I chose wrong and have to go to a horrible place forever: I will be quite grumpy. Granted I won't have anything I can do about it, but I'll be unhappy.
As for the denial thing, do you deny the existance of Thor as one and only true god of lightning? I do. I don't think that's much further down the road than saying that the idea of Thor is pretty silly. I don't see the quantum leap between dismissal and denial, except that to deny something is to take it somewhat more seriously.
That said, I've just come from seeing Prince Caspian and am pretty interested in the Narnia series as a model for Christian theology. I've been talking about it a lot lately. I find it really interesting, even if there's some part that are frustratingly contrived.
|
|
Well than you, my friend, are more the happy martyr than I. If it turns out, at the end of a giant double-blind test, that I chose wrong and have to go to a horrible place forever: I will be quite grumpy. Granted I won't have anything I can do about it, but I'll be unhappy.
You give me more credit than I deserve. I too would be more than a little "miffed".
As for the denial thing, do you deny the existance of Thor as one and only true god of lightning? I do. I don't think that's much further down the road than saying that the idea of Thor is pretty silly. I don't see the quantum leap between dismissal and denial, except that to deny something is to take it somewhat more seriously.
I'm not sure how much more I want to keep going with this -- it feels like we could be getting more and more into definitions and connotations that gets kind of annoying to me.
"Dismissal" also seems (to me) to imply a choice and or action. Granted, not quite as strong a connotation as "denial", but in either case, we are not talking about ignorance or lack of knowledge.
I think that I understand what you are saying though -- where if someone feels like they have done their due diligence and still end up being wrong. Not sure what to say about that. Although it seems to me like there will always be people who won't believe something no matter the evidence stacked in its favor -- and this is evident in much more than just religion.
For what it's worth -- I don't think that it will be as bad as many Christians seem to advertise. (Assuming Christianity is "right".)
Fair enough.
If I deny Buddha's teachings, and it turns out that he was right, then I fully expect to get the full consequences of that denial.
Do you ever become angry, or frustrated? Do you ever experience suffering? Could you, if things get bad? Then, according to the Buddha, you're already living with those consequences. And believing his teachings gets you exactly nothing; one has to practice them to see any results.
Do you ever become angry, or frustrated? Do you ever experience suffering? Could you, if things get bad? Then, according to the Buddha, you're already living with those consequences. And believing his teachings gets you exactly nothing; one has to practice them to see any results.
I get mad (not super-furious, mind you, I'm pretty mild tempered) and frustrated (more often). I've even been known to suffer from time to time, when I care about something enough. I guess I'm a bit anti-Buddhist in the sense that I feel as though caring deeply about things is worth the pain that might come of it. I can't imagine living life to dodge hurt by not getting attached to everything. Strong feelings, good and bad, are so much of what makes life valuable to me. Reliving the same spot on the great wheel of existance doesn't sound so bad to me. That's be fine for an eternal reward for me, really. Just live life after life pretty much the way mine has been right now. Karma management?
So if 666 is anti-christian...what number is anti-buddhist?
|
|
OK, this is more than a bit off-subject, and a bit of a rant.
Once upon a time, I was in Washington, DC, visiting friends. I was buying my metro ticket at Foggy Bottom, when I heard the pained shrieking of a young woman coming from behind the turnstiles.
"OH, OH! OH GOD, JESUS! JEEZUS! OH, OH JESUS!"
I dropped my bag and ran. I was convinced that she was being raped, or assaulted, or something. I was halfway to the turnstile when she screamed, Siouxsie Sioux-like,
"THERE IS A GAWD! AH, JESUS! JESUS!"
Okay... Now, I was convinced that she was having a religious experience at an inopportune moment. I finally caught a glimpse of her. She was a young black woman, about twenty-five, dressed in a white business suit, crying her eyes out, and holding aloft a small wallet. What the hell?
"OH, AH PRAAAAYED and PRAAAAYYYED! LAWD, THERE IS A GAAAWD! THAANK YOU JEEZUS!!"
I was getting creeped out, so I grabbed my s$!&, slid my ticket into the slot, and ran to the train.
Not two minutes later, guess who boards the train.
The Jesus lady.
"Now, I must tell you, I praaaayed for the Lawd to find my wallet, and HE DID! JESUS FOUND MY WALLET! GOD BLESS! THERE IS A GAWD! Thank you."
She sat down, and didn't say another word.
Now, what exactly is my beef with this?
Simple. SHE gave GOD credit for the return of the wallet, because, OOOBVIUSLY, a PERSON couldn't have done it. Right. She based her rant on the assumption that there are no actual nice people in the world that would have returned her belongings merely because they are a good person. I mean, yeah, most people are self-absorbed pricks, but there are a few good people out there.
Why does God get all the credit?
I half expected that woman to be levitating or something. Until "the money is till here, thank you jesus". I also liked how a few people in the train started to clap, like "yay, you found your wallet" but she just kept ranting.
Hi all, checking in on things as I prepare for some international travel (service trip to Kenya). Just as a note, I'll be out of the country June 12-22 and pretty busy up until then preparing for the trip as well as working into a new job...
Looks like y'all have been churning over the punishment question a bit more. I truly think this is one of the primary issues that has dragged Christianity off-course--obsession with reward/punishment and "what Christians have to do." The church has focused on this to the point of driving folks away from the faith, and Christians have focused on this to the point of getting into pointless (in the sense that they'll never be resolved in our lifetime) debates about the nature of the end times, heaven, etc. Stop talking so much (not directed at y'all--more of a rhetorical statement) and get out in the world to be in relationship with real people struggling with real problems.
I was talking to my brother this week about some of his struggles (he's been laid off, struggled with some cocaine issues, marital problems, etc.) and he was really revolving around much the same issue--what did he need to do to get things back on track. Now, he's been around me long enough to know I'm not going to spout off some trite "get Saved and God will fix everything" mantra. That's not biblical in any way. He also knows I'm not going to spout off "get Saved or you're gonna burn!" because in my understanding his relationship with God is not mine to judge. But he was concerned that his actions were going to keep him from God, both in service in this life and in relationship after. I told him the same thing I've said here--Christianity is not about doing a bunch of things to prove oneself worthy (we can never do enough to accomplish that) and it's also not about saying some special words or performing some special action so you're guaranteed the easy ride (either in life or the afterlife). Christ didn't call us to these things--he called us to personal sacrifice, and sometimes even hardship, in order to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and help those in need. He never promised wealth, health, or any such things.
So what does my brother need to do? Focus on his personal health (he's got an aversion to counsellors and such that I think is prohibiting him from understanding some of the mental health issues of our family). But most of all focus on repairing his relationships, both with God and with others. It is through these relationships (esp. that with God) that we are transformed and can then act on the things Christ called us to perform as his brothers and sisters.
P.S. I did want to note that my earlier reference to "tough love" wasn't in specific reference to Hell--eternal separation from God is not a teaching tool but rather the end result of a person's decision to not be in relationship with God. The "tough love" concept was more specifically in relation to the sometimes misunderstood concept of God's benevolent nature and our life on "this side" so to speak.
Why does God get all the credit?
My thoughts? She thought she was doomed (or something less dramatic) without those things "crucial" we usually put in wallets. Turns out, she wasn't doomed. So the good fortune brings a swelling, euphoric feeling. This euphoria is a very strong emotion, it sometimes brings the idea that everything's in it's right place. Some people associate this as cosmic... correctness. God. Good luck. Destiny. Karma. Things like that. That someone's looking out for them. It's my belief that all of the above are varying little interpretations of the same thing... that our lives aren't as bad as we sometimes think they are. That we shouldn't be empty. To put it briefly: Validation.
Course, I think in this case that it's short-sighted... but it's a good feeling to have. She was happy for an instant. Why deny her that? ;)
"Life was bad, but now it's good, forever!"
-Dr. Zoidberg
you know the old saying you get what you ask for; well it is true. Everything in your life is what you have attracted though the reasons for such may be obscure at best and a whole lot of it is all perception based. Sometimes it takes years to find out why things happen the way they do; but everything has a purpose to someone, somewhere.
I once was in a situation that I thought was totally awful; years later talked to some of the people involved; was really cool how that one bad event changed some peeps lives for the better; kinda gave me a big wake up call that not everything and every situation is about me and my involvement and how I percieve it.
|
|
OK, this is more than a bit off-subject, and a bit of a rant.
...
Why does God get all the credit?
Hey Shiny. Good to see you back. (Hope you're doing well.)
This kind of reminds me of what happened to us January '07. Denver airport. We left very early because we knew that snow was coming. We were dropped off with very little time to catch our flight. We finally made it to the check-in counter and the attendants were trying to figure out what was going on. At that moment they cancelled all flights for the day because of the blizzard. The attendant behind the counter gave us a number right away to call to get a hotel room. We called the number and got a reservation at half price. (Did I mention that we had a 5-year old and a 1-year old in tow?) We managed to haul all of our luggage down to the last shuttle bus that made it to the hotel. A drive that normally takes 10 minutes took nearly an hour. We get to the hotel. They provided diapers (we were planning on buying a lot of that stuff at our destination) and a crib. Any number of things could have happened differently. We had our luggage, we had beds, we had a private room, we were warm, etc. Was it good people that made it happen? (The bus driver, the hotel people, the flight attendent, etc.) Sure it was. But at the same time, would it be wrong for me to "thank God" for taking care of me and my family?
I understand what you are saying though. Sometimes people make things bigger than they really are. Often times, the simplest explanation is the most likely.
|
|
It is simultaneously wrong and right to thank God. Why?
It's a question of ethics. Basically, ethics boil down to "I like this, therefore it's right. I don't like this, therefore it's wrong."
Sure, it bugs me a little bit that good people aren't getting the credit they deserve, but it doesn't bug me that people thank God for obviously human acts. If it makes them happy, go for it.
Hello again, people.
you know the old saying you get what you ask for; well it is true. Everything in your life is what you have attracted though the reasons for such may be obscure at best and a whole lot of it is all perception based. Sometimes it takes years to find out why things happen the way they do; but everything has a purpose to someone, somewhere.
I've worked in health care for a long enough time not to agree with this. People die painfully for no reason. Children die from genetic wasting diseases. Yes, it's a part of being a human that eventually, you can see positive things even from things such as the death of a child... that does not mean that the child dying is meaningful. Neither does the idea of karma work. People absolutely don't get what they deserve, and I find the belief that they do very questionable in itself: If a four-year-old gets a cancer and dies over the course of a year, I refuse to believe this is because the child has been terribly evil and deserves to die.
Of course, it is a comfortable world-view to some that there is a great PLAN that has their lives already mapped out... but when life starts to go wrong, that belief isn't so comforting anymore.
|
Hello again, people.
you know the old saying you get what you ask for; well it is true. Everything in your life is what you have attracted though the reasons for such may be obscure at best and a whole lot of it is all perception based. Sometimes it takes years to find out why things happen the way they do; but everything has a purpose to someone, somewhere.I've worked in health care for a long enough time not to agree with this. People die painfully for no reason. Children die from genetic wasting diseases. Yes, it's a part of being a human that eventually, you can see positive things even from things such as the death of a child... that does not mean that the child dying is meaningful. Neither does the idea of karma work. People absolutely don't get what they deserve, and I find the belief that they do very questionable in itself: If a four-year-old gets a cancer and dies over the course of a year, I refuse to believe this is because the child has been terribly evil and deserves to die.
Of course, it is a comfortable world-view to some that there is a great PLAN that has their lives already mapped out... but when life starts to go wrong, that belief isn't so comforting anymore.
I don't get why there has to be a meaning behind everything. Things happen because they happen. Diseases happen to keep populations in check. Food shortages and famines happen because a particular species (namely people) have over populated their environment. Major storms occur because they've been happening since the beginning of time but since human population has doubled every 50 years since the industrial revolution there's more people there for the storm to take out on it's way through. Global warming is just another symptom of a species over populating it's environment. Basically the thought that some divine plan from a wrathful creator who is getting ready to destroy his "toybox" like a child having a tantrum is ridiculous.
|
|
I agree, Jeremy. Like I mentioned a few posts back, my greatest discontent to institutional religion (modern religious interpretation), is the idea of a supreme being, responsible for the creation of all things--supreme, now, not penultimate, but ultimate; nothing, absolutely nothing above or beyond this being--who is also fraught with human emotions. It just does not compute; I can't see the logic at all.
|
|
I don't get why there has to be a meaning behind everything. Things happen because they happen. ... Basically the thought that some divine plan from a wrathful creator who is getting ready to destroy his "toybox" like a child having a tantrum is ridiculous.
I actually agree with Corian in large part about this. And Jeremy as well. The idea of "karma" might be a little much. While it might be nice the idea that "nasty little people always get their come-uppance in the end" it certainly doesn't always seem to work out that way.
At the same time, some great "plan" that has our lives already "mapped out"... I don't know. Who's to say that this isn't like the "butterfly effect"? Who knows what kind of an impact my life (or death) may have on things either in this life or (if you believe it) the next? Maybe one child's suffering and death will bring about incredible and great things many, many years down the road. I am in no way advocating that suffering (especially of children) is in any way a good thing. And if anything we should really do whatever we can to help people out. I'm just saying that it is difficult (at best) for anyone to truly see "the whole picture".
All that aside, I did have kind of an issue with the "wrathful creator" comment. I don't really see that at all. I guess that I can kind of see where you might get that impression, but I think that it's more than a bit off. Trying to use a similar analogy (at best) I think that it's more like we have already busted his "toybox" and he is building (or has already built?) a bigger and better "toybox" for people to play in if they are willing to follow the rules. There really are all kinds of problems with even that anology, but I feel like it's closer than the "wrathful creator" having a "tantrum".
|
Trying to use a similar analogy (at best) I think that it's more like we have already busted his "toybox" and he is building (or has already built?) a bigger and better "toybox" for people to play in if they are willing to follow the rules.
I tend to look at it like a "work in progress", except while it was started for us we're expected to do most of the finishing work with the tools that have been provided. We often trip over the tools, it seems.
|
|
I agree, Jeremy. Like I mentioned a few posts back, my greatest discontent to institutional religion (modern religious interpretation), is the idea of a supreme being, responsible for the creation of all things--supreme, now, not penultimate, but ultimate; nothing, absolutely nothing above or beyond this being--who is also fraught with human emotions. It just does not compute; I can't see the logic at all.
What other kind of emotions would you be looking for?
It's almost like you are saying that it doesn't make sense that people tried to do what they could to make "sense" of God. Overall, I think that you are right. But I also don't know that God is "fraught with human emotions". I think that people may see it that way because people wrote about what they understood. Would it have made more sense if the Bible didn't make any sense?
|
|
...All that aside, I did have kind of an issue with the "wrathful creator" comment. I don't really see that at all. I guess that I can kind of see where you might get that impression, but I think that it's more than a bit off. Trying to use a similar analogy (at best) I think that it's more like we have already busted his "toybox" and he is building (or has already built?) a bigger and better "toybox" for people to play in if they are willing to follow the rules. There really are all kinds of problems with even that anology, but I feel like it's closer than the "wrathful creator" having a "tantrum".
I find that many think of God (Judæo-Christian) as wrathful because the Old Testament describes him so, even using the word 'wrathful'.
What we tend to forget is that the copy we're reading has been translated through so many languages by the time it made it to English, and that English itself has changed (and continues to do so) so much year-after-year, the words are often quite different now, connotatively, than their close-to-original meanings.
|
|
...who is also fraught with human emotions. It just does not compute; I can't see the logic at all.
What other kind of emotions would you be looking for?
It's almost like you are saying that it doesn't make sense that people tried to do what they could to make "sense" of God. Overall, I think that you are right. But I also don't know that God is "fraught with human emotions". I think that people may see it that way because people wrote about what they understood. Would it have made more sense if the Bible didn't make any sense?
You're right; and I don't know how else it could have been done, either. Any other way, and God would have been a character from an Existentialist play.
But the Bible, for example, is argued as the absolute, divinely inspired (written by God through proxies) Word--irrefutable and final. The God portrayed, superficially, in the Old Testament is a character who, were he a plain human, would be undeniably guilty of crimes against humanity in an international court of 2008.
Jesus Christ of the New Testament, analyzed the same way, would win the Nobel Peace Prize and be awarded honorary doctorates from every major university.
What I'm getting at is that the stories are all we have (all personal anecdotes and spiritual experiences aside), objectively speaking.
In the stories, when analyzed against other religions and myth cycles and from a modern point-of-view, and analyzed comparatively and literally, God is not written as much more than a superhuman.
I believe that God, as the supreme being, above and beyond all things, must be more than a mere superhuman.
|
|
I don't get why there has to be a meaning behind everything. Things happen because they happen. ... Basically the thought that some divine plan from a wrathful creator who is getting ready to destroy his "toybox" like a child having a tantrum is ridiculous.I actually agree with Corian in large part about this. And Jeremy as well. The idea of "karma" might be a little much. While it might be nice the idea that "nasty little people always get their come-uppance in the end" it certainly doesn't always seem to work out that way.
At the same time, some great "plan" that has our lives already "mapped out"... I don't know. Who's to say that this isn't like the "butterfly effect"? Who knows what kind of an impact my life (or death) may have on things either in this life or (if you believe it) the next? Maybe one child's suffering and death will bring about incredible and great things many, many years down the road. I am in no way advocating that suffering (especially of children) is in any way a good thing. And if anything we should really do whatever we can to help people out. I'm just saying that it is difficult (at best) for anyone to truly see "the whole picture".
All that aside, I did have kind of an issue with the "wrathful creator" comment. I don't really see that at all. I guess that I can kind of see where you might get that impression, but I think that it's more than a bit off. Trying to use a similar analogy (at best) I think that it's more like we have already busted his "toybox" and he is building (or has already built?) a bigger and better "toybox" for people to play in if they are willing to follow the rules. There really are all kinds of problems with even that anology, but I feel like it's closer than the "wrathful creator" having a "tantrum".
I see how that can be taken offensively I meant no offense I just got a little carried away sorry Moff. That being said that is me point of view and so far not much has changed it.
|
|
I see how that can be taken offensively I meant no offense I just got a little carried away sorry Moff. That being said that is me point of view and so far not much has changed it.
No offense taken. And differing "points of view" are great. Just wanting to give a different side of things to possibly balance it out. You're not alone in your thoughts either. But it seems to me that either a) you're right and the Bible teaches that God is some kind of petty being that likes to torment people like a child with an ant farm or b) the Bible attempts to show something different and we just don't fully understand it all -- most likely because we truly don't have all the information necessary. (I guess that there are a few other possibilities as well.) Personally, I prefer the later.
|
|
In the stories, when analyzed against other religions and myth cycles and from a modern point-of-view, and analyzed comparatively and literally, God is not written as much more than a superhuman.
I believe that God, as the supreme being, above and beyond all things, must be more than a mere superhuman.
I agree with you. However, I think that there is still quite a bit of this that is lost in translation. (Again, I'm not really an expert on these things) but as I understand it, in the Old Testament, there is a word for God that is both singular and plural. Not like the word can be used both ways, but that this word means both at the same time. How does that work? (Rhetorical question really -- I'm sure there are many sermons on it.) But my point is that it is entirely possible that the Bible shows that God is "more than a mere superhuman" but that we loose a lot because we don't fully understand the culture or the intricacies inherent in the original language.
|
|
I saw a cartoon in the New Yorker that may shed some light on whatever situation you feel it sheds light on.
- Two ancient Judean-looking guys are poring over a scroll labled "YE HOLY BIBLE". The first scribe looks at the second one and says "I wonder if anybody's gonna take this s~%* seriously." The second guy laughs.
|
|
I saw a cartoon in the New Yorker that may shed some light on whatever situation you feel it sheds light on.
- Two ancient Judean-looking guys are poring over a scroll labled "YE HOLY BIBLE". The first scribe looks at the second one and says "I wonder if anybody's gonna take this s#~@ seriously." The second guy laughs.
Reminds me of a "News" quote from a Red Dwarf episode --
Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.
Reminds me of the one about the rabbi and the priest, talking about the Catholic heirarchy. The rabbi says, "so, wait, you're telling me you're getting a promotion? Like a businessman?"
Priest: "Yes, I'll be a bishop, and report to Archbishop O'Malley."
Rabbi: "And can HE get promoted?"
"Well, above that, there's Cardinal, and of course we have the Pope at the top."
"But nothing above Pope, right? You can't become Jesus Christ?"
The priest laughs, "Not hardly!"
The rabbi nods wisely and says, "Well, one of our boys made it!"
|
|
Here's one I have to say I've never heard someone actually say. The idea is vaguely hinted at by Milton, but here it is:
The Devil, as a lover of mankind, sacrifices his place in Heaven in order to bring knowledge and free will to man, in the process damning himself forever. The idea is that the Devil, rather than jealous of man, was the first champion of freedom. In this argument, he disagrees with God's rulership and practices, and with his plan for man and the universe. Rather than acquiesce, he plots to subvert man in Eden, and this was the precipitant to the war in Heaven. Cajoling Eve to partake of the Fruit of Knowledge was an attempt to influence the course of history rather than a mere slight against God, and in this way Lucifer is the Judæo-Christian Prometheus.
Comments...?
|
|
It is simultaneously wrong and right to thank God. Why?
It's a question of ethics. Basically, ethics boil down to "I like this, therefore it's right. I don't like this, therefore it's wrong."
Sure, it bugs me a little bit that good people aren't getting the credit they deserve, but it doesn't bug me that people thank God for obviously human acts. If it makes them happy, go for it.
Starbucks 'The Way I See It' #247
I love this cup.
'"Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."
-- Bill Scheel
Starbucks customer from London, Ontario. He describes himself as a "modern day nobody."'
|
Isn't it a tad arrogant to think we provide everything for ourselves? For example: "I got this job!" or "I bought this car!" or even "I found my wallet!"
What is wrong with giving credit to The Lord? Is it not even remotely possible that those things fell into place with the help from the Hand of God?
It just takes a little faith. It's all we got to work with! I believe The Bible to be the Word of God, written by individuals inspired directly by God Himself...
And for that, I give credit were credit is due...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Ok this is how I view things. The origins of religion from a scientific view.
1) All creatures have an absolute need for survival. From the smallest bug to the biggest whale al have a self preservation mechanism. Humans are no different we have a major self preservation mechanism death is a scary but inevitable part of life. However given the intelligence of a human there would inevitably be a point where death would have to be psychological solved. As in the belief in life after death occured because of this.
2) Humans like all primates are social animals we form family units just like chimpanzees and Gorillas. Henceforth the bibles heavy reliance on family values is really a genetic throwback from our ape ancestry.
3) Though I don't see the bible as a spiritual text I do see it as incredibly important as one of the first examples of the formation of civilization. Hence the ten commandments which afre nothing more than common sense rules for forming a working society.
4) Then there is the reliance factor. Whether you like or not there are many things that are out of your control. And as this began to dawn on people they began to believe that there was something or someone that does have everything under control. This is nothing more than a comfort mechanism.
So honestly to me there isn't anything I find spiritual about religion.
I had some questions.
Why does (a) God need to be worshipped? It's not like there is a competition going on who has the most worshippers, this isn't FR where a deity's power is related to the number of worshippers.
Assuming that there is a heaven, but you don't believe. Why wouldn't (a) God let you in (let's assume you've lived a 'good' life)?
|
|
I had some questions.
Why does (a) God need to be worshipped? It's not like there is a competition going on who has the most worshippers, this isn't FR where a deity's power is related to the number of worshippers.
Assuming that there is a heaven, but you don't believe. Why wouldn't (a) God let you in (let's assume you've lived a 'good' life)?
I'll bite on this one...
God does not need to be worshipped so much as he desires our fellowship with him...
We in turn, should desire to give him thanks and praise (not so different than a child would look up to their father)...
And leading a good life and still getting into Heaven is not Biblical (oh but the Jews in the old testament! I'll get to that in a moment)...
All we really have to do to get into Heaven, is proclaim Jesus to be the Son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins...
I'm not trying to preach to anyone (and I realize that last statement smacks of it, but it's all a part of the point I am trying to make)...
Under the New Covenant, Jesus told us that there is no way to the Father (that would be God), except unto Him (that would be Jesus)...
The old covenant (the Law or Ten Commandments) were not intended for the Gentiles (that would be us non-Jews). The Jewish people were under a different Covenant before Christ, and therefore were held to a different set of rules...
Jesus was the final blood sacrifice. Through Him, we no longer need The Law. For He is the Law. The Ten Commandments still hold relevance to a Christian because their meanings still hold true, even though we are no longer held up to them, because it is impossible to live up to them...
Which brings us back to Jesus, he was perfect and without flaw. His sacrifice left us blameless, giving us the chance, through Him, to enter into Heaven...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
All we really have to do to get into Heaven, is proclaim Jesus to be the Son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins... Under the New Covenant, Jesus told us that there is no way to the Father (that would be God), except unto Him (that would be Jesus)...
I interpret the New Testament quite differently. I always understood the "through (or 'unto') me" to mean "by following my teachings," and not to mean "by saying my name and/or catch-phrase." In other words, the Sermon on the Mount contains the wisdom needed to live a life of spiritual peace (a lot of it is similar to many of the teachings of the Buddha, in fact), and if you go off and do other things like rape, pillage, and murder (or just lie, covet, and steal, for that matter), you'll never be at peace with yourself or with God. People lost track of what to do, and Jesus came and reminded them all, and was crucified for his trouble... but that martyrdom only made the message that much clearer -- hopefully clear enough to reach the ears it needed to. In my estimation, Jesus was talking about walking the walk, not affiliating with the brand.
The Devil, as a lover of mankind, sacrifices his place in Heaven in order to bring knowledge and free will to man, in the process damning himself forever. The idea is that the Devil, rather than jealous of man, was the first champion of freedom. In this argument, he disagrees with God's rulership and practices, and with his plan for man and the universe. Rather than acquiesce, he plots to subvert man in Eden, and this was the precipitant to the war in Heaven. Cajoling Eve to partake of the Fruit of Knowledge was an attempt to influence the course of history rather than a mere slight against God, and in this way Lucifer is the Judæo-Christian Prometheus.
Comments...?
I'd go a step further and say God orchestrated the whole thing to teach us that in order to reach enlightenment one must question authority.
Edit: To say that God is good and the Devil is evil, or that God is too authoritative and the Devil is freedom, I think misses the point that you need both for any sort of metamorphosis.
|
|
I interpret the New Testament quite differently.
There are many references to Jesus’ divinity:
John 10:30 I and the Father are one
Acts 9:1
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples...
Acts 9:3-5
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
Who are you, Lord? Saul asked.
"I am Jesus whom you are persecuting...
To interpret the New Testament any other way than as it is written (i.e. face value), is to deny (a) the virgin birth, and (b) the divinity of Christ...
If you aren't a believer, well, that's between you and the Lord...
But to say the Bible is just a nice book with some clever stories that are nothing more than "guidelines"...
Well, again, I guess that's between you and the Lord...
Call me a misguided Bible-Thumper if you want, but I know where I'm going in the end :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Isn't it a tad arrogant to think we provide everything for ourselves? For example: "I got this job!" or "I bought this car!" or even "I found my wallet!"
What is wrong with giving credit to The Lord? Is it not even remotely possible that those things fell into place with the help from the Hand of God?
It just takes a little faith. It's all we got to work with! I believe The Bible to be the Word of God, written by individuals inspired directly by God Himself...
And for that, I give credit were credit is due...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I think it's quite clear even in the Bible that we have free will: that what we do we are held responsible for be it good or bad.
So no, I am not a tad arrogant.
I see no problem with giving credit to God, but I understand this appreciation to be spiritually motivated, that I do it for my state of mind. Did God drop my wallet here or there so I could find it again? Probably not. Do I thank him. Yes.
|
|
Here's one I have to say I've never heard someone actually say. The idea is vaguely hinted at by Milton, but here it is:
The Devil, as a lover of mankind, sacrifices his place in Heaven in order to bring knowledge and free will to man, in the process damning himself forever. The idea is that the Devil, rather than jealous of man, was the first champion of freedom. In this argument, he disagrees with God's rulership and practices, and with his plan for man and the universe. Rather than acquiesce, he plots to subvert man in Eden, and this was the precipitant to the war in Heaven. Cajoling Eve to partake of the Fruit of Knowledge was an attempt to influence the course of history rather than a mere slight against God, and in this way Lucifer is the Judæo-Christian Prometheus.
Comments...?
I saw something parallel to that in (I think) Joseph Campbell's Occidental Mythology; not "Satan" per se; I think it had to do with the Greek Hesperides. I'll have to look it up to better comment on it.
Actually the idea that divine beings sit around placing jobs for people and reuniting them with their lost housekeys sounds like a big slice o' hubris to me. Historically, some people learned the names of Gods so that they could demand favors from them... sort of like wrestling a bear so you could ride it to work. I don't worry about the fates delivering reward unto me. When a pugilist thanks Jesus for a personal win over another boxer, the fact that he thinks he backed the right God and thus, his violence was magically more effective, seems almost protohistoric. They've been doing that crap since the lost red paint people worshipped killer whales.
If someone believes that certain forces created the universe, fine and dandy. If they believe in do unto others, more power to them. If they believe they need to show hometown football team allegiance and cheerlead like tinkerbell trying to revive Peter Pan ("Are you a Christian, son? ... ME TOO!"), then IMO, they have missed the point of trying to understand the world for its spirituality. People have a lot of trouble accepting the idea that not everything revolves around them, and that is arrogance. What if your god gave you the gift of life and the world in which to play and suffer, and now it's all up to you what happens next? Is that frightening? I live every day in an absurdist universe where I assume I'm responsible for myself and yet comically doomed to screw it all up. Don't pity me, I can laugh at myself. A. Lot.
I met Horus once and offered to worship him. He laughed, pecked me atop my pate, and said, "Hey, thanks a heap. What would I have done without you?"
|
|
I'll kinda do it when I get intravenous access on somebody with really difficult veins; they tell me I'm good, but I just say "I give thanks to higher powers;" I don't like to let myself get too cocky. For me it's a hubris-combating mechanism.
Oh, I'm a nuclear med tech, so that's what I'm talking about injecting people; I guess out of context the above statement might sound a little whacky.
Oh, and I don't make a practice of preaching to patients or anything.
I don't preach to anybody for that matter.
I'll kinda do it when I get intravenous access on somebody with really difficult veins; they tell me I'm good, but I just say "I give thanks to higher powers;" I don't like to let myself get too cocky. For me it's a hubris-combating mechanism.
Oh, I'm a nuclear med tech, so that's what I'm talking about injecting people; I guess out of context the above statement might sound a little whacky.
Oh, and I don't make a practice of preaching to patients or anything.
I don't preach to anybody for that matter.
Thanks for the explanation. You never struck me as one of those bear wrasslers, my man. ;) The big difference is that you're giving thanks for a tender mercy.
|
|
The Lord Loves us and longs for us to accept and acknowledge Him...
Why? For no other reason than He created us out of love! A father looks to his child and wants only the same thing, love...
The Lord gave us free-will. Not just to do as we please, but to accept the Truth or deny Him...
People want to live as they please, without someone passing judgment. Just look at the Liberal Left in this country (if it feels good, it's okay, you're not hurting anybody!)...
Don't you just love religion and politics! ;-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
People want to live as they please, without someone passing judgment. Just look at the Liberal Left in this country (if it feels good, it's okay, you're not hurting anybody!)...
Yes; they're sitting there saying, "Look at the conservative right in this country; persecute everyone who isn't exactly like themselves!"