Ex-Christians, Why Did You Lose Your Faith? (disciple, baptize, trinity)

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The spiritual evolution in the spiritual fossil record is replete with similar spiritual templates. Syncretism is the operative word for the spiritual evolution of our understanding of God. But the Jesus narrative is the most sophisticated and spiritually evolved of those that preceded it.

i don't see where i have the right to deny Krishna as a type of Christ, in fact i read distinctly that we are not to judge outsiders, but ourselves.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The spiritual evolution in the spiritual fossil record is replete with similar spiritual templates. Syncretism is the operative word for the spiritual evolution of our understanding of God. But the Jesus narrative is the most sophisticated and spiritually evolved of those that preceded it.

Originally Posted by Freak80

That's quackery. Big time quackery.

I realize you no longer believe that God communicates with us through our consciousness, Freak. But for those of us who do, why on earth would we think it hasn't been happening since the beginning of our awareness. Each evolution used their knowledge and understanding (such as it was) to interpret the spiritual template being revealed by God. What is quackery about that???

[bbyrd009]

yes, that is surely what many mansions actually means.

Originally Posted by Freak80

That's quackery. Big time quackery.

hmm, you can't be sure of this. We have a record of several types for Christ in Scripture. Think about it; your objection is that it somehow invalidates Christianity; but you would be hard pressed to defend this. It is really just insisting that God is not allowed to express Himself in ways you are not aware of, and a condemnation of what you have been instructed not to judge. When you say 'that's quackery' you are saying "God does not need to judge these hearts, i got this."

[bbyrd009]

um, i guess i'm not done. when your kids absorb that, you have constructed a wall for them. and trained them how to defend it. and put the gun in their hands.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

not to be pedantic, but you mean "a church," right?

I used to have a co-worker who would say, "No offense but..." and then proceed by saying something that she knew would offend. I thought it was really stupid. If she didn't want to offend, then she should not have said what she knew would be offensive. If your intent is not to be pedantic, then don't be. We were speaking of a particular church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would be stupid for me to type that out every time I'm referring to it, so both the word "the" and the capitalized word "Church" were entirely appropriate.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The spiritual evolution in the spiritual fossil record is replete with similar spiritual templates. Syncretism is the operative word for the spiritual evolution of our understanding of God. But the Jesus narrative is the most sophisticated and spiritually evolved of those that preceded it.

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

i don't see where i have the right to deny Krishna as a type of Christ, in fact i read distinctly that we are not to judge outsiders, but ourselves.

The stage of humankind determined the content of the Christ narrative. Here are 5 narratives prior to the time of Christ with the similar content for each. You can see that syncretism was definitely at work as we evolved our understanding of God and His messenger/Savior.

Horus (3100 BC)
He had 12 disciples.
One was born of a virgin in a cave.
Like Jesus, his birth was announced via a star.
And three wise men showed up!
He was baptized when he was 30 by Anup the Baptizer.
He rose a guy from the dead and walked on water.
Lastly, he was crucified, buried like Jesus in a tomb, and resurrected.

Krishna (3000 B.C.)
Born after his mom was impregnated by a God.
Angels, wise men, and shepherds were at his birth.
Guess what gifts they gave him? Gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
A jealous bad guy ordered the slaughter of all newborns, just as happened with Jesus.
Baptized in a river.
Performed miracles, including raising the dead and healing the deaf and blind.
Rose from the dead to ascend to heaven.
Is expected to return to earth someday to fight the “Prince of Evil.”

Osiris (2500 B.C.)
Son of an Egyptian God.
Killed and then resurrected after three days in hell.
Performed miracles
Had 12 disciples.
Taught rebirth through water baptism.

Mithra (2000 B.C.)
Virginal birth on December 25th.
Swaddled and laid in a manger.
Tended by shepherds in the manger.
He had 12 companions (or disciples).
Performed miracles.
Gave his own life to save the world.
Dead for three days, then resurrected.
Called “the Way, the Truth and the Light.”
Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style “Lord’s supper.”

Buddha (563 B.C.)
Healed the sick
Walked on water.
Fed 500 men from one basket of cakes.
Taught a lot of the same things Jesus taught, including equality for all.
He spent three days in jail.
Was resurrected when he died.

Jesus (1 A.D.)
You can fill in from the above.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

<<< nipped for space >>>


Buddha (563 B.C.)
Healed the sick
Walked on water.
Fed 500 men from one basket of cakes.
Taught a lot of the same things Jesus taught, including equality for all.
He spent three days in jail.
Was resurrected when he died.

Jesus (1 A.D.)
You can fill in from the above.

Confucius ;"got it" too.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

So, you believe one really old source, but not another.

Not long before deconversion stories became arguing about the Christian claims. In fact, the idea of a god sacrificing himself to himself to make a loophole in a rule he made himself is pretty much reason why, although the historical fact of a Jew crucified by Plate is sound enough, the religious claims loaded onto that are ridiculous.

One book and not another? Well, how much of Beowulf do you believe? How much of the Arthurian legends or Gilgamesh? It is not a question of believe or not but what seems to be credible and what not, and if mostly not, is there perhaps a 5th century post Roman Arthur and a "Camelot" built on an old Ironage hill-fort?

The Bible has no claim to be assessed any differently from any other book.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I used to have a co-worker who would say, "No offense but..." and then proceed by saying something that she knew would offend. I thought it was really stupid. If she didn't want to offend, then she should not have said what she knew would be offensive. If your intent is not to be pedantic, then don't be. We were speaking of a particular church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would be stupid for me to type that out every time I'm referring to it, so both the word "the" and the capitalized word "Church" were entirely appropriate.

ah, ok, i'm used to the Church being used to refer to the regenerated, and not a worldly corporation, sorry.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I realize you no longer believe that God communicates with us through our consciousness, Freak. But for those of us who do, why on earth would we think it hasn't been happening since the beginning of our awareness. Each evolution used their knowledge and understanding (such as it was) to interpret the spiritual template being revealed by God. What is quackery about that???

All of it is quackery. It's like believing that an invisible vacuum cleaner communicates to humans via ham and cheese sandwiches.