Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christianity claims that a supreme being who created the heavens, the earth, the sun, moon and the stars had a son who came to the earth and sacrificed himself on a cross for the sins of all mankind so that we may all have eternal life.
I'd say this claim is not the most straightforward of things in the world to prove. It's a little bit complicated. Or you can just say "Take my word for it. This is the truth." And just leave it at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Too complicated to be real, in my view.
Or you can try to apply our imagination, knowledge, and reasoning ability to infer what the heck could possibly be behind such allegedly God-inspired primitive interpretations. Any such effort would require that you eschew divine inerrancy and entertain the practical implications of such inspirations and the primitive and knowledge-deprived interpretations of them. Absent any motivation to accept such assumptions and the typical mandated reverence for the current interpretations, any such pragmatic evaluation is unlikely to be engaged in. But I had experiential motivation from an encounter in deep meditation. My own non-dogma encumbered efforts produced the following:
God is Spirit (Consciousness) and IS our physical and spiritual Reality (immanent and transcendent). God is immanent comprised of 5% physical (our measurable and observable universe) and transcendent comprised of 95% spiritual (unmeasurable dark energy and dark matter). Our solar system is probably just one of the uncounted physical systems (cells) using sentient beings to reproduce God's consciousness. Each such solar system must achieve perfect resonance (Identity with God's consciousness) in its sentient output.
Everything we see suggests evolution is the operative paradigm for this achievement. The desired outcome suggests that at some point it would be necessary to ensure that once the general capability evolved that each species had at least one member who achieved such resonance. This would mean that at least one member of each sentient species would need to essentially have God's Spirit incarnate in physical form. For our species, that would be Jesus Christ as depicted in the Christian narrative.
In my opinion, the difficulties, nay impossibility, of communicating purely by inspiration subject to their interpretations any such scenario to our primitive, carnal-minded, and knowledge-deprived progenitors who were absolutely terrified of Spirits is what accounts for the current irrational "carnal milk" interpretations. One of the many questions that plagued me during the development of this scenario was why would inspiration and not dictation be the method of transmission.
Acceptance of this limitation mandated the dismissal of our wishful thinking about an Omni-God (for which there is scant evidence in our Reality anyway). This rejection of the central attributes we demand as the qualifications that must be met to qualify as our God was certainly a drastic step. But it enabled me to analogize our "spiritual pregnancy" to our own physical birth scenarios. How effectively can we communicate with our own offspring while they are in the womb?
Or you can try to apply our imagination, knowledge, and reasoning ability to infer what the heck could possibly be behind such allegedly God-inspired primitive interpretations. Any such effort would require that you eschew divine inerrancy and entertain the practical implications of such inspirations and the primitive and knowledge-deprived interpretations of them. Absent any motivation to accept such assumptions and the typical mandated reverence for the current interpretations, any such pragmatic evaluation is unlikely to be engaged in. But I had experiential motivation from an encounter in deep meditation. My own non-dogma encumbered efforts produced the following:
God is Spirit (Consciousness) and IS our physical and spiritual Reality (immanent and transcendent). God is immanent comprised of 5% physical (our measurable and observable universe) and transcendent comprised of 95% spiritual (unmeasurable dark energy and dark matter). Our solar system is probably just one of the uncounted physical systems (cells) using sentient beings to reproduce God's consciousness. Each such solar system must achieve perfect resonance (Identity with God's consciousness) in its sentient output.
Everything we see suggests evolution is the operative paradigm for this achievement. The desired outcome suggests that at some point it would be necessary to ensure that once the general capability evolved that each species had at least one member who achieved such resonance. This would mean that at least one member of each sentient species would need to essentially have God's Spirit incarnate in physical form. For our species, that would be Jesus Christ as depicted in the Christian narrative.
In my opinion, the difficulties, nay impossibility, of communicating purely by inspiration subject to their interpretations any such scenario to our primitive, carnal-minded, and knowledge-deprived progenitors who were absolutely terrified of Spirits is what accounts for the current irrational "carnal milk" interpretations. One of the many questions that plagued me during the development of this scenario was why would inspiration and not dictation be the method of transmission.
Acceptance of this limitation mandated the dismissal of our wishful thinking about an Omni-God (for which there is scant evidence in our Reality anyway). This rejection of the central attributes we demand as the qualifications that must be met to qualify as our God was certainly a drastic step. But it enabled me to analogize our "spiritual pregnancy" to our own physical birth scenarios. How effectively can we communicate with our own offspring while they are in the womb?
Mystic...hundreds of churches have their own version of god. Millions of people have their own version of god. You are just one of them. You have an opinion. Fine. You're welcome to it. It stands right there alongside all those millions of other opinions about god. Good luck to you.
Just call 'em the way I see 'em is all, and at least I make an effort to explain my simple minded opinions. With whatever facts, reason and logic available to me. Simple minded though I may be compared to you more aware ones. Hard to compete with those of you more in touch with God and the likes. I've not got that sort of divine source of reality, or connection with the great oneness of allness that includes all of us and beyond.
The truth is that you are not receptive or amenable to the divine source that is available to us all for reasons all of your own devising.
The truth is that you are not receptive or amenable to the divine source that is available to us all for reasons all of your own devising.
I'm not sure what you can possibly imagine that keeps me from experiencing the same divine source you reference, but you are wrong to think I'm not receptive. Quite the opposite really. It's all version of what that divine source seems to be causing people to think and believe that is all so different from one person to the next that I'm not at all too quick to adopt as truth. Big difference!
For example, I don't believe it takes all this deep effort to meditate in order to find God like you claim. Why? Because there are so many people who claim to know God and haven't done any similar sort of meditation at all. Others who have meditated quite seriously who don't claim to know God the way you do. Who don't claim God has ANYTHING to do with Jesus for that matter?
Am I to be receptive to all these notions so different one from the other? Am I supposed to be receptive to the man on the corner who claims he IS Jesus? I really don't think so...
That's the big difference you love to confuse, because you know as well as I do that it's the "wild west" of imagining anything and everything that I'm referring to. I once believed in God after all. Never lost my receptiveness at all. I just lost my ability to believe whatever everyone else wants me to believe. Suggests I should believe, because of their own personal experience -- all so different one from the other. Next comes all the different religions.
Perhaps put it this way. If/when God should ever want me to know God is there, I'm ready, willing and wanting -- receptive. Until that happens, however, I am an atheist for all the reasons I've explained. Lack of receptiveness is simply not one of them!
I am no less receptive to the existence of God than I am to peace on Earth and a cure for cancer. But receptiveness does not equate to reality for me. Simple as that really. Even if you will next twist everything I explain all to FUBAR like you always do.
I'm not sure what you can possibly imagine that keeps me from experiencing the same divine source you reference, but you are wrong to think I'm not receptive. Quite the opposite really. It's all version of what that divine source seems to be causing people to think and believe that is all so different from one person to the next that I'm not at all too quick to adopt as truth. Big difference!
For example, I don't believe it takes all this deep effort to meditate in order to find God like you claim. Why? Because there are so many people who claim to know God and haven't done any similar sort of meditation at all. Others who have meditated quite seriously who don't claim to know God the way you do. Who don't claim God has ANYTHING to do with Jesus for that matter?
Am I to be receptive to all these notions so different one from the other? Am I supposed to be receptive to the man on the corner who claims he IS Jesus? I really don't think so...
That's the big difference you love to confuse, because you know as well as I do that it's the "wild west" of imagining anything and everything that I'm referring to. I once believed in God after all. Never lost my receptiveness at all. I just lost my ability to believe whatever everyone else wants me to believe. Suggests I should believe, because of their own personal experience -- all so different one from the other. Next comes all the different religions.
Perhaps put it this way. If/when God should ever want me to know God is there, I'm ready, willing and wanting -- receptive. Until that happens, however, I am an atheist for all the reasons I've explained. Lack of receptiveness is simply not one of them!
I am no less receptive to the existence of God than I am to peace on Earth and a cure for cancer. But receptiveness does not equate to reality for me. Simple as that really. Even if you will next twist everything I explain all to FUBAR like you always do.
Same as with all christians. They think they're special.
Christianity claims that a supreme being who created the heavens, the earth, the sun, moon and the stars had a son who came to the earth and sacrificed himself on a cross for the sins of all mankind so that we may all have eternal life.
I'd say this claim is not the most straightforward of things in the world to prove. It's a little bit complicated. Or you can just say "Take my word for it. This is the truth." And just leave it at that.
Had a son, did he. Well, I am curious when this "fact" was discussed in earlier writings, or did he just pop into the scene at the right moment? And why did he have to sacrifice himself, and did he really sacrifice himself since rumor has it that he sits at the right side of papa, who could averted this mess by just not creating it in the first place. Further, why would his son have to be temporarily sacrificed for us to have eternal life?
My point is none of this, not one shred of it, stands up to the slightest scrutiny. In fact, it is all nonsensical. It is far worse than complicated, it is gibberish.
I'm not sure what you can possibly imagine that keeps me from experiencing the same divine source you reference, but you are wrong to think I'm not receptive. Quite the opposite really. It's all version of what that divine source seems to be causing people to think and believe that is all so different from one person to the next that I'm not at all too quick to adopt as truth. Big difference!
For example, I don't believe it takes all this deep effort to meditate in order to find God like you claim. Why? Because there are so many people who claim to know God and haven't done any similar sort of meditation at all. Others who have meditated quite seriously who don't claim to know God the way you do. Who don't claim God has ANYTHING to do with Jesus for that matter?
Am I to be receptive to all these notions so different one from the other? Am I supposed to be receptive to the man on the corner who claims he IS Jesus? I really don't think so...
That's the big difference you love to confuse, because you know as well as I do that it's the "wild west" of imagining anything and everything that I'm referring to. I once believed in God after all. Never lost my receptiveness at all. I just lost my ability to believe whatever everyone else wants me to believe. Suggests I should believe, because of their own personal experience -- all so different one from the other. Next comes all the different religions.
Perhaps put it this way. If/when God should ever want me to know God is there, I'm ready, willing and wanting -- receptive. Until that happens, however, I am an atheist for all the reasons I've explained. Lack of receptiveness is simply not one of them!
I am no less receptive to the existence of God than I am to peace on Earth and a cure for cancer. But receptiveness does not equate to reality for me. Simple as that really. Even if you will next twist everything I explain all to FUBAR like you always do.
As a victim of the expectations (or more accurately, lack of expectations in my case) about God as an atheist for over 30 years, I am well aware of the receptivity issue, LearnMe. Admittedly, your engagement of the God issue evolves from a very different set of experiences considering your earlier acceptance of religion and involves dashed expectations. Nonetheless, there is no need to FUBAR to detect its symptoms.
Mystic...hundreds of churches have their own version of god. Millions of people have their own version of god. You are just one of them. You have an opinion. Fine. You're welcome to it. It stands right there alongside all those millions of other opinions about god. Good luck to you.
Had a son, did he. Well, I am curious when this "fact" was discussed in earlier writings, or did he just pop into the scene at the right moment? And why did he have to sacrifice himself, and did he really sacrifice himself since rumor has it that he sits at the right side of papa, who could averted this mess by just not creating it in the first place. Further, why would his son have to be temporarily sacrificed for us to have eternal life?
My point is none of this, not one shred of it, stands up to the slightest scrutiny. In fact, it is all nonsensical. It is far worse than complicated, it is gibberish.
Sure it does. If the narrative is taken literally.
The explanation is right in the Book: He knows...we don't. The thoughts and ways of the Omnimax Powered God (that can do anything and knows everything), are above ours.
It's all totally cool and sensible...and He knows it...on the other hand, we don't, since we are working with our inferior thoughts & ways.
That's why it is "nonsensical" to you..."gibberish" even. Because your lower/lesser thoughts & ways are unable to understand such things.
It fully explains it...you just don't want to assess and accept those parts of the text. But if you are to critique it literally...you must accept those parts too.
Now...if you got hip to the fact that they are metaphorical and allegorical works...that would also clear it up for you as well.
Mystic...hundreds of churches have their own version of god. Millions of people have their own version of god. You are just one of them. You have an opinion. Fine. You're welcome to it. It stands right there alongside all those millions of other opinions about god. Good luck to you.
List the observations forming the belief. They are not all the same.
Once again, religion-ist thinking creeps through. "level the field" then mine belief can remain real. To me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
