Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

JC comes along and gives people something very difficult to do, but so simple and straightforward you could fit the directions on a postcard, and his admirers spend the next 2000 years fucking it up.

Needed to be in bold and large type.

JC gave very simple laws.  But as an attorney, reading what "Christianity" has done to that reminds me of what happens to good laws when well-funded special interest lobbies get ahold of them.  The law ends up reading like this:

A) It's against the law to poison people.

B) Exceptions to the prohibition in section A) are as follows:

  1) does not apply to poisoners named "Steve"

  2) does not apply if you really don't like the person you're poisoning

.....

  947) does not apply to Bob Smith, of 123 Pecan Street, because he stroked me a big fat campaign check

 

The rule is "love."  The exceptions to, and/or counter-textual definitions of what it means to "love," have swallowed the rule to the point that it's damned near the LAST thing "Christians" will do.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

Simple rules, but extremely difficult to practice and impossible to put into practice at all times.

I'm reminded of the old adage about Texas Hold 'Em Poker: "takes a minute to learn and a life time to master".

Humans are inherently selfish, wicked people and so it's a daily effort and every morning it's imperative to pick up your cross. It's super similiar to the alcoholic who takes it one day at a time and with both the man serious about his faith and the man serious about his sobriety, daily habits that ground you in your positive goals (gratitude journals, prayers, meditations, devotionals, hitting your knees, whatever works for you) start when you wake up and being in a community of likeminded people are very helpful.

Edited by Vegas64
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Similar.  Grew up Catholic - Catholic school PK4-12.  In 3rd grade the nun who taught us told us that Adam and Eve didn't really exist, but were rather an allegory.  I was like, WTF?  Then my mom told me Santa Claus wasn't real.  I started questioning everything and didn't stop until after college.  I became an anthropology major for the same reasons you undertook study - to find out what the fuck was going on and why.  I reached conclusions that were satisfactory enough for me and stopped questioning so much and stressing about the answers, or lack thereof.

Specifically with respect to religion - there is absolutely nothing religion can give you that you cannot get in other aspects of life.  Morality, righteousness, charity, community, divinity, everything that religion has to offer, you can get somewhere else.  In fact, I'd submit that receiving all of those things outside of religion actually is far better.  Do you want to be a good person only so you don't go to an imaginary hell?  What, are we children who can only do right to avoid punishment?  Not me. I'd rather be a good person for reasons that I've come to through reason and logic.  Given all of the flaws with religion and that it has nothing to offer I can't get better somewhere else, I've got no use for it.

I've read this whole thread to this point, and just want to say great post, it resonated with my own experiences. I grew up in a Catholic household, going to church, by a mother who was almost a nun (twice), and was a long time Catholic school teacher. Great mom, great believer in all the best things about Christianity, with none of the often present negatives these days. 

But I haven't felt more spiritually grounded, as a father, and as a person, and satisfied about my morality since I left all of organized religion behind decades ago. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
34 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Hate people who are different than you? Put money and power above all else? Shame the poor and homeless?

Jesus never said any of that in any of is teachings. It's why the people you're talking about now aren't Christians, and likely never were Christians. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Simple rules, but extremely difficult to practice and impossible to put into practice at all times.

I'm reminded of the old adage about Texas Hold 'Em Poker: "takes a minute to learn and a life time to master".

Humans are inherently selfish, wicked people and so it's a daily effort and every morning it's imperative to pick up your cross. It's super similiar to the alcoholic who takes it one day at a time and with both the man serious about his faith and the man serious about his sobriety, daily habits that ground you in your positive goals (gratitude journals, prayers, meditations, devotionals, hitting your knees, whatever works for you) start when you wake up and being in a community of likeminded people are very helpful.

Bozo said this once (and I attribute it to him, because it's damned good): when asked if he's a Christian, the right answer is "no, but I'm trying to be."

To call on a point of reference that most of us will recognize, I think often of the last bit of Saving Private Ryan, as the old Ryan, remembering the sacrifice and loss that were necessary to get him to his old age, asks his family "tell me I've lived a good life."

The way I see it, there are two types of people in this world: 1) those who ask that sort of question at the end of their life (and are never satisfied with the answer, because they know there's always something more/better that they could have done) and 2) those who really don't even give a fuck about that question.  I have told my wife more than once that one of the things that keeps me up at night is the knowledge that I've fallen short: I haven't done enough to help, I haven't been as kind as I could be, I haven't done as much good as I could have.  The answer of "you've done plenty" is unsatisfying, as you're acutely aware that you could have done more . . . and if you could have done more, then that means you haven't done enough.  Intellectually, I know that's not true.  Spiritually....well, spiritually speaking, I'm not very intellectual.  I'm a simple man.  If I gave someone my shoes, my question after the fact is "wait, why the fuck didn't I give him my socks, too?"

And by the way, I am NOT posting this to make a point that I'm some good person - quite the opposite.  I fall short more epically and profoundly than I could ever be comfortable with.  I'm not shit.  And even though I say "but I'm trying to be" with respect to being a Christian . . . am I really?  Am I really trying?  Or am I another selfish lazy piece of shit?  Signs point to the POS option.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bozo said this once (and I attribute it to him, because it's damned good): when asked if he's a Christian, the right answer is "no, but I'm trying to be."

To call on a point of reference that most of us will recognize, I think often of the last bit of Saving Private Ryan, as the old Ryan, remembering the sacrifice and loss that were necessary to get him to his old age, asks his family "tell me I've lived a good life."

The way I see it, there are two types of people in this world: 1) those who ask that sort of question at the end of their life (and are never satisfied with the answer, because they know there's always something more/better that they could have done) and 2) those who really don't even give a fuck about that question.  I have told my wife more than once that one of the things that keeps me up at night is the knowledge that I've fallen short: I haven't done enough to help, I haven't been as kind as I could be, I haven't done as much good as I could have.  The answer of "you've done plenty" is unsatisfying, as you're acutely aware that you could have done more . . . and if you could have done more, then that means you haven't done enough.  Intellectually, I know that's not true.  Spiritually....well, spiritually speaking, I'm not very intellectual.  I'm a simple man.  If I gave someone my shoes, my question after the fact is "wait, why the fuck didn't I give him my socks, too?"

And by the way, I am NOT posting this to make a point that I'm some good person - quite the opposite.  I fall short more epically and profoundly than I could ever be comfortable with.  I'm not shit.  And even though I say "but I'm trying to be" with respect to being a Christian . . . am I really?  Am I really trying?  Or am I another selfish lazy piece of shit?  Signs point to the POS option.

This is a very eloquent way of expanding out why you need a savior in the first place. If you are a Christian and believe in the God of the OT and Jesus Christ, then you understand that even as you try to be a righteous and blameless man, you will fall short. Our creator, Father God is perfect and just and will not tolereate sin, so for us to have an eternal reconcilation with him, we needed a redeemer (savior, intermediary, sacrifice, whatever).

And Jesus paid it all, as the old hymn says.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

This is a very eloquent way of expanding out why you need a savior in the first place. If you are a Christian and believe in the God of the OT and Jesus Christ, then you understand that even as you try to be a righteous and blameless man, you will fall short. Our creator, Father God is perfect and just and will not tolereate sin, so for us to have an eternal reconcilation with him, we needed a redeemer (savior, intermediary, sacrifice, whatever).

And Jesus paid it all, as the old hymn says.

And the thing is....I really don't know if I go anywhere at all down that "savior/salvation" road at all.  In many...most?....all?...respects, I'm more of a universalist.  And the "Atman in search of the Brahman" thing is really spot on for that.  I am an essential part of the universe -- it is not complete without me.  I will always be part of the universe, for good or bad.  That cannot be changed.  Which I actually think is beautiful, and creates its own sense of obligation.  The story of the universe cannot be told without telling the story of me.  And as my chapter is written into that book, shouldn't it be a chapter for the good?  Wouldn't that be best?

"Let me tell you the story of the story of the time this stardust spent as Brisketexan.  It was good.  This universe of ours was made a better place because of the time that stardust spent as Brisketexan."

Or, maybe it will be "yeah....this stardust spent some time as Brisketexan.  Trust me, you really don't want to know about it.  Nothing good came of it, plus there was a time where he made Allsup's burritos fall into short supply.  So, let's talk about that stardust's next iteration -- worm food.  Man, those were some good worms."

And to tie it back to the divine (and that Atman-Brahman), that means that the divinity of this universe is also in me.  What an amazing, profound, and beautiful thing.  The spark of creation, of life, is lit and burns within me.  What a fool I would be to squander it as it exists in the individual iteration we call Brisketexan.

Edited by Brisketexan
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The law

Is. Remember the discussion of what is is?

How about mercy or kindness?

There are two verses that outside of the Sermon on the Mount and Love being the end goal that distill down religion and what's expected of us. Micah 6:8 and James 1:27. I'm going to start with Micah for the benefit of our Jewish buddies.

But, before I get get to the actual verse I'm going to lawyer it up and talk about a single word and what could it possibly mean?!

 

The Hebrew word is חֵסֵד H2617 hesed. It is used 248 times being applied to men and God. In Micah 6, it is applied to man. Brown-Driver-Briggs offers this range of meaning:

1 kindness of men towards men, in doing favours and benefits ...
2 kindness (especially as extended to the lowly, needy and miserable), mercy ...
3 (rarely) affection if Israel to ׳י love to God, piety ...
4 lovely appearance

According to BDB, both "kindness" and "mercy" are valid meanings. However, "faithfulness" is not mentioned. The emphasis here is not on the faithfulness of man.

The immediate context here is justice to fellow men. Micah is calling the people to love and to show mercy and kindness. Take another step back, the context is appeasing God:

6 With what shall I come before the Lord
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?

Jesus confirms this importance of being merciful in Matthew 9:13

But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'

I'd say that "mercy" is the best translation for Micah 6:8. It is better than sacrifice.

Here's the verse in question. I'm going to bypass all of the varying Christian translations and go to a search of Micah 6:8 Talmud, because well duh.

“You have been told, O mortal, what is good,
And what GOD requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk modestly with your God;
 
I want to concentrate on the two verbs 'do' and 'love' and specifically why they aren't transposed. We're told to Do Justice, not love it. Here hesed is translated as 'goodness' instead of mercy or kindness. That's what we're instructed to love, we're to actively pursue justice and love goodness and mercy. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our morally self superior state that we often mix the two verbs. We're out here loving the 'justice' as we see it foisted upon our fellow human beings. See Leopards Eating Faces. I'm as guilty of that as anyone. And I am just as guilty of avoiding the kindness and mercy part in the midst of the consequences of the Justice being visited upon them by their Orange god. See Huckabees AR,  et al.
 
That's a really fucking simple command of what is required of me and I fall woefully short in dozens, hundreds, thousands of instances. Woefully, disdainfully short. I ought to be more merciful to those backwoods hillbillies. But, damned if it is hard to do. It's far more fun to love the Justice that is being visited upon them, soybean farmers, cigar sellers, and the other victims of the hacking slash of DOGE.
 
James starts it off in chapter 1. 'True religion' is what he calls it. 
 
27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
 
That's the NIV. 
 
Here's umpteen other versions 
 
There are probably more entries on "what does that mean"?! Than there are discussions on how to accomplish the first part, because THAT COSTS MONEY. And those little fuckers ought to die and decrease the surplus population or at the very least stop being so poor. Fatty very plainly stated a while back that he doesn't give two shits about religion and feels no need to do a damn thing to help the poor and needy. How many people share that sentiment that are going to sit in the pews this coming Sunday and yet claim that giving them a free lunch is actually hurting them?
Rage inducing 
Which brings me back to that mercy stuff again. I'm supposed to show kindness to those sorry buncha fuckhead?
Yes
Dammit!
So, yeah I don't think I am going to be attaining Nirvana any time soon. I can't even get past the delicious schadenfreude of Leopards Eating Faces.
 
Dammit. I guess I'm going to have to stick around a while longer.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

If you want an example, instead of going inside of a church, go look at the stars.

Basically any other reason than, because my religion told me to.  Again, if you want an example - one definition of "good" is anything that promotes humanity and "evil" is anything that harms or hinders humanity.  So being a good person is to promote humanity.

You should listen to that lecture on Hinduism I posted. And for that matter read the pope’s essays. Being happy can be your religion. Looking at the stars and being a good person can be your religion. Tat tvam asi, my brother. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You should listen to that lecture on Hinduism I posted. And for that matter read the pope’s essays. Being happy can be your religion. Looking at the stars and being a good person can be your religion. Tat tvam asi, my brother. 

I'm going to put it on in the morning. I can't remember when or where Alan Watts got on my radar but it's time to give him a good listen.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

Humans are inherently selfish, wicked people

I disagree. I think this is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. 
 

ETA: I also think this is a bit of a cop out. “I’m not a piece of shit, it’s just human nature, so I’ll ask forgiveness from my sky cake god and all will be well.”  No, you’re just a piece of shit. You don’t have to be that way. 

Edited by Biff Tannen
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Bozo said this once (and I attribute it to him, because it's damned good): when asked if he's a Christian, the right answer is "no, but I'm trying to be."

To call on a point of reference that most of us will recognize, I think often of the last bit of Saving Private Ryan, as the old Ryan, remembering the sacrifice and loss that were necessary to get him to his old age, asks his family "tell me I've lived a good life."

The way I see it, there are two types of people in this world: 1) those who ask that sort of question at the end of their life (and are never satisfied with the answer, because they know there's always something more/better that they could have done) and 2) those who really don't even give a fuck about that question.  I have told my wife more than once that one of the things that keeps me up at night is the knowledge that I've fallen short: I haven't done enough to help, I haven't been as kind as I could be, I haven't done as much good as I could have.  The answer of "you've done plenty" is unsatisfying, as you're acutely aware that you could have done more . . . and if you could have done more, then that means you haven't done enough.  Intellectually, I know that's not true.  Spiritually....well, spiritually speaking, I'm not very intellectual.  I'm a simple man.  If I gave someone my shoes, my question after the fact is "wait, why the fuck didn't I give him my socks, too?"

And by the way, I am NOT posting this to make a point that I'm some good person - quite the opposite.  I fall short more epically and profoundly than I could ever be comfortable with.  I'm not shit.  And even though I say "but I'm trying to be" with respect to being a Christian . . . am I really?  Am I really trying?  Or am I another selfish lazy piece of shit?  Signs point to the POS option.

 

5 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

This is a very eloquent way of expanding out why you need a savior in the first place. If you are a Christian and believe in the God of the OT and Jesus Christ, then you understand that even as you try to be a righteous and blameless man, you will fall short. Our creator, Father God is perfect and just and will not tolereate sin, so for us to have an eternal reconcilation with him, we needed a redeemer (savior, intermediary, sacrifice, whatever).

And Jesus paid it all, as the old hymn says.

Other than repentance after acknowledging the work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection there is nothing you can do to be a Christian.  Your works will reflect whether your faith is genuine.  The Pharisees tried to work their faith out solely through works and Jesus condemned them to hell. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

I'm going to put it on in the morning. I can't remember when or where Alan Watts got on my radar but it's time to give him a good listen.

It doesn’t have to be that one either. I really like this one:

Or for the Catholics and Catholic-adjacent: Watts on Chesterton

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

 

Other than repentance after acknowledging the work of Christ on the cross and His resurrection there is nothing you can do to be a Christian.  Your works will reflect whether your faith is genuine.  The Pharisees tried to work their faith out solely through works and Jesus condemned them to hell. 

Respectfully, Jesus doesn’t say anything about how to be a Christian. He says a number of things about how to be. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Respectfully, Jesus doesn’t say anything about how to be a Christian. He says a number of things about how to be. 

And, given the ever-changing circumstances of life, continuing to seek the teachings of Christ is a fairly essential part of how to be.

To increase or maintain your conscious contact with your higher power, as it were.

it's not and cannot be a "one and done" thing.  Like, I really need to work on my forgiveness of dispensationalists.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Respectfully, Jesus doesn’t say anything about how to be a Christian. He says a number of things about how to be. 

Sure He did.  He criticized the ruling elite, especially the religious ruling elite, to the point they were plotting to kill Him in the face of overwhelming popularity amongst the people.  They were all about how to live right, what to do, what rules to follow, but their downfall was

1.) they were self righteous and didn't recognize their own need for repentance

2.) they imposed rules on people to the detriment of their worship and faith

3.) they were so blinded by hypocrisy they couldn't recognize when God was physically speaking to them

 

But maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're meaning when you say "how to be a Christian".  My point is one can't be a true follower of Christ without evidence of fruit manifest as works.  But good works don't make anyone a Christian.

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, given the ever-changing circumstances of life, continuing to seek the teachings of Christ is a fairly essential part of how to be.

To increase or maintain your conscious contact with your higher power, as it were.

it's not and cannot be a "one and done" thing.  Like, I really need to work on my forgiveness of dispensationalists.

I agree. 

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

But maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're meaning when you say "how to be a Christian".  My point is one can't be a true follower of Christ without evidence of fruit manifest as works.  But good works don't make anyone a Christian.

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, but that’s an academic question that millions died over and has driven more people away from the gospel than it brought to The Church (and vice-versa).
How do you supposed Jesus would feel about that?

You say Jesus “condemned Pharisees to hell” for works without faith, but does he? Or does he condemn them for following the law while neglecting their neighbor and a lack of faithfulness? Does grace  drive the faithful to slaughter each other over the question of chickens and eggs, or would that be works alone?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ok, but that’s an academic question that millions died over and has driven more people away from the gospel than it brought to The Church (and vice-versa).
How do you supposed Jesus would feel about that?

You say Jesus “condemned Pharisees to hell” for works without faith, but does he? Or does he condemn them for following the law while neglecting their neighbor and a lack of faithfulness? Does grace  drive the faithful to slaughter each other over the question of chickens and eggs, or would that be works alone?

Several times Jesus showed compassion and mourned over those who rejected Him. That's how He felt about that. 

 

Everyone trying to follow the law falls short. You can do good but it won't save you from the bad you've done.  That's why Jesus says He is the fulfillment of the law.  

Posted
14 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Everyone trying to follow the law falls short. You can do good but it won't save you from the bad you've done.  That's why Jesus says He is the fulfillment of the law.  

Ok, but so what? Mercy, love, being the neighbor are non-negotiable moral obligations. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I disagree. I think this is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. 
 

ETA: I also think this is a bit of a cop out. “I’m not a piece of shit, it’s just human nature, so I’ll ask forgiveness from my sky cake god and all will be well.”  No, you’re just a piece of shit. You don’t have to be that way. 

This is a good thread filled with a lot of different viewpoints but I think what I said and what you disagree with is a foundational belief of Christianity. I'm not trying to apply it one way or another to politics or ideologies like liberals and conservatives and I understand not everyone is talking from a Judeo-Christian perspective that believe in Genesis 3, but if you DO profess to be a Christian (like I think the OP does), that seems to be a non-negotiable. 

Posted
27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ok, but so what? Mercy, love, being the neighbor are non-negotiable moral obligations. 

Yes. Christians who profess they have repented and follow Jesus will show those attributes.  But mercy, love, and being a good neighbor without repentance and a desire to live with Jesus as King does not make one a Christian. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Maybe.  I'm talking more about policies and how he lives.  He is literally the opposite of what a Christian should act like and support.  And yet, so many people who call themselves Christians line up to suck him off.  It's disgusting.

100% of the “Christians” that I know are maga. This is from my informal survey of deleting about 70 “friends” on Facebook.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

Yes. Christians who profess they have repented and follow Jesus will show those attributes.  But mercy, love, and being a good neighbor without repentance and a desire to live with Jesus as King does not make one a Christian. 

Again, this is academic and strikes me as the sort of thing that Jesus scolded the Pharisees and lawyers for obsessing over. I’m not saying it’s unimportant, but it’s a koan more than it is workable doctrine.

This is what I mean about Christians screwing this up. Buddhists think about the question of one hand clapping and try to arrive at inner clarity. Christians take the question of faith vs works and burn cities to the ground. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Posted

Following this with much interest as its been mostly polite and less strident, maybe all are getting old?

I see a lot of discussion around the idea of pursuing spiritual and ethical enlightenment inside the framework of organized religion or as part of a personal journey. I find this usually boils down to personal temperament and acculturation.  
 

The benefits of a traditional framework are the stress-tests and practices, the accumulated wisdom to know when something has been tried and found wanting or harmful, the guideposts and signs that help to keep us on track.  The drawbacks are veering into hide-bound inflexibility, the unwillingness to discard what is no longer needed (and maybe was), the danger of collective judgment and harshness. 
 

The benefits of going it alone are the freedom to start from first questions, the  courage to look for and find better and safer paths, the boldness discard the harmful and unnecessary.  The dangers are in wasting time on solved problems, getting lost when a path is available, and in missing the correction that every person needs. 
 

And I think both preferences are legitimate and hubris starts when you begin to insist that one way is the only legitimate way and gets worse when you ascribe bad intentions to those who find another way more enlightening and helpful.  
 

Its sort of like what architecture inspires you.  Are you drawn to the ancient Romanesque edifice, with worn foot paths and centuries of soot, icons, and smells— even if we don’t need walls that thick, even if it will need constant repairs, maybe if we need to wall off some rooms and pull down some walls.  Or do you open up in a pristine, airy space filled with light and the supporting elements exposed and visible? Even if it may be less cozy, may be missing some of the familiar and comforting, and maybe if all that glass and metal does need way more care and attention unless it falls into ugly dinginess rather than lived-in and homey.

This is indeed a preference and not a moral judgment.  And more than that, both paths compromise to each other even if we don’t care to recognize it. No Romanesque cathedral looks as it did upon consecration, every century has made its repairs and renovations and modernizations and it is chauvinism to think the current generation finally got it just right. 
 

And the most spartan and glistening modern showpiece will begin to accrue the detritus of human existence— the sops to comfort, kitsch, sentiment, and utility— that would offend the architect’s eye if living and breathing people are ever allowed to actually move in and use it. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Following this with much interest as its been mostly polite and less strident, maybe all are getting old?

Fuck you and fuck God. God is a sadistic child with a magnifying glass and everyone that posts in this thread except me is a backwards hillbilly and probably a pedophile.

Better?

 

 

😉

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
On 4/20/2025 at 7:11 PM, Clintonaldo said:

I put this here because it feels right. 
 

I go to church. I give back to the needy with my time and money yet I am not feeling it in church. We did Easter service yesterday because today would be packed but the whole time it felt like a Rolling Stones concert and it all felt so forced. I’ve never been one to raise hands and pray over people but I am one to actually help people. I just feel weird sometimes when almost everyone but me is singing and praising but I am just standing there. I wish I could get into it more but I just don’t feel ( that ).  I do give my church credit in that they do not get into politics so it isn’t that. I can say I’ve never felt closer to Christ than with a charity I do that helps special needs people run triathlons and half marathons. 

I just really wondered during the laser show yesterday am I the oddball or am I real ? Is this your 40’s??

Compliments on the post. I was sorta pushed down the same road back in my college years. My inner life was tumultuous. Upon analysis, I found the notion that when we died we just died near terrifying and all the way demoralizing. The several talks with evangelizing fellow students put me into a debates of their claims which only diminished my confidence that they were describing anything real.

I revered the urgings to sympathy, kindness, and open-handedness made by Jesus. Still, any sense of a god described by any of the revealed (Truth!)religions made no sense. The fall back positions of blind faith and fear-mongering (Imagine the worst pain you could have lasting for eternity...blah blah blah) didn't exactly support the Jesus model.

When I broke from all such notions, I was in my version of where you are. To step away was to reject the beliefs of a lot of very smart people as well as raising the dreadful question of "what's the point?"

When I worked in those days, I'd always buy some books before I squandered my money. I'd at least something to show. The books were in the "plan to read" folder. One of them was Livy's The War With Hannibal.

I wrecked a knee working on the oil rigs of Central Texas. My folks had moved to Lubbock where I didn't know anyone and it was there that I rehabbed that sad joint. So, I picked up Livy. There was my revelation. The Romans didn't believe in their own immortality. They got up everyday and weren't concerned about living forever. I had a model that made me feel less freakish. 

I'm not saying anything new to anyone on this board when I say that I saw Jesus (fiction or nonfiction? Who cares?) offered an approach to life. A philosophy. It went into the soup of philosophy I was boiling up to keep the feet moving through life. I stayed in that Roman world for a long long time. I added Greek history to the list. Pragmatism. The same virtues and flaws found among everyone. I loved it.

I didn't read philosophy as such. I absorbed a workable philosophy through absorbing history.

I respect the philosophy of Jesus. I respect those persons who feel they are moved by God to stick to that philosophy. Worship seems pitiful to me. It's a leftover from worship of the ancient gods of Greece and Rome. 

You're a good person. I try to be one. I feel good when I do something kind or brave or merciless in encouraging or discouraging the good/bad actions of others. For me, it boils down to this:

I don't care what you do so long as you're not harming anyone and I don't have to watch.

Apologies for not managing to be as concise as you. Your post explains your feelings and thoughts very well. I'm compelled to think about and relate to them.

Posted
24 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Compliments on the post. I was sorta pushed down the same road back in my college years. My inner life was tumultuous. Upon analysis, I found the notion that when we died we just died near terrifying and all the way demoralizing. The several talks with evangelizing fellow students put me into a debates of their claims which only diminished my confidence that they were describing anything real.

I revered the urgings to sympathy, kindness, and open-handedness made by Jesus. Still, any sense of a god described by any of the revealed (Truth!)religions made no sense. The fall back positions of blind faith and fear-mongering (Imagine the worst pain you could have lasting for eternity...blah blah blah) didn't exactly support the Jesus model.

When I broke from all such notions, I was in my version of where you are. To step away was to reject the beliefs of a lot of very smart people as well as raising the dreadful question of "what's the point?"

When I worked in those days, I'd always buy some books before I squandered my money. I'd at least something to show. The books were in the "plan to read" folder. One of them was Livy's The War With Hannibal.

I wrecked a knee working on the oil rigs of Central Texas. My folks had moved to Lubbock where I didn't know anyone and it was there that I rehabbed that sad joint. So, I picked up Livy. There was my revelation. The Romans didn't believe in their own immortality. They got up everyday and weren't concerned about living forever. I had a model that made me feel less freakish. 

I'm not saying anything new to anyone on this board when I say that I saw Jesus (fiction or nonfiction? Who cares?) offered an approach to life. A philosophy. It went into the soup of philosophy I was boiling up to keep the feet moving through life. I stayed in that Roman world for a long long time. I added Greek history to the list. Pragmatism. The same virtues and flaws found among everyone. I loved it.

I didn't read philosophy as such. I absorbed a workable philosophy through absorbing history.

I respect the philosophy of Jesus. I respect those persons who feel they are moved by God to stick to that philosophy. Worship seems pitiful to me. It's a leftover from worship of the ancient gods of Greece and Rome. 

You're a good person. I try to be one. I feel good when I do something kind or brave or merciless in encouraging or discouraging the good/bad actions of others. For me, it boils down to this:

I don't care what you do so long as you're not harming anyone and I don't have to watch.

Apologies for not managing to be as concise as you. Your post explains your feelings and thoughts very well. I'm compelled to think about and relate to them.

First, I am not concise at all and am out here flailing but thank you! Secondly, the bolded part is something I always say but I also include animals. I think being in early 40's just has me searching for more with reconciling how selfish we are. I know human nature is to sin but I swear some of us really appear to enjoy in it. I want to keep striving for something I know I will fall short of.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Again, this is academic and strikes me as the sort of thing that Jesus scolded the Pharisees and lawyers for obsessing over. I’m not saying it’s unimportant, but it’s a koan more than it is workable doctrine.

This is what I mean about Christians screwing this up. Buddhists think about the question of one hand clapping and try to arrive at inner clarity. Christians take the question of faith vs works and burn cities to the ground. 

Oh but throughout the Bible (and Jesus Himself) the point is made over and over again that not only is faith without the proof of work dead, but that works without faith is also death. Jesus doesn't treat it as academic.  It's foundational to salvation.  

Since the garden it's always been a matter of the heart. 

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Oh but throughout the Bible (and Jesus Himself) the point is made over and over again that not only is faith without the proof of work dead, but that works without faith is also death. Jesus doesn't treat it as academic.  It's foundational to salvation.  

Since the garden it's always been a matter of the heart. 

And that’s something to meditate on, not a division bell. It is not for Christians to decide who is and is not saved. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And that’s something to meditate on, not a division bell.

Christ Himself defined the division line of true faith vs unrepentance and commissioned His believers to spread the good news of salvation.  Part of that commission is preaching what is saving faith, which fortunately Scripture provides many examples for and against. 

 

 

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And that’s something to meditate on, not a division bell. It is not for Christians to decide who is and is not saved. 

 

16 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Christ Himself defined the division line of true faith vs unrepentance and commissioned His believers to spread the good news of salvation.  Part of that commission is preaching what is saving faith, which fortunately Scripture provides many examples for and against. 

 

 

I feel like you are both right.

Christianity, like all deep truths we don't understand, is heavy with the Quantum Mechanics.

Edited by Vegas64
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Oh but throughout the Bible (and Jesus Himself) the point is made over and over again that not only is faith without the proof of work dead, but that works without faith is also death. Jesus doesn't treat it as academic.  It's foundational to salvation.  

Since the garden it's always been a matter of the heart. 

The notions of salvation and heaven where you get to be with people who have died again are attractive yet unsubstantiated fictions. They are balm for regret and fear of death.

Quoting the Bible to justify anything while speaking to a non-Christian relies on circular reasoning. That's unpersuasive. To an outsider, it's kind of embarrassing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Christ Himself defined the division line of true faith vs unrepentance and commissioned His believers to spread the good news of salvation.  Part of that commission is preaching what is saving faith, which fortunately Scripture provides many examples for and against. 

 

 

Ok, fine - BUT that line is for Christ to draw and for you to think about.

If the church can and in fact does acknowledge that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience may achieve salvation, SURELY those who think of themselves as Christians can acknowledge the same thing about other Christians, or at least spend more time consider the great beam in their own eye. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
30 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Christ Himself defined the division line of true faith vs unrepentance and commissioned His believers to spread the good news of salvation.  Part of that commission is preaching what is saving faith, which fortunately Scripture provides many examples for and against. 

 

 

And to those who lived before Jesus, off to Dante's Purgatory?

Posted
9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Quoting the Bible to justify anything while speaking to a non-Christian relies on circular reasoning. That's unpersuasive. To an outsider, it's kind of embarrassing.

And yet every Christian, before he was one, wasn't.

Posted
4 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

And yet every Christian, before he was one, wasn't.

Don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't know what this means in regard to what I posted.



×
×
  • Create New...