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 4
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 2
  • 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 3
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 3
  • 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 4
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 2
  • 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 2
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
  • Hook 'Em 2
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.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ok, fine - BUT 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. 

 

My reading comprehension's not great even on my best day but I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  I don't think anyone in here is calling other people hypocrites - I'm certainly not trying to imply that.  My point is that good works, no matter how many one performs, are never enough to satisfy the standard of perfection that we fall short of.  And, that someone who professes faith in the Lord without the proof of good works fails the litmus test given to us by Jesus. 

 

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

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

I didn't envision this turning into an AME but here's what Paul has to say about that in Romans 4.

 

Quote

Abraham Justified by Faith

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]

Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those
    whose transgressions are forgiven,
    whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the one
    whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”[b]

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

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

 

21 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.

 

I was disagreeing with the bolded part.  There was a point in every Christian's life where they hadn't yet submitted their life to Jesus.  Many of us were changed by what we read or what someone told to us from the Bible. 

I believe scripture is living and powerful and convicts as Hebrews states. If one's heart isn't in a place to accept the message, he won't.  To borrow the quantum physics metaphor, God controls the heart but every person makes the decision. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I find it hysterical and kind of Freudian how much obsession with dicks there are in that passage.  There is an easier way to say people of different faiths and time.    

Posted
32 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

My reading comprehension's not great even on my best day but I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  I don't think anyone in here is calling other people hypocrites - I'm certainly not trying to imply that.  My point is that good works, no matter how many one performs, are never enough to satisfy the standard of perfection that we fall short of.  And, that someone who professes faith in the Lord without the proof of good works fails the litmus test given to us by Jesus. 

Agreed, we are not talking about the same thing. I understand your point. My point is that Christians have been spent the last 500 years beating each other up over your point, and should not do that. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

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

If you aren't a Christian, I think you can make up whatever you want in regards to those questions.

But I actually think that, again back to the biblical illiteracy among Christians, the bible doesn't give a great (or clear cut) answer to idea of heaven (and hell, for that matter) for those who profess to believe in the triune God of the bible in the vein of what Bozo is trying to communicate, but it does talk about it for your study, meditation, prayer and contemplation.

I think the idea that you go to a concept of heaven up in the atmosphere away from earth and see all your friends and family and reunite is pretty widely accepted to be false. I think you might not even know your wife or husband or child or best friend, in the temporal sense we know them now, but it's a return to the shalom (the completeness, unbrokenness) that was how God intended...and we commune and abide with God and so we don't care.

But even before getting to that point, I believe the bible tells us that are to wait until our messiah returns before the offer of heaven (saved or not) is open to us. I've heard it variously called Sheol, but purgatory is a common term for the idea as well.

I'm not 1000% on these matters, but I do think there are Christian answers to these questions for Christian believers, for those who have done the eschatology and other proper study and readings (and not just zoned out in sunday school or sunday sermons).

Edited by Vegas64
Posted
3 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

I think the idea that you go to a concept of heaven up in the atmosphere away from earth and see all your friends and family and reunite is pretty widely accepted to be false. I think you might not even know your wife or husband or child or best friend, in the temporal sense we know them now, but it's a return to the shalom (the completeness, unbrokenness) that was how God intended

This is consistent with my universalism - as in, they are complementary, and not mutually exclusive.  

God is creator, but also within all creation (again, that's pretty Hindu).  We are in and of the universe - that whole "we are each of us some of the universe's stardust, coalesced for a period of time to be 'Brisketexan.'"  When we die, we literally return to that inanimate state -- again, the literal "ashes to ashes, dust to dust."  And that is a return to being in and a non-independent part of the universe. 

I think it's quite beautiful, actually.  As infinite and incomprehensible as this massive universe is, its story cannot be completely told without speaking of that time when some of its stardust was Brisketexan.  Omit that, and the story of the universe and its journey is incomplete.  So, while my perception can easily be that I am an insignificant collection of dust, the fact that the dust that is me is part of the universe's total inventory means that I am NOT insignificant.  I am part of the story.  To go Jewish, my name is written in the Book of Life.  Creation knows of every speck of dust in it, and it is profound to be part of that completeness and unbrokenness.

Indeed, I see that as overlapping with the concept of grace as well, which I have always found theologically powerful as hell.  No matter how much I fail -- in spite of my failures -- I am welcomed and loved by God.  Or, another way to see it: no matter how much I might try to separate myself from the universe and everything in it -- particularly including the parts of that universe manifested as my fellow man -- it's pointless.  The universe necessarily embraces me, and I will always return to its fold.

And I say that this sort of belief is complementary, not mutually exclusive with Christian faith because I see Christianity as being materially allegorical.  Jesus spoke in parables, why cannot and why should not our faith itself be a parable, anthropomorphized for our human understanding?  The important thing to understand is that parables are TRUE.  Not literal, but TRUE.  Thus, our faith, even if allegorical, even if an anthropomorphized translation used so that we might understand, need not be literal to be TRUE.

I wept -- not a few tears, but actual fucking sobs, when I saw "Everything Everywhere All At Once."  Because the theme conveyed - or at least, that I received - was that the only true boundless force in creation is love.  And that no matter what iteration or permutation of the universe you might imagine, in infinite alternate universes, love is a common thread, on a quantum level.  Humans on this exact earth?  Our love, and those we love, will find each other and be bound to each other.  An alternate universe, where we are mere stones?

sddefault.jpg

We will find each other.

My daughter and I, even when our connection is difficult, communication is hard, and we do not understand each other.  The love is there.  A quantum thread, running through every imaginable universe:

eeaao-15926.jpg

My wife and I.  For us - with one way of looking at it - we were lazy and simple, "falling in love" with someone who literally grew up mere blocks away.  Or, with a quantum view, ended up growing up merely blocks away from each other because the thread that runs through all universes was going to put us together.

Sounds of laughter, shades of life
Are ringing through my open ears
Inciting and inviting me
Limitless, undying love
Which shines around me like a million suns
It calls me on and on across the universe

 

Limitless, undying love.  That calls you on and on across the universe.  Tell me that is NOT the essence of God.  Tell me that is NOT the essence of faith - all faiths.  It is the one truth of our collective existence.  We are called to be a part of this universe, drawn and bound together by love.  And thus to practice it.  With every part of our being.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Allegory and faith are truth.  Because they communicate a truth that is the very nature of existence as living beings.

Which is why I have always bristled at the gatekeeping of many iterations of "Christianity" of "but you have to accept Jesus -- without that ticket, nothing else matters."  No.  The universe - God - will not exclude me from the embrace and wholeness of divine creation because I don't say magic words or check a box.  The beauty that is a human soul and being, conceived in and bound by love, cannot be denied the embrace of creation, because it does not affirmatively declare a particular allegory to be literal, yet lives the same truth of that allegory.

My wife - my ordained wife - loves John Shelby Spong's take (we are lucky enough to know two of Spong's sons personally), that as a faith, we will not advance until we loosen our insistence on the concept of the physical resurrection of Christ (the zombie Jesus thing, in pop culture parlance):

Quote

Bishop John Shelby Spong has a unique view on the resurrection of Jesus; it was not really a resurrection at all as we understand it. In his book, Resurrection: Myth or Reality (1994), he states repeatedly that he believes in the reality of the resurrection; he explains (page 106):

Easter, for me, is eternal, subjective, mythological, nonhistorical, and nonphysical. Yet Easter is also something real to me.

On page 143, he asks:

Did Easter reverse the verdict of Jesus’ death? No, I don’t think so…I think Easter is real, but it is not an event that takes place inside human history.

It is real.  It is true.  But it is not literal the way that Christianity has made it out to be.  NOR DOES IT NEED TO BE.

For me, in the end . . . fuck if I know.  I'm just walking on this journey.  I get it wrong.  A lot.  I go down dead-ends.  I stop and sit down, petulant and angry.  Sometimes, I charge ahead, and feel like I'm actually advancing.  But -- and this is the really, really important thing when it comes to faith, and church, and such: I know that I am not doing it alone.  I walk on my journey, and others walk along with me.  Some in a way similar to mine, some in their own way that seems odd or alien to me.  But we do so in community.  That is the primary benefit that being part of a community (any community, but including a community of faith like a church).  We walk.  Together.  Because that is the fucking way.  We are all coalesced stardust of the same universe.  Why would we NOT walk together?

Posted (edited)

Oh, and to @Clintonaldo, I would say....you are walking.  You know that you are not doing it alone.  You wrestle with understanding what truth is.  But you seek it.  And you do so with and in love.  Your name is written in the Book of Life.  Next to mine.  Next to everyone else's.  It is a staggeringly beautiful book, written in two hundred billion trillion stars (yeah, that's the actual number, best we can tell).  And written in each moment you live.  With each step you take.  From the infinite to the mundane, you are in that Book, you are writing that Book.  We are profoundly lucky and blessed to be on that journey together, in this sliver of time we have to be alive.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and to @Clintonaldo, I would say....you are walking.  You know that you are not doing it alone.  You wrestle with understanding what truth is.  But you seek it.  And you do so with and in love.  Your name is written in the Book of Life.  Next to mine.  Next to everyone else's.  It is a staggeringly beautiful book, written in two trillion stars.  And written in each moment you live.  With each step you take.  From the infinite to the mundane, you are in that Book, you are writing that Book.  We are profoundly lucky and blessed to be on that journey together, in this sliver of time we have to be alive.

Really appreciate the kind words and I think you really nailed something. I am seeking the truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes me. I have been surrounding myself with people not like me and asking questions that spur debate because I want to continue growing. 

Posted
6 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

 

 

I was disagreeing with the bolded part.  There was a point in every Christian's life where they hadn't yet submitted their life to Jesus.  Many of us were changed by what we read or what someone told to us from the Bible. 

I believe scripture is living and powerful and convicts as Hebrews states. If one's heart isn't in a place to accept the message, he won't.  To borrow the quantum physics metaphor, God controls the heart but every person makes the decision. 

Thanks for responding. I don't see how that refutes what I said. 

A person begins his belief about God by reading the Bible. The Bible is true because God wrote it. 

Written without rancor.

Posted
Just now, Clintonaldo said:

Really appreciate the kind words and I think you really nailed something. I am seeking the truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes me. I have been surrounding myself with people not like me and asking questions that spur debate because I want to continue growing. 

Hard questions.  Which I've found yield humbling, often uncomfortable answers.  That's the way "truth" is - whether it be the universal, existential type discussed here, or the more granular of "how do I do my job more effectively?", or "how do I get healthy?"  If the "answers" you keep coming with look a whole lot like the path of least resistance, and not "man, that's some shit I'm really going to have to work on, and it's hard," they the odds are incredibly high that you're lying to yourself, steering yourself away from "truth."

As an easy example, and the one I cannot seem to even come CLOSE to clearing the hurdle on, a call and answer to the question of "how should I treat people" from Christianity: But I tell you, love your enemies.  How ndo we walk "the way" that is Christianity?  One of the ways to do that is to . . . love our enemies.  That's not easy.  It's really fucking hard.  I sure as shit do a piss-poor job of it.  And I'm getting worse at it, actually.  But . . . I am honest enough with myself to acknowledge that no matter how much I don't want to hear it and don't want to do it and don't do it and will probably forever fail at it . . . it is true.

Walking "the way" is hard.  It helps a lot to know we're not alone.  Even when we're walking backwards.

Posted
3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Thanks for responding. I don't see how that refutes what I said. 

A person begins his belief about God by reading the Bible. The Bible is true because God wrote it. 

Written without rancor.

The Bible is true because it speaks truth.  Attribution to an anthropomorphic author with a human motivation is not necessary for it to speak truth.  To go back to Spong, until we loosen our grip on the overly humanized, childlike insistence on a language of existence that we can understand because it is exactly what we experience as humans, we restrain ourselves from embracing the full truth.  We actually do the truth that is the divine a disservice by confining it to a box of an orthodoxy created and imposed by men.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 4/24/2025 at 1:40 PM, 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.

God is perfect?
 

The God who commanded genocide?  Who allowed the rape of virgins?  Who explicitly prescribed slavery?  Who killed children over a bet?

 

That God?



×
×
  • Create New...