Another my take on God post . . .

[ QUOTE ]
But loving your neighbor, don't do bad sh*t, is a result of acting from the intrinsic basic awareness no? Isn't it just that the manifestations of acting from source, rather than the source itself that gets taken as truth in Christianity? I haven't read most of the Bible but it seems to point towards something like, be yourself, such as "the church of God is inside you". I see what you mean though, I'm thinking that the Bible just gets misinterpreted.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible can be interpreted mystically as you mention, but most denominations don't. It's pretty Black & White mentality. Just read NotReady's posts. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
But loving your neighbor, don't do bad sh*t, is a result of acting from the intrinsic basic awareness no? Isn't it just that the manifestations of acting from source, rather than the source itself that gets taken as truth in Christianity? I haven't read most of the Bible but it seems to point towards something like, be yourself, such as "the church of God is inside you". I see what you mean though, I'm thinking that the Bible just gets misinterpreted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is right on. (For the record, I am 22 and a cross-wearing go-to-church-every-sunday christian). J. Stew, the way you think about God is very close to the way I think about God (and the way we talk about God in my UCC church). I think it is also very close to the God revealed by the teachings of Jesus.

I never know what to say when people say:
[ QUOTE ]
I like this. Just wanted to point out that a lot of religions are contrary to this, and actually encourage a dualistic world view. Black & white thinking. Christianity is a big one.


[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the need to defend christianty, but Kip is clearly calling out NotReady's version rather than mine. Oh, I think I just answered my own question. I need to give up on debating with non-christians and focus on debating with christians. It’s futile to debate with non-christians about christianty because they are (rightly) more interested in talking about the common form. A (potentially) more productive discussion would be in debating with other christians why they favor their interpretations.

Towards that end, does anyone know why most christians have somehow forgotten or overlooked the fact that the gospels were written by human beings between (roughly) 30 and 70 years after Jesus's death, and that these humans had a particluar motive of sharing what is was like to experience his ministry. What is the basis for interpreting any of it literally, rather than mystically?

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I need to give up on debating with non-christians and focus on debating with christians. It’s futile to debate with non-christians about christianty because they are (rightly) more interested in talking about the common form.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I need to give up on debating. . . It’s futile to debate. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I need to give up. . . It's futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I never know what to say when people say:
[ QUOTE ]
I like this. Just wanted to point out that a lot of religions are contrary to this, and actually encourage a dualistic world view. Black & white thinking. Christianity is a big one.


[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the need to defend christianty, but Kip is clearly calling out NotReady's version rather than mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. My later post clarified:

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible can be interpreted mystically as you mention, but most denominations don't. It's pretty Black & White mentality. Just read NotReady's posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should try to be careful and not lump all sects of Christianity into the same boat. Not sure about UCC, but I do know of some denominations that have a more liberal and less black/white interpretation of the Bible. These people are more rational than the more Fundamentalist denominations.

The most rational denomination I've seen is the Unitarian-Universalist denomination. They are so rational, that a lot of other denominations don't consider them to be Christians. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

Atheists want to disprove Christianity to Christians. There is no question about it.

And there is a good reason why.

Christianity (I am referring to NotReady's fundamentalism here, you seem cool [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) encourages thinking that is circular, accepting, unquestioning, submissive, and obedient. NotReady, in a recent response to KipBond, said the following:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a friend who swears that foosball is of the devil. He thinks this because his mom told him that God said it is. He believes his mom whole-heartedly, and thinks that she could not be wrong. I try to reason with him and explain that foosball is just a game, and that many Christians and other religious folks play foosball and it doesn't seem to be bad at all. He just keeps saying that "foosball is of the devil" and that people who play it are under satan's control. His mom can't be wrong, he says, because she's never been wrong before, and he trusts her 100%.

What would you say to my friend? Do you think he is being rational? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes a difference whether or not he is under his parents' authority. If he is, he shouldn't play the game in obedience to them. That doesn't mean they are higher than God but that the Bible says children should obey their parents. If they tell him to do something that contradicts God's Word then I believe he doesn't have to obey, otherwise he should.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this not only stupid, but TERRIFYING. Mark 12:17 teaches us to "Give to Caesar what is his," suggesting that we should obey the governing body. With this kind of thinking, it becomes correct to support whatever a ruling body instructs without question. (Look at the War on Terror and the War on Drugs supporters!) And there are TONS of them.

This is how Big Brother comes to exist.

Their dogmatic stupidity writes the checks that fuel wars, halts scientific progress, and imposes unnecessary social regulations. They refuse to see other sides, or acknowledge that they might be wrong about something. Faith is a virtue, and that which is not from faith is sin...which is well and good, only if what you have faith in is correct, and they do not bother to make that step.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the basis for interpreting any of it literally, rather than mystically?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to tease you about "interpreting...it literally" but I'll just suggest if one is going to take the mystical approach to it, why do you need it? If 100 people come up with 100 'messages' from the same text isn't it obvious that the message isn't in the text but in the person?

Realizing that, we can see the similarity to the concept that we take our morals to our religion not the other way around. ( partly because we choose our religion).

Depending on how much validity you give to the above, it's understandable that some people view religion as a swaddling cloth around various existing needs, desires and viewpoints. On this aspect, it's not so much whether religion is good or bad, just that it is unnecessary.