Wisdom is sometimes elusive. It's so easy, it seems, to appear wise without actually being wise. Who hasn't heard the awe-inspiring wisdom of the ages when the Buddhist Master says, "It is like the sound of one hand clapping." Wow! Now that is deep ... so deep I can't even fathom it. Wait a minute! "Clapping" is defined as "Striking the palms of the hands together." By definition one hand cannot clap with one hand any more than a square can be round or 2 + 2 can be a banana. We have definitions and wisdom must work within those definitions, making sense of them, not discarding them. Yet we will too often hear someone say something that seems so wise and makes no sense. How about this one? "We should want to do what is right without caring about what we get in return." Someone somewhere told us that line, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker as if it's "wise". Why? What makes doing what is right "more noble" if you do it out of duty rather than pleasure? What kind of stinking thinking is that? But the weight of such foolishness often seems to drown out wisdom.
Over at The Bumbling Genius, Danny recently gave a really good post on what he called "poisoning the well". "Poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy in which you supply unfavorable information about another person in order to preempt any logical discussion of the ideas. You might hear, for instance, "You know, the only reason there are religions is to control people." The next time the listener talks to a religious person, they will be analyzing the religious claims for proof that it's about control (and likely finding it). Or how about this very popular one: "Those who disagree with global warming are fools." Now, if you try to present the reasons for why you disagree with global warming, you can only be doing so because you're a fool and your reasons are irrelevant. That's how it works. Danny's idea, however, was slightly different. He was explaining how we Christian parents so often fail our children by shielding them from error. His idea was to walk them through error so that, when they see it, they'll know it. It is "poisoning the well" in the sense that the first time his children hear this or that heresy it will be from him and with genuine answers supplied. So it was more like purifying the well, I suppose.
In the course of the dialog after that post, a wise fellow popped in with pearls of wisdom. "I raised my son not to be a Christian." Now that is wise, isn't it? Sure, sure, you who are convinced of religion want to raise your kids in religion, but wouldn't it be better all around if you raised them without bias and let them come to it on their own? I mean, if it's true, they'll still come to it, won't they? Oh, so wise! Not! We're dealing here with nonsense again and accepting it as somehow "wise". You see, if you raise your children "without bias", you have supplied a bias. In fact, no matter what you do with your children, you will bias them. It's the nature of the relationship. Our friendly neighborhood walking contradiction there at Danny's blog was quite proud that he raised his son not to be a Christian without even recognizing that this was intended to bias him away from Christianity. This is not "no bias". You'll find the same kind of arguments coming from skeptics in terms of science. "Science approaches the world without biases." Nonsense. We cannot function without presuppositions. Bias is "the inclination of the mind towards a particular direction" and without inclination, nothing moves.
So where does this nonsense presenting itself as wisdom come from? Is our friendly neighborhood commenter at Danny's blog unique? Not at all. Solomon said it. Foolishness can appear weightier than wisdom. Arguing against it is sometimes pointless. In the Proverbs Solomon wrote, "The foolishness of man ruins his way, and his heart rages against the LORD" (Prov 19:3). Yeah, we see that. In fact, sin rots the brain. At least, that's what Paul claims (here and elsewhere):
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures" (Rom 1:21-23).Be careful of what you find "wise". It's easy to hear something that sounds wise and is, in fact, utter nonsense. Since each of us is tainted by sin, it is very likely that each of us has some ... stinkin' thinkin' ... you know, a fly in the ointment.
23 comments:
"In fact, no matter what you do with your children, you will bias them. It's the nature of the relationship."
I agree that perhaps the nature of the relationship will bias your child toward how you view things. That is where it is important to teach and encourage your child to think independently and come to his own conclusions. Not use your role as parent to misuse the parental bond into subtely pressuring your child to believe as you do, subtely showing disfavor when he does not believe as you.
"You'll find the same kind of arguments coming from skeptics in terms of science. 'Science approaches the world without biases.' Nonsense. We cannot function without presuppositions. Bias is 'the inclination of the mind towards a particular direction' and without inclination, nothing moves."
Of course you need to start with a presupposition. All hypotheses in science are a presupposition (not accurately referred to as a "bias," but I understand what you mean), a question formed from observations. But the beauty of science (when one wants to discover the truth) is that you take your hypothesis (pre-supposition) and devise a way to test it. Where a true "bias" comes in is when you set up your test to give the hypothesis you particularly want to prove, favorable results. Like homosexuals proving that there is a "gene" for homosexuality from from a few, poorly costructed tests that are not time-proven.
When the hypothesis is proven, it becomes a theory. And even a theory can be disproven if there is new information. So, pure science should not be biased. It is a quest for the truth.
So what am I saying?
I was not raised to be a Christian. My family was Christian in name only. It was merely like an ethnicity to us. From an early age I was a truth-seeker. I wanted to know why I was born. I became a "born-again" believer at 17 years old, seeing through the hypocricy of my family and the people around me and realizing that this man Jesus who I read about in the bible had an attitude and values and a love and respect of people and life that I wanted. But with this baby I got all the dirty bathwater, too. After twenty years, someone pointed out the bathwater. And then it clicked. I got rid of the dirty bathwater, and kept the baby. The baby is me.
All a child needs from his parents is their love and guidance (and yes, there will be some bias because of parental/child bonds). Yet if the parent, though being bonded to his child biologically and emotionally, slowly, as the child grows and matures, releases that child to the freedom of his own mind and his own thoughts in order to pursue his own truth, that parent gives his child a rare gift.
Most parents never release their children. They imprint them with their own image, and subtely coerce and pressure their children through withdrawal of love and approval. They are the Fly in the Ointment. They do not introduce the child to his ability to reason for himself but they create a good Christian, a good Muslim or a good Jew ... a zombie. Or more often than not, just the opposite, a Rebellion, a child who knows he is being manipulated but instead of forgiving, goes in the complete opposite direction, a knee-jerk reaction because he has never been taught to reason, to be objective. He will rebel and conform forever until he realizes he can be free. Until someone speaks to him of love, truth and freedom.
I understand what you're saying, Olive, but here's my difficulty. It seems as if you're saying (like so many, so it's not like you're alone) that the best thing I can do for my children is to teach them to discover stuff for themselves, not impress upon them what I believe.
Here's what that says. I believe what I believe because I am convinced that it is right. (If that sounds arrogant, think about it for a minute. All of us believe that what we believe is right.) The idea, however, is to withhold what is right and true in the hopes that they'll discover it on their own.
Of course, because of what I believe, it only gets worse from there. The Bible says that natural man is "blinded by the god of this world". Paul said that "natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." So, here I am, with all the truth, refusing to give it to my children who desperately need it because I don't want to unduly bias them, knowing that their natural tendencies will take them not toward the truth, but away from it. They need a fish, and I'm going to give them a rock.
What I did with my kids when they were growing up was to teach them the truth. When they got old enough, I began to "joust" with them. I would take the wrong side and teach them to think things through, careful to help them do that. When they asked to listen to this music or watch that show we'd discuss it. What is it saying? What does it mean? I gave them the truth and I taught them to think. They're on their own now, and I couldn't be more proud of them on their own.
It sounds noble to suggest to turn kids loose without bias, but the Bible says, "Train up a child in the way he should go."
Of course, what you describe is indeed bad parenting, where withholding love and mentally or emotionally brutalizing kids is your way of "teaching" them, where the "truth" being taught is "act like a Christian ... even though we aren't Christians." Abuse like that used to teach lies like that isn't right. I'm with you there.
"The idea, however, is to withhold what is right and true in the hopes that they'll discover it on their own."
Hi Stan,
No, no, I would never advocate withholding what I believed was right and true. I would teach my values to my child and teach him to question them, to examine them, to compare them and to observe how I lived my life, what kind of person I was, and teach him to observe and question everything, and reach his own conclusions. I would not without my values, my important life discoveries, my love or any such thing. Children need fish, not rocks; they need nourishment! My child has a living example of my values; he observes me, and my belief in what is right and wrong; and he will be free to make his own path. If he observes truth, it will resonate with him and be a part of him.
You can never 'do' a child, you can only undo them so that they can understand how make straight their path.
Hallo Stan,
You saw my arguement as "...but wouldn't it be better all around if you raised them [children]without bias and let them come to it [religion] on their own?"
I argued precisely the opposite: that no child would come to any religion if they were allowed to remain with eye to see.
Children do not filter out what is unpleasant and thus are more vulnerable, but you to not then give what is unpleasant dressed as goodness, because this is poisoning the well.
It is the blinding of children and a generation that I am against. The mind of a nation is determined by it's religion, that ego-centric identity that the Gods revolve around them.
A road to Damacus event: "Stan, Stan, why doest thou call me Lord Lord and seek to copy me?"
"You are Lord that all should know about you"
"Did you not know I am in you and you are in me?"
"I am unworthy"
"Thus it shall be"
And Stan changed his name to St Trawl and gathered the faithful to whoreship as he did for the Kingdom of God, to the Event Horizon awaiting for Great Day for his Master's return when the world will be set right and the Unbelievers banished.
For he is like the talent buried in the ground saying here, Lord, I waited and returned what is yours.
Kinderling: "You saw my arguement (sic) as '...but wouldn't it be better all around if you raised them [children]without bias and let them come to it [religion] on their own?'"
No. You assumed that I was attributing that to what you wrote. That's the argument I've seen in other places. Certainly not yours.
Your argument appears to be an argument that "All organized religion is bad, evil, to be avoided and hopefully your kids will never end up there." Your argument is "Any parent who believes I'm wrong about this doesn't have my enlightenment and is deceived by the Church." Yours is the classic Gnostic argument of deeper knowledge. It only started with the common "It's wrong to bias your kids" sounding thing which was the basis of my post.
Anonymous, I'd love to interact with your comment ... but I'm not really sure what you mean at all. You disagree that "No matter what you do with your children, you will bias them"? You disagree that all parents teach their children? I'm not trying to be rude or insulting. I just didn't get your point.
Stan,
My reaslisation is that I don't know, and that other people don't know either but say they do; that brought me to a wisdom that perception is located in our hearts and minds and my interest therefore is how we can be fooled with complete sincerity to believe that the harmful is good.
I don't think this is Gnosticism.
My question therefore is: how can people be so blind-sided that a child can see but they can't? The answer appears to be: they want to be blind because the truth hurts so much that they prefer to teach each other that it is the 'love of Allah that sets them free'.
In return they give love to the poor and sick. And these recipients become poorer and sicker.
My work with brain-injured people provided me with evidence of a left and right brain dicotomy of perception, of Allah and Hinduism, of Jesus-God and Gnosticism, the Matrix and Avatar, of lifetimes of half-brained existences. Doing work to receive a blessing, doing penance to avoid a cursing. They entered-into a new Kingdom of God to avoid the pain of living in the kingdom of reality. They willingly pay, 'here, have it tax free,' their priests and spiritual healers to comfort them in forgetting, for who is guilty if they know not what they do?
The Muslim Convert righteously rages against his past culture, the Christian Convert righteously separates from her family and friends: all because the Bible told them so.
Jesus said call no man teacher, that he came with a sword of "what must I do to live forever?": separate yourself from ego-attachments.
Jesus assocated with attached-to-the-world sinners, for he said he had come to the divide the unwell to set them free.
Narrow is the way, this path of truth and love, of consciousness. You could not know truth unless truth was within you, you could not know love unless love was within you. The only way you cannot know truth and love is to have been taught truth and love from an early age.
Salvation is not acquired by knowledge of scriptures or receiving a new identity. Salvation was lost when you ate from the tree of knowledge, to have first doubted and then it made you feel good. And now you are addicted to it, because without it, in the darkest hours, you don't feel good, you feel empty and so more of it is needed to sustain you. More singing and praising in Church.
Truth is revealled by honest searching.
"Born Again" therefore is not into a St Paul-Clone becoming the Best Follower but a return back to yourself.
"The Path" is not St Paul's swap from one Mighty God to another, but the same way Jesus' wrestled with his own demons, that you must do with yours, to face the truth and they will leave because you have nothing that the world can offer in return for your subservience to it, not even a reward in their Heaven. You have nothing, and enter the towns and villages with nothing.
"You can never 'do' a child, you can only undo them so that they can understand how make straight their path."
Forgive me Stan, I sent this to test the water, then later thought, I'd go further to see if you were up to it!
I am a father, and about to take my 11 year old son to Kung Fu.
I certainly want to read to him the Bible when he is ready to understand Jesus' arguements to the Jews who believed that they held the path of righteousness and salvation while condeming every other goy as cattle and sure of Hell and Damnation.
For now, I steer him back to himself when the world tries to get in and claim him as one of their own.
Bye for now.
Kinderling: "I don't think this is Gnosticism."
No, you're technically correct. My only reason for linking your thinking with Gnosticism is that the Gnostics held that they had "special knowledge", superior to any previously revealed information. You know ... like you are now. Paul was wrong. People who read Paul are wrong. But you ... you have arrived at the truth, a truth, apparently, that almost no one else has. So while the Gnostics held that they had received superior revelation from a higher source, you're fortunate to have arrived at superior understanding by your own efforts. No, not even the Gnostics were that arrogant.
Stan,
I do not have special knowledge. I cannot tell you what is, but what isn't.
On my journey I have taken the path of discovery I that believe Jesus himself took - that he taught everyone who is sick should follow.
His battle was Judaism. Ours is Christian-Socialism/Islam/Gnostic-Liberialism.
We seek to protect the minds of the young. For they already have the kingdom of god. Howver, most are snatched it away by the world.
Roy Masters at www.fhu.com taught a simple mediation exercise of being still, that our minds are full of chatter so that we had lost the ability to focus and see. What I revealed to myself in my stillness was my desire to distraction to forget. I was seeking to become Good St Paul Follower of Christ and worship God The Father, when my own father was not in me.
The bullied and resentful seven year old in me, then aged 26, went to my father and confessed his judgements upon him, and an old man appeared, and I received my life back, as Elijah passed his mantle to Elisha, I became a man as originally created.
I has sat silently listening to the wordless words and faced my demons and they no longer made a home in me.
I could see this was The Way, this path described by Jesus, that no person could come to the father except as he had:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
You have to give up your vanity to have eyes to see and to look
"Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied"
and being hungry for truth, you will find. Also you will discover what emptiness you were trying to fill with distractions,
"Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
and when you find the truths, you will be in great suffering, but facing the pain you will rejoyce because you have been set free.
This will set all people free in whatever religion or culture they find themselves born into.
Now, how do I tell this to my sibblings who use anger and self-righteousness to block out their resentments? They don'hear, but in my gentleness and perserverance and love, I am invited among them, whilst they have petty rivalries.
So unless a man is born again they will not be human, just look alikes and sound alikes.
St Paul did not follow The Way.
- He came as a self-titled Apostle of God. Call no man teacher/father.
- He said he has a revelation on the road to Damascus, a conversion, and changed his name when Jesus brings you back to your very self.
- St Paul taught love when no one can be taught how to love. Because if you are taught how to love you cannot then know how to defend yourself against those who teach lust is love and they proudly enter the Church.
- St Paul circumcised Timothy when to witness to anyone is to bring no gift, just be yourself is the witness.
- Jesus did not teach truth, only that what was revealed to you, because then you would not teach truth to others, for he did not give you your insight - only the father in heaven does.
I hope this satiated you.
Kinderling: "On my journey I have taken the path of discovery I that believe Jesus himself took"
Yes, special knowledge. You've managed (in your estimation) to discover what no Christian has ever discovered (and documented at least) about "the path that Jesus took". You've discovered, in fact, that every Christian in history was wrong when they believed Paul (or John or Peter or Jude or anyone else who agreed with Paul). Further, you discovered all this at the ripe old age of 26 when others spend their lives in deep study and meditation listening to the voice of God concluding radically different things. Now, these who spend their lives concluding other than what you do tend to conclude the same as each other, but not you. You see, you've concluded that you're the most important thing to conclude, that "just be yourself" is the true way.
It's "special knowledge" because it is unique to you ... and, I suppose, to be fair, to all who oppose biblical Christianity. It's also opposed to all we know about Christ if you are going to accept what His followers wrote about Him. (You know, the Christ who said, "Take up your cross" and that sort of thing.)
Oddly, no one needs to teach kids to "be yourself". They do that naturally.
Hi Stan,
Under your blog title it says ... "a hungry blind man offering other hungry blind men thoughts on life." I don't want to come across as a wise-guy, but ... do you still consider yourself "hungry" and "blind?" After all, you have accepted Jesus as your Savior and have His Life in you (I am presuming, I'm not sure what brand of Christianity you follow). Jesus lives in you, and you believe Jesus is God, so ... the God of the Universe lives in you. How can you still be hungry and blind? I am just wondering.
Also, you said (re your kids):
"I gave them the truth and I taught them to think. They're on their own now, and I couldn't be more proud of them on their own."
You gave them YOUR truth. I am sure they are wonderful children, just as the Muslims down the street from me are a sweet family, and have produced wonderful children. I went to the college graduation of the daughter, she is becoming a nurse and has does much charity work, although I'm sure her pious mother secretly wishes she would cover her head like a proper woman.
Wonderful children can be robotic; I saw this in my church as I watched the children grow up, those that conformed and those that rebelled. Often the ones that rebelled were the most honest.
One time in a bible class I was teaching to 11 year olds, a boy (a known troublemaker, his grandma brought him since his single mom was more interested in dating) told me that he didn't think hell was real, God just used it to scare you into doing what He wanted you to do. He said it was a good tool to use. A simplistic child's statement, but the way he said it and the way he looked at me made lightning go off in my head, because I believed he spoke the truth. From that day on, I resigned from teaching the bible class. I would not teach the bible as the word of God to little children.
My point is ... and I suppose it is somewhat like Dan's, (except I would not "poison" nor "purify" the well) ... at the proper age, let them know ALL the stories, have them study all the religions and the different versions of Christianity, and let them read the confirmed atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, etc. They see your life, they see your character, they know what you believe to be true and what your preferences are ... why saddle them with fear and judgment and hell if they fail to do X, Y and Z?
I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, so I'll stop here.
Stan,
If you read the Gospel of St Thomas 'the secret sayings of Jesus' (discovered in 1945), the Gospel of Mary Magdelane (why were the gospels of the real apostles suppressed?)... and then look at the followers: the fruit of the Catholic church, the Protestant Church, the fruit of the Mormons, the Seventh Day Advetists, the Jehovahs Witnesses, the Church of Latter day Saints... all clockwork people behaving differently to match their different Bibles.
The Bible is within you. That is what you live by.
Oddly, no one needs to teach kids to "be yourself". They do that naturally.
Your kids teach you. You protect them.
Olive,
Since I have not arrived at perfection, I still suffer from hunger and blindness. ;)
I think you misunderstood Dan's post. His idea was to be "the first to present the tenets of those opposing worldviews along with a logical and realistic explanation as to why they are flawed".
Olive: "You gave them YOUR truth. I am sure they are wonderful children, just as the Muslims down the street from me are a sweet family, and have produced wonderful children."
The suggestion is that there is my truth and there is your truth and, well, everybody has a truth. It is a nice notion, but completely nonsensical. Jesus said that we could (and would) know the truth. Further, He sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. There is not "my truth" and "your truth", but genuine truth.
So, you elected to allow an 11-year-old to determine what you believe and I'm sure you're free to do it. But if the Bible actually is true and people actually are sinners and actually in need of salvation, and I avoid telling them what they need to know to avoid "saddle them with fear and judgment and hell", I've done them a favor? I don't think so.
By the way, if you believe the message is "judgment and hell if they fail to do X, Y and Z", you really missed the point. The message is that all have sinned and already fall short and nothing they can do can fix that. That's why they need a Savior.
Kinderling,
A couple of points. First, the books you mentioned (The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene) are Gnostic books. They date to the mid-300's (which means that they cannot be written by either Thomas or Mary Magdalene). That means that they aren't by "real apostles". Nor were they "surpressed". They didn't qualify. (And they contradict accepted canon.) So you're arguing for contradiction and you're arguing for Gnosticism (which you prefer not to admit for yourself).
Next, "the Bible is within you." That works fine ... like "the sound of one hand clapping". Sounds like real heavy thinking, but makes no sense. First, "Bible" means "an eminent book". If used, for instance, like "The Programmer's Bible", it is the authoritative book for programmer's. Thus, a bible is both a book (can't be "within you") and authoritative. Second, if "the Bible is within you" and that "Bible" is authoritative, then I'm right in believing that the Bible is accurate in what it says and rightly explains that your beliefs are nonsense. I don't know if I'm explaining that properly. You see, if it is "within you" and we have contradictory "Bibles", it makes zero sense.
Finally, "Your kids teach you. You protect them." What does that even mean? Kids are wise and adults are foolish? Kids know the truth and parents don't? You would recommend me ignoring what I believe in order to protect my kids from what I believe? That's "good"?
No, no ... that's the language of foolishness.
Finally, "Your kids teach you. You protect them." What does that even mean?
Children see things that can give you a surprise. I was reading one day the famous story about the 300 Spartans to my son and how the Persian Ambassador was kicked down the well, and he simply said - won't that poison their water supply? It was a very dumb thing to do to cause disease to your whole city, and so was possibly an embellishment over the years. If however, it had been impressed upon him that the text was Holy, he would have been afraid to use his eyes and doubt would have made him either do more study to be like everyone else or rebelled as a vicar's child.
I have pointed out to look to the fruit of the Churches which has led followers to do dumb things like not receiving blood transfusions and Homosexual priests celebrating God's Gift to them, all argued on Bible principles.
Either the world is crazy or you're crazy. I point out the world is, that you should listen to your conscience; and if unable to do that, because you are stressed and out of sorts, seek and you will find, for the truth will set you free, and not become a Convert for a blessing and avoid a hiding as St Paul did and big Jesus up for a salvation that never came.
You see, if it is "within you" and we have contradictory "Bibles", it makes zero sense.
You will find we don't contradict. Consciousness is consciousness. If you see something from your point-of-view that is honest to you, then it is only ignorance we are dealing with, and vice-versa.
I believe revelations of science of a 4.25 billion year old earth and you may take the Holy Bible for a 6,000 year old Garden of Eden. I can take science being wrong, you cannot take your Holy Quoran being wrong. The imprint of the world is on you, and the only way to avoid conflict of reality is to do more chanting and praying. This is why Muslims pray five times a day, an edict from their Bible to distract them from thinking for themselves. Who will set them free? You, or will you set them a different God to worship?
Without dealing with conflict properly, one creates a strategy of avoidance, and only from time to time will the prick of consciousness surface, like St Paul with his thorn in his flesh, the common unresolved business of a Saved Person, whilst dictating a salvation is outside themselves when Jesus taught salvation is within. This is the definition of being Gay.
Hi Stan,
"The suggestion is that there is my truth and there is your truth and, well, everybody has a truth. It is a nice notion, but completely nonsensical. Jesus said that we could (and would) know the truth. [...] He sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. There is not "my truth" and "your truth", but genuine truth."
There are always two sides to the "genuine truth" coin. If seven blind people (and maybe hungry as well ... ;) are put around an elephant only at a certain point and asked to describe the animal, we would each have a different story about what we thought this animal looked like. I believe you know the story. Each one of us would have a valid "truth" ... that was honest and that was our experience. But it doesn't invalidate the next person's "truth." And if we all put our half-truths together, we will get the whole picture. But in that moment, as a sole blind person feeling the elephant's ear, THAT IS truth to me. Truth is relative.
Science discovers "truths" every day through consistent experimenting. But once a "truth" has been proven, new information may come along, affecting that "truth."
Truth is in the moment. That is when it is at its most powerful. If you are a conscious human being, the "spirit" (actually, your sensing of "spirit") WILL guide you into all truth in the particular moment. You will (k)now the truth, and it will set you free.
"Have ye never heard out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?"
Young children have an uncluttered, unbiased way of looking at life. They are often quite more honest and perceiving than the adults around them. It's like they have a fresh pair of eyes. They are innocent. But the adults are physically bigger, and have other knowledge that children are not aware of, thus it is on us to protect them. That is why I could not teach 11 year old about the bible in the way my church wanted me to.
I guess I believe it is nonsensical to literally believe as "God inspired" a haphazard collection of books written 2000 years ago, in other languages, by many different people from other cultures, recopied time and again ... I took the Wheat from the bible and blew the chaff away. What I kept is real to me. I feel more honest now, than psyching myself up to believe and validate to other Christians concepts that were always a bit nebulous to me and never felt quite right, but actually were quite clear to them. Either I am not "saved" and do not "get it" or they are brainwashed and constantly (unconsciously) lying to themselves.
I am not afraid of "hell" and I am not afraid of "G_d" ... for if "G_d" exists, he already knows what is in my heart, and he can deal with it as he wishes. My life is pretty much an open book. I'm not going to try to out-maneuver Him by telling him I love Him when I don't even know Him and attend a church (for "worship", or "social" or "support group" purposes) that I think is a waste of time. True worship, supposedly, is in spirit anyway, not this mountain or that temple.
Supposedly he made us in His image (thus sayeth the bible) but I think WE made HIM in OUR image. And if Jesus is his "only-begotten-son-with-whom-he-is-well-pleased," then I have loved what I know of the spirit of this man, Jesus. Without being cajoled or threatened into doing so. So G_d and I have something in common. My life is pretty much an open book, and I wear no more masks now, Christian or otherwise (or at least I catch myself after a while when I do).
Kinderling,
I'm not trying to be unkind or insulting, but does what you say actually make sense to you? Seriously, I can hardly make heads or tails out of the stuff you write. We probably ought to stop this exchange now since it is abundantly clear that 1) we have no commonality from which to discuss and 2) there isn't the slightest chance of either of us either understanding or convincing the other.
Seriously. Does what you say actually make some sense to you?
Olive,
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you claimed to be a Christian. My mistake. It's a very good thing that you stopped teaching in a church since you have no connection with Christianity. (That shouldn't sound like an insult. It wasn't intended to be. Since you deny the Bible and think it takes "psyching myself up" to validate Christian concepts and aren't at all sure that God exists at all, I don't think you'd have trouble admitting that you're not Christian. Maybe "spiritual", but not Christian.)
On the elephant example, there is a problem with your analogy. It is true that one might say "It's like a tree" and another "It's like a snake" (I'm familiar with the story), but the problem is that they're all right because there is an absolute truth -- the elephant. The blind man that says, "There's nothing here" is wrong. It may be "true for him", but it's not true. If I say "The Bible is true and there is a God and His Son is Jesus and there is a Holy Spirit and we're all sinners in need of salvation" and you say, "None of that is true", we can't chalk that up to "your truth" and "my truth" because they contradict. Truth may have nuances, but it cannot contradict.
Beyond that, you believe you know the truth. (We all do or we wouldn't believe what we believe.) You will propagate what you believe to be true. It makes no sense to suggest that someone else shouldn't. All parents will pass on to their kids what they believe to be true. It may be something true or it may be something completely false. It may be belief or it may be skepticism. But all parents will pass on to their kids what they believe to be true. That was a primary point of the post.
Yes, my arguments make sense to me.
Jesus' followers rarely understood his teachings to have to keep repeating 'thoses with eyes to see'.
St Paul was a bad man. Anyone who converted from themselves into another identity supressed a dark secret. A lot of churches are full of people with new titles and dark secrets.
Saul taught by faith and good works to be saved from the unworthyness that we are, whereas Jesus said a man must be born again to see the kingdom of god.
I know which voice I hear.
Many thank's for the conversation.
You are wise enough to know that you're wiser than all the centuries of believers, and that's impressive ... if it's true. But in rejecting Paul, you say, "Saul taught by faith and good works to be saved from the unworthyness (sic) that we are" and you betray the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Christianity has never been about being saved by good works, one of the prime differences between Christianity and other religions. In other words, you don't get what you're arguing against.
James 2 14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
In better words: know a man by his fruit, not his faith.
Missed the point entirely, but nice use of a text you have discarded as religious.
The text is not talking about "not faith", but faith without evidence. It's talking about people who claim to have faith but their lives don't reflect it. It's not talking about people about faith, but about people with dead faith.
Post a Comment