We may be sinners ....

Post Reply New Topic

Yep, sounds like a pretty convenient way to oppress people. I don't know if it started out that way, but if it had good origins, then it definitely ended up being exploited.

Is this what Anthro is teaching these days?

Sand: The difficulty I have with your "control" hypothesis is that hasn't really been the case since the protestant reformation and the enlightenment. Not that everyone has to go to the same church and believe everything the same way I do, but I have to look at my particular denomination and ask "Who is in control? Why/what do they have to gain?" Sure, we have a purpose. We wouldn't be much of any kind of organization if we didn't have a reason to exist. But I look at our immediate leadership, of which I have a small part, and I just don't see how any "control" I might have really benefits any one person or any one group of people at all times. The only "benefit" I receive for what I do is a paycheck twice a month for part time work, and only because I work for a rare church that can actually pay me, and insist on paying me, for what is considered volunteer work in MOST churches within my denomination. In fact, I actually first approached the church about my position to work strictly on a volunteer basis, and they refused to allow me to do that. On their part, it was a smart move in that it has made it very difficult for me to seek employment elsewhere--why WOULD I? And what does the Bible say about that? "Do not muzzle an ox while it treads the grain," and "a laborer is worthy of his wages."

Now, has the "Church" been guilty of concentrating all power in itself and acted inappropriately, contrary to the Bible and sound Christian teaching? Of course. One of the biggest mistakes in the history of Christianity was Constantine's marriage of church and state. The outcome of the reformation, the Catholic church's counter-reformation, and even the settling of North American east coast was our way of showing anyone in "authority" that YOU CANNOT TELL US WHAT TO BELIEVE. You can teach the Bible, you can persuade us, but we each individually are ultimately responsible for what we accept and what we reject. It's absurd to accuse any Christian institution of such control in the modern/postmodern day because we have come too far since the Dark Ages for that kind of control to still apply. Maybe this is the case in some parts of the world, but from my perspective this just doesn't happen. Islam is MUCH more authoritarian than any mainstream branch of Christianity in the Western world. You might make a case for certain pseudo-Christian sects or cults, but those splinter groups do not speak for the greater body of Christ as a whole.

Philologos: Be careful. Something I refuse to do is point out how opponents who argue against God still talk about Him as though He exists. This is done only for the sake of argument and is not meant as a cheap shot on anyone. The point is not that God exists, but IF God exists. In other words, if God does exist, then His creation sucks and there's not much point in believing or following God because of His own personal issues, imperfections, or narcissistic, bullying attitudes in dealing with that creation. There's an understood "if" in all atheistic arguments that follow that pattern, and that is something that I assume as the Christian on the opposing side--I mean, obviously "if God exists" isn't a position that I take because I DO believe in Yahweh. But it is not my place to "trick" someone into confessing that God exists. That is something that we will all do in due time, no trickery necessary.

I see the point, and of course I would NOT want to trick in any sense up to the lovebombing that made my sister a Mormon for a few weeks.

That would be counterproductive as well as quite unethical.

But I do have the scholar's Socratic itch to get people to the point of understanding what they are actually saying. Anyway, If I go through a few rounds of non-comunication [which is of course NOT the same as disagreement, I will disengage.

What [in round numbers, specificity not required] are you doing for the church? By me, since I left the U consulting in translation work - LOTS of fun, but the oppressive religious government of this country will not let me count the difference between what I am paid and a REAL salary as charitable contribution.

I see. But I also find it annoying. But then, I find a lot of things on this forum annoying.



Here's ONE thing I'm doing for the church. Like I said, I'd have gladly foregone any payment for my official part-time "position" as lead instrumentalist, so beginning last year I made up my mind to go above and beyond the call of duty. But since you asked, here it is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snp5xZSc8vQ[/youtube]

I think you did mention the handbells elsewhere.

I would not try that for love nor money. MAYBE Number 1 Son could. We are given what we are given, from each according to his giftings.

It's writing the music I find most satisfying. Performing it is just icing on the cake. I wrote a lengthy work for string quartet and piano and an incidental suite for "The Crucible." I've had little to no luck in the years since until late November, and that was a very simple hymn arrangement. I didn't imagine things would go so well for me once I started doing that, and the video I posted here was only my second performance on bells EVER. I have a background in music education as well as a master's in composition, but the lovely lady next to me has very little formal training in music at all. Our rehearsals are very interesting!

While this is in the "philosophy and religion" forum, I'd like to add that given the largely conservative tastes of churches like mine, it's amazing how much more open people are becoming to different kinds of musical and artistic expressions. I took a bit of a leap of faith with some of the musical effects I used. Since you're a bit of a scholastic type yourself, you'll probably understand what I mean when I say part of my struggle is finding the balance between what is acceptable in a performance in front of a religious meeting and my own sense of artistic integrity. While it is appropriate to cling to basic doctrine as outlined in the Bible, I don't for a minute believe God's intent was for His worshippers to become stagnant.

And besides, if it was truly God's purpose that we should never change, we'd all be singing Gregorian chant right now.

Well no -

Gregorian was an innovation to replace the older Jewish / Hellenic based chant. I should send you some CD titles - people reconstructing it.

Still.

Yes, of course. It is a fine line - like MOST of God's lines - avoiding updates for the sake of updates and listening to advertizing gurus, while also avoiding the slippery slope to stagnation quicksand.

It has to be dynamic - and for that you need people who can attend to what is blowing in the wind of the spirit.

You're not using shaped notes are you?

I have stated what is pretty obvious and clear. Sin is guilt. Guilt is obligation. Obligation is debt that must be paid. Therein lies the secular power of religion and that is so obvious I cannot make it any clearer.

Alisoun y la Duquesa.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VI.html

If there's a hell, I think it'll be more consequential than an actual punishment. I don't think it would last forever either though but maybe a long time. If the stuff of consciousness derives from one single consciousness or godhead, if you've treated people badly and been very egotistical, then rejoining the river, so to speak, could be a very difficult process.

It's a given that humans are generally narcissistic by nature (although one individual's narcissism may vary greatly in severity from that of another individual). But it is because of man's narcissism that we have a narcissistic image of God in the Bible.



God can easily create a reality in which man can live life happily and freely and still submit joyfully to God's will no matter what path he takes so long as God is in control.

The fact that God let Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden tree means that He either failed to be in control of man's destiny or He's like an extreme narcissistic father who enjoys playing cruel test games with His children (obey or suffer!).

And I don't need to be omniscient in order to know that God can create any reality He wants for us. It's all up to Him!



After what? After creating a cruel reality for us?

And even if Christianity is unique when it comes to salvation, it still doesn't show that Jesus Christ is from God. Uniqueness is not equivalent to truth.

For me, the most logical option to take is to follow the secular path (whether atheism, agnosticism, deism, secular theism, doesn't matter).

As long as salvation is not shown to be necessary, then I see no need to consider what any religion says about some salvation.



Once again, this is all after God provided an unsuitable reality for us. So of course man is going to screw up!

Why the need for a forbidden tree if God was happy and satisfied with His creation? Why not let Adam and Eve and all mankind live happily and freely without the narcissistic games that lead to the corruption of our nature to the point that we can no longer submit to God because of our sinful nature?

All you've been doing is explaining what God did for us AFTER He allowed things to mess up! But you don't care to explain to me (and to yourself) why God would allow things to be messed up in the first place! But of course, we know why you'd rather not.



Why are you limiting the options for me? How about giving man freedom to live the way he wants without having a sinfully corrupted nature? Could Adam and Eve sin without eating from the forbidden fruit?

How would I be considered a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (with all the criteria mentioned in books like the DSM) if I were to simply do just that?

Why puff myself up by demanding that sinners either submit to my will or suffer forever in an eternal hell and then make a "sacrifice" for the poor sinners even if it'll only save a select few of them?

It's like saying: "those kids are very wicked and evil and don't deserve to be with someone great like me, but I'll show them why they should be with me instead of away from me by impressing them with some "sacrificial love". That way, they'll love me more and want to be with me. And for those who continue to reject me, screw them! If they don't love me, I don't love them."

That's how a human with Narcissistic Personality Disorder acts by the way.

So, once again, if I were God, or you were God, why not make reality simple and relaxing for all of us? Why the need for pain and suffering? There weren't any before the Fall, so why the necessity for it?



You only think that way because you are limited in your way of thinking by your personal beliefs about this reality.

But would any human care at all about being with God for eternity if reality was different and, thus, humans were created to think differently and act differently without having a cursed nature that can't submit to God?

What's wrong with creating beings that are allowed to make their own choices (like take a course for computer engineering or become a doctor) but are constantly in moral submission to God's will?

In fact, why even the need for free will when God can just create human beings merely for His pleasure and out of love and so that they may enjoy His pleasing presence?

No free will means no choice to hate God's presence at all. Therefore, there'd be complete happiness.

Note that I personally don't believe in free will, but just for the sake of argument ...



Eternal neglect by God is still horrible. It's infinitely worse than a mother abandoning her child because he was born autistic.

Mate, you have no clue what kind of behavior you're trying to justify. But I don't blame you because I understand that you currently enjoy what Christianity has to offer you (whether emotionally or socially or psychologically).

Hey, the Phelps' family enjoy what the daddy Fred Phelps has to offer them despite the fact that he's abused them so many times that they can't help but see what a good man he is despite his actions.

So no wonder.



Why give them the choice to? What for?



And that's exactly what I mean by "fundamentalist Christian". I meant nothing funny. I was basically very similar to you in terms of belief.

Did you feel a lot of power in that sarcasm?



I don't know about wisdom and enlightenment, but I do believe that we are far more educated than people of the distant past ... thanks to science.

And enlightenment sounds to me like delusional feeling of grandeur, so I wouldn't say we're enlightened.



That's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about whether or not we deserve hell. If God wants us all to go to hell, then so be it. Nothing I, a limited being, can do about it. But it still needs an explanation.



But even child molesters don't deserve eternal suffering in an eternal hell.

More severe punishment than others? Why not. Extreme torture? Why not. Eternal hell? No!

Emotions aside, they are not objectively evil monsters. They are just sick bastards with extremely corrupted minds. Plus, they haven't been molesting children for eternity ...



I don't know what you talking about here?

If God exists, I believe in the real God the way He is, but at the same time, I trust that He isn't a sufferer of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. If He is, then He is. But that won't change my arguments one bit.

But the fact that Jehovah acts like one with NPD only shows me one thing: that Jehovah is just an image of God made by narcissistic men.



I have no need to dream up any god. I'm not after another religion.