Where/what is religion?

[Jenyar]

Are you suggesting I should become like that?!

I could be jelaous of their wealth: but the poor state of their cats tells me where those people's hearts are. I don't want to sit next to them on Sunday at church. No.

FYI, we have a 20-year old cat, whose teeth are in better shape than the neighbour's cats. I know something about how to take care of a cat.

Why do you always revert back to the people - especially if they are bad examples? You don't have to be like them, as a matter of fact, you shouldn't be. You have a better perspective on what it should mean to be a Christian, and you should stick to that. Remember, God created us to be human, but He wants us to be the best human beings we can be. That's why reform was even possible. Jesus himself reformed the religion that was supposed to be the "right" one! You should take note of that.

But following just your heart may lead you into the same kind of trouble without you even realizing it. The main reason Jesus brought his message was so that everybody might receive the good news of being able to know God, and that a relationship with God is possible without religion, but also only with him. You can't have it both ways. You can't say you know God but not want to associate with Him. That's just as bad as what those Christians are doing.

Here's something they should know:

Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.​

 

[Neildo]

Remember, God created us to be human, but He wants us to be the best human beings we can be. That's why reform was even possible. Jesus himself reformed the religion that was supposed to be the "right" one! You should take note of that.

And what about those that are reforming Christianity which is supposed to be the "right" religion? Islam came after Christianity and Christian reform came after that.

As you can see, NO religion is the "right" one. Only what we ourselves belief in our heart about God is correct. And I'd prefer to say, "what we feel without having outside religious influence us". Remember, so long as you're following ANY mainstream religion or cult, you're following some other PERSON's beliefs, NOT your pure personal feelings of an almighty.

When it comes to trying to be closer with God, I think everyone should take a long time out as all the past prophets have done and do some long and hard thinking about life. That's the only way you'll truly get closer to him/her/it. Otherwise you're just being tained by other's beliefs. The Almighty is inside all of us and that's all that matters. One needn't read a holy book, go to church, or pray to him. Those are acts just to help make you aware of the Almighty. But if you're doing those acts in an obsessive manner as most religious people do, those wind up being satanic acts for an insecure creator. Once you are aware of the Almighty, finding him/her/it should be done on one's own self. Worshipping is bad. All you need is that feeling in your heart and that's it.

- N

 

[water]

Neildo,

You just put my thoughts into words exactly! Thank you!



Jenyar,

It is only in talking to you that I began to realize where most of my often negative reasoning about religion comes from. In elementary school, all the kids were Catholics, and I was the only non-believer, the only non-baptized. Often, they put that against me. Some of the events were traumatic, both verbally and physically.
Often, the reason for their dislike of me was probably something else, but my not being a Catholic was the most obvious thing then, so a quick generalization was made. Both by them and by me.

Thus, my mind became fundametally shaped by this sort of religious conflict. And in trying to overcome it, I guess this is why I later let myself into further debates about religion, and got hurt even more.

But along with that, I did see the intolerance of the religious, and that sort of forced me to become more tolerant and understanding, or at least thinking that I should be more tolerant and understanding. And then this strive for tolerance and understanding lead me here, to discuss things with you. And to figure out the connections between some past events and some present attitudes.


I thank you for that with all my heart.

 

[Jenyar]

As you can see, NO religion is the "right" one. Only what we ourselves belief in our heart about God is correct. And I'd prefer to say, "what we feel without having outside religious influence us". Remember, so long as you're following ANY mainstream religion or cult, you're following some other PERSON's beliefs, NOT your pure personal feelings of an almighty.

But Neildo, it's just following our own instincts that got religion into trouble in the first place! You simply can't validate any belief about God without accepting God's guidance! And that guidance always came in the form of prophets and various people who were willing not to follow only their own agenda, but put God first. How else do you think God influences us? His will was not everyone for himself, with each his own set of "truths", but One way, one salvation, one baptism: that of His choice. It sounds as if I'm simply promoting Chrstianity, but I'm not - I'm promoting Christ. Christianity is just as fallible as any group of people together, but with one difference: they have a responsibility to keep Christ's message alive. We have to be "tainted" with his beliefs; that's what showed us the source of his love and his faith!

And Jesus was a person. It's true that He taught things that every person has to find in his own heart, such as love and forgiveness, but it's also important to realize that this is just a small part of God's message. "Religion" is just a container; the Bible is just a medium. The real miracles happen in people's response to God and in their supporting each other. The Good News only finds soil to bear fruit within people's lives.

When it comes to trying to be closer with God, I think everyone should take a long time out as all the past prophets have done and do some long and hard thinking about life. That's the only way you'll truly get closer to him/her/it. Otherwise you're just being tained by other's beliefs. The Almighty is inside all of us and that's all that matters. One needn't read a holy book, go to church, or pray to him. Those are acts just to help make you aware of the Almighty. But if you're doing those acts in an obsessive manner as most religious people do, those wind up being satanic acts for an insecure creator. Once you are aware of the Almighty, finding him/her/it should be done on one's own self. Worshipping is bad. All you need is that feeling in your heart and that's it.

Worshipping simply means giving to God what He's due. It's justice on a level we can't justify without belief in God. You shouldn't worship a person, because that's not what a person requires or what he deserves; he requires and deserves love above everything else. But loving God means worshipping Him and talking (praying) to Him, and worshipping him means loving and praying for each other.

It's no accident that this was the heart of the "reform" Jesus taught. People were worshipping themselves instead of God. That's why it's so dangerous to blindly trust your own feelings without taking into account what God has revealed over thousands of years. You could be repeating mistakes that you should have learned from, and without a communion with God and other people who believe in Him, you have no way of realizing it. You should know that the "church" is simply what God calls the collective of believers. It's not the building, it's your body - and in a way it's also His body, grown from and sustained by the body and blood of Christ (why we have "communion" with bread and wine, see?).

Truth needs to be sustained, or it fades. People forget and become misguided. There always has to be some kind of responsibility towards each other. Just living out your fantasies about who God is without being willing to be corrected is not responsible. I speak for myself as well. But the consensus just cannot lie with people or individuals, it has to lie with God himself.

 

[Jenyar]

I thank you for that with all my heart.

You only have God to thank - I can take no credit. The truth is that there's probably many things you won't like about me either, but I have achieved much if I could make you aware that you don't become a believer because you don't like some non-believers, and you shouldn't become a non-believer because you don't like some believers. The cross-section lies with Christ (no pun intended ). He came for non-believers, because believers have already accepted (or rejected) their salvation. But people outside the church needs Him most. They need to see his integrity and sincere love for them.

I just hope that you won't find me as selfish as you think faith causes one to be. There simply is no place for selfishness in Christianity, because it's the very sin we are supposed to fight! But that means I also can't be selfish by taking the truth into my own hands. From everything you say, you seem to understand what it comes down to - but you have to try to restore your relationship with God; He really wants you to accept that He loves you, and I'm certain He's quite mad at those people who have estranged you from Him. I hope you can forgive them and not hold it against them. People are no mystery when they act without love, but God's love is a mystery that never ceases to amaze me.

I'm always available if any questions or just want to share your thoughts about life. I might not know the answers, but I'll make an effort to understand. This is a genuine offer.

 

[Neildo]

But Neildo, it's just following our own instincts that got religion into trouble in the first place! You simply can't validate any belief about God without accepting God's guidance! And that guidance always came in the form of prophets and various people who were willing not to follow only their own agenda, but put God first.

How is it that following our instincts is what got religion into trouble in the first place? Having created religion is what got religion into trouble because religion is trying to make EVERYONE believe in the same things about God which is bad.

Leave people alone, and they want to just live a peaceful life. It's not until other try to dictate what they're supposed to do when conflict arises. People originally worshipped Nature, no themselves. Everything you read about religion now is MAN-MADE over the years. People had their own personal beliefs when there was no organized religion. It wasn't until everything became organized and dictated that these "problems" arose. Free-thinking was removed and replaced with control.

Worshipping simply means giving to God what He's due.

Worshipping is worthless. I'm pretty sure the Almighty knows that we're all thankful for what has been created for us. Being worshipped is only for those with low self-esteem that feel as if they're inferior. Worshipping is an act in which Satan craves. But the Almighty, he/she/it would just go "pssh" and wave a dismissed hand at you and tell you to save that worshipping time and put it to better use such as your fellow people. So long as you have the Almighty in your heart, that's all that matters. So instead of spending lots of time worshipping God, try using that time to spread goodness throughout the world. Rather than go to church, go help the poor. Just continue doing good deeds in that time because the Almighty knows you love him/her/it. All you're doing is wasting valuable time.

People were worshipping themselves instead of God.

Now here's the ironic thing about religion that happens once their original prophet dies. No, people weren't worshipping themselves instead of God, they were worshipping idols of various Gods because they thought the idols held magical powers. That was the very first reason that reform started, to stop the worship of idols and then came newer rules. So everyone quits worshipping idols but once their prophet dies, they begin worshipping idols of their prophet, lol, go figure. So the next time around comes of a new religion, no idol worship and the now more new rules. The same thing happens, worship idols of their prophet, etc etc. Repeat this quite a few more times. And now look here, people are now worshipping the crucification of Jesus! These are the people that claim Jesus is God. Talk about a major insult towards God, as good as Jesus may have been, there is only one Almighty.

That's why it's so dangerous to blindly trust your own feelings without taking into account what God has revealed over thousands of years

Truth needs to be sustained, or it fades. People forget and become misguided.

And exactly what has God revealed? What truth's have been found in organized religion? Nothing! Every holy book is NOT written by God nor is it the word of God passed down onto us. Everything, and I mean everything, was written by man, that's it. And because we'll never be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, all religion is is philosophy in trying to figure things out which we will never know. Whatever free thoughts you may have about the almighty is no more right or wrong than the bible itself or other holy book (except for the minor history in the various books).

The reason why everything seems so innocent and true in those books is because each prophet, every single one, and not just Jesus, went out on a many day journey to be alone and think about the meaning of life. That's how they all came to their realizations. This is why I said anyone who considers themselves to be a religion person should go out and do just that. Having your mind clear and asking yourself many questions about life in general and not about one of the holy books because those won't be pure thoughts of your own, is the only way you'll be closer to God. Spend as much time out there as possible until you have that epiphany like all the other prophets did and then heck, you can now preach your words of newfound (not really newfound, everyone came up with the same ideas) wisdom and start your own following and maybe years from now your followers will turn our words into a new religion as done in the past.

- N

 

[water]

Jenyar,

>>I'm always available if any questions or just want to share your thoughts about life. I might not know the answers, but I'll make an effort to understand. This is a genuine offer.

I'll take your word for it! Thanks.

 

[Jenyar]

How is it that following our instincts is what got religion into trouble in the first place? Having created religion is what got religion into trouble because religion is trying to make EVERYONE believe in the same things about God which is bad.

Leave people alone, and they want to just live a peaceful life. It's not until other try to dictate what they're supposed to do when conflict arises. People originally worshipped Nature, no themselves. Everything you read about religion now is MAN-MADE over the years. People had their own personal beliefs when there was no organized religion. It wasn't until everything became organized and dictated that these "problems" arose. Free-thinking was removed and replaced with control.

But this is patently false. People were left alone, and they thought of war and hatred all by themselves. In fact, when you take people out of loving relationships and you leave them to themselves, they grow up as animals. Clearly, something makes the difference, and religion just tries to isolate it.

And you're generalizing religion. The proto-Abrahamic religion abhorred worshipping nature as God. He was always seen as the "wholly other".

Besides, freedom of thought and expression are just other agreed-upon freedoms. Religion obviously doesn't dictate your actions, so what are you complaining about?

Worshipping is worthless. I'm pretty sure the Almighty knows that we're all thankful for what has been created for us. Being worshipped is only for those with low self-esteem that feel as if they're inferior. Worshipping is an act in which Satan craves. But the Almighty, he/she/it would just go "pssh" and wave a dismissed hand at you and tell you to save that worshipping time and put it to better use such as your fellow people. So long as you have the Almighty in your heart, that's all that matters. So instead of spending lots of time worshipping God, try using that time to spread goodness throughout the world. Rather than go to church, go help the poor. Just continue doing good deeds in that time because the Almighty knows you love him/her/it. All you're doing is wasting valuable time.

You seem to have an old Star Trek episode's idea of what "worship" is. Worhsip of God creates a space where your fellow people belong to Him, and it serves the community as much as it serves God. Besides, rejecting God's authority actually isn't a step towards knowing what matters to God. Do you even believe in Him?

Now here's the ironic thing about religion that happens once their original prophet dies. No, people weren't worshipping themselves instead of God, they were worshipping idols of various Gods because they thought the idols held magical powers. That was the very first reason that reform started, to stop the worship of idols and then came newer rules. So everyone quits worshipping idols but once their prophet dies, they begin worshipping idols of their prophet, lol, go figure. So the next time around comes of a new religion, no idol worship and the now more new rules. The same thing happens, worship idols of their prophet, etc etc. Repeat this quite a few more times. And now look here, people are now worshipping the crucification of Jesus! These are the people that claim Jesus is God. Talk about a major insult towards God, as good as Jesus may have been, there is only one Almighty.

That's a pattern of idol-worship, which doesn't reflect the Abrahamic religion or the place Jesus has in it. Do you really think we are worshipping the crucifixion of Jesus? How did you come to that conclusion? Idols are like dead leaves falling form a tree that was always there. But we don't revere Jesus as a dead prophet, but as the human personality God chose to present his salvation to the world. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit comes together as one God in our minds, and that's who we worship.

And exactly what has God revealed? What truth's have been found in organized religion? Nothing! Every holy book is NOT written by God nor is it the word of God passed down onto us. Everything, and I mean everything, was written by man, that's it. And because we'll never be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, all religion is is philosophy in trying to figure things out which we will never know. Whatever free thoughts you may have about the almighty is no more right or wrong than the bible itself or other holy book (except for the minor history in the various books).

No, religion (at least historic relgions) is trying to organize what we do know. And you have to clarify what you mean by "written", because we don't think God took a quill and sat down one day to write. He uses living words, and these words find expression in different forms. But they're like leaves on a tree as well. Away from the tree they're dead and useless, but growing on it they derive their life from their source. This might surprise you, but my relationship with God depends on a developing relationship rooted on his Spirit - the Bible just supports and codifies it.

The reason why everything seems so innocent and true in those books is because each prophet, every single one, and not just Jesus, went out on a many day journey to be alone and think about the meaning of life. That's how they all came to their realizations. This is why I said anyone who considers themselves to be a religion person should go out and do just that. Having your mind clear and asking yourself many questions about life in general and not about one of the holy books because those won't be pure thoughts of your own, is the only way you'll be closer to God. Spend as much time out there as possible until you have that epiphany like all the other prophets did and then heck, you can now preach your words of newfound (not really newfound, everyone came up with the same ideas) wisdom and start your own following and maybe years from now your followers will turn our words into a new religion as done in the past.

But why should we reject the conclusions to which they came? Especially if we are talking about the same God. He is no different now than He was when they got to know Him. No realization to which I can come will contradict their revelations. Why should "pure thoughts of my own" be so wonderful? Only fools reject all of history so that they might reinvent it for themselves. You don't have to do that to realize who you are, or who God is. My parents raised me with love, the same love they have with God. Rejecting either wouldn't be progress.

There's nothing stopping each person from inventing their own religion (they frequently do). But nothing stops them from discovering the God of creation, either. I just chose to trust Him above myself, and that means not rejecting what He had to say to everybody else who believed in Him.

 

[water]

Originally posted by Jenyar
But Neildo, it's just following our own instincts that got religion into trouble in the first place! You simply can't validate any belief about God without accepting God's guidance! And that guidance always came in the form of prophets and various people who were willing not to follow only their own agenda, but put God first.

I think the order of the events as you describe them is not correct. Religion didn't just happen.
Yes, today, if we look at the matter from a short-term perspective, it does look as if it is the following of our instincts that "got religion into trouble in the first place". This is the issue with today's Sunday saints.

But already if you follow back Christianity for 2000 years, the picture was mostly likely thus -- we can only reconstruct it: There was a new belief around, and some people were about to accept it, some have already practiced it. There were no books that the simple people could turn to. Prophets were many, and many turned out to be "false prophets". What was the source of the people's knowledge about the new belief? Here and there an honorable man, and that's it, Christian churches weren't there yet. That doesn't make much of a reliable or constant source.

Do you think that people simply remembered what was being preached? I don't think so. Few of what was preached remained in people's hearts and minds -- and it was most likely the things they wished to have answered, their frustrations to have fed.

The people were living by their instincts, by their superstitions, by the mixture of all the previous belief, and so they added those things from the new belief that suited them best. That new belief, as the people understood it, the thing that was in their mind, was an incoherent ecclectic conglomerate with some nice phrases -- and such belief structures simply don't work as "real religion", as there is too much unanswered and undefined issues -- which one answers as one sees best. This is another reason it went wrong.

And look later: Those that were endowed with the *holy duty* to guide the flock -- what *did they do*? Start the Crusades, the Inquisition. There is no way that someone could persuade me to join a religion that did what the Christian church did.

The leaders were bad -- but the people were bad too then, if they let them in their positions.

The really bad thing about religion is SAYING it and NOT DOING it. This is what religion did to itself.
People saw, and we see, sin taking place every day, everywhere. And what do we do? We tolerate it. We join in. We know that it is bad, yet we tolerate it.
And this is the history of Christianity: it is the history of seeing sin, and tolerating it.

Why do we tolerate it? Because of our instincts? I don't think so.

Belonging to a religion gives one a feeling of safety. Belonging is enough, you don't even have to practice it much. It is there, you know where to turn to, you stop looking, you stop searching. You say: ok, this is the place I can find my answers. The book is there. The church is there. Now, once I am here, I can go slowly, the rush of insecurity is gone.

And once safe, one can afford to numb down, this is what happens.
And this is the danger: Once belonging to an established religion, one *can* afford to numb down.

Those who keep looking, those who keep searching see that they cannot afford to numb down, they see it is bad to numb down.
The instinct of curiosity is preserved, it prevents you from numbing down.
And this then has a long line of consequences and implications.

Originally posted by Neildo
Leave people alone, and they want to just live a peaceful life. It's not until other try to dictate what they're supposed to do when conflict arises. People originally worshipped Nature, no themselves. Everything you read about religion now is MAN-MADE over the years. People had their own personal beliefs when there was no organized religion. It wasn't until everything became organized and dictated that these "problems" arose. Free-thinking was removed and replaced with control.

You speak the words I was looking for!

Worshipping is worthless. I'm pretty sure the Almighty knows that we're all thankful for what has been created for us.

I wouldn't be so sure about that though. I once spoke to a strict Catholic, and got an inetersting reply. He said: "How many Catholics believe that God made them?" "I bet all," I said. He went on, "Yes. And how many are thankful that God made them?" "Few, I guess," I replied, and he agreed, "That's the tragic irony of religion," he said.

Being worshipped is only for those with low self-esteem that feel as if they're inferior.

I agree. I always wondered how come that the Mormon church has such as well-organized net of missionary activity. It is strange, when you think. But then I thought: they need to go around, proclaiming their belief out loud, because they are basically unsure. They feel bad if others don't think the way they do, they feel threatened to be alone with their belief, and just like bullying kids at school, they go and try to make the world so that it would please them!
They treat non-believers as if we are their problem to solve!

Worshipping is an act in which Satan craves.

Another thing that really angries me with worshipping is that it makes the belief so verbal and verbalizable, so rational. As if your faith could be expressed with *words* and a few small acts!

Originally posted by Jenyar
Truth needs to be sustained, or it fades. People forget and become misguided.

On my desk, I had taped cards with the following instructions that I thought basic for work:
"Use or lose."
"Be smart, work hard, get the job done, move on."
"Think in solutions."

All well, but I realized that I do know these truths, I just don't put them into action. And having them pasted on my desk, they only became bearable to look at, became transparent, became insignifficant. Being constantly reminded does not work. It numbs you down for the message. You can repeat it -- and that feels like "done deal".

No way. You have to DO it, or whatever the truth is, it is worthless.
No matter what the lesson, no matter what the "truth" -- people do know most of them. They just don't put them into action, and this is what makes the truths fade.

Then you have to ask yourself why they don't put those truths into action. Because life is obviously too easy, too safe, not dangerous enough. You can be a wossie and survive!

The solution, IMO, is to get out of that snug little place called religion, and you will see the challenges, you will feel the danger: and then, you will be forced to show some character, be forced to get some character. And only such a kind of character is the strong one, the one that is what it says that it is. That's the kind of character that actually lives by what it deems right and true.

I'm sorry if I come across as moralizing. But the above was my lesson with the religious I've met in my life.

 

[Neildo]

But this is patently false. People were left alone, and they thought of war and hatred all by themselves. In fact, when you take people out of loving relationships and you leave them to themselves, they grow up as animals. Clearly, something makes the difference, and religion just tries to isolate it.

And who were the ones to start the organizing and thoughts of war? Those that dictate. You think people LIKE to go to war? Ask someone to just all of a sudden go to war and they'll most likely shrug their shoulders and tell someone else to do it. Those dictating organizers end up spouting off their personal hateful beliefs (yes, some people are just born flat out nutso) and eventually put their thoughts into other people's heads. It's very easy to manipulate people into doing things when you promise them this or that or strike fear into them (hey, kind of sounds like a couple religious texts right there).

And you're generalizing religion. The proto-Abrahamic religion abhorred worshipping nature as God. He was always seen as the "wholly other".

I'm not generalizing religion when I say it all first started by worshipping nature. That's how religion first started. Religion didn't start with Abraham. Even before the people of Canaan wrote their Testaments or before they had their shared non-organized individual beliefs, nature was worshipped. And in other various regions of the world, the same thing applied before [insert name of religion]. That's the whole origins of Polytheisim (multiple gods). And a belief in one god didn't come until thousands of years later. Monotheism (one god) is a fairly new belief.

Besides, freedom of thought and expression are just other agreed-upon freedoms. Religion obviously doesn't dictate your actions, so what are you complaining about?

True, freedom of thought and expression are just agreed-upon freedoms, but I can guarantee you that 95% of the world are not in the religion they're in because it agrees with their own individual thoughts. Their thoughts they have now are because of what they've read in their religious text. Most do not choose to worship whatever they worship, it's because they were brought up that way by birth or "because" everyone else does it. Most of the time, it's those that study religion in their later lives that follow whatever they follow because it's actually an agree-upon freedom.

Besides, rejecting God's authority actually isn't a step towards knowing what matters to God. Do you even believe in Him?

Because I said worshipping is basically worthless, that has nothing to do with rejecting the Almighty's authority. And yes, I believe in "an" Almighty. However, who or what he/she/it is, I am not naive enough to say.

You seem to have an old Star Trek episode's idea of what "worship" is.

Sorry, I'm not a Trekkie. I've seen maybe 20 minutes total in my whole life of the original Star Trek, maybe a couple hours of Next Generation, none of the original movies, and only the last 3 (?) of the Next Generation ones. Yes, I know, I shall now be shunned.

And you have to clarify what you mean by "written", because we don't think God took a quill and sat down one day to write. He uses living words, and these words find expression in different forms.

As I said in the section of mine you quoted, all those religious texts were written by man. They were not spoken down unto those various prophets, they were merely God-inspired when they finally had an epiphany as to how things should be. Every.. single.. word.. is written and thought up by, man. And THAT is the problem I have with organized religion.

People continue to believe that all the various religious text were ALL scribed by man as the official word of God. And because that is not so, everyone is just following some HUMAN philosopher's thoughts and ideas and not their own. This is why I said that anyone who wishes to take religion seriously should go out on their own however many day journey alone to think long and hard about life until they have that epiphany that each philosopher, -- err, prophet to the rest -- did.

But why should we reject the conclusions to which they came? Especially if we are talking about the same God. He is no different now than He was when they got to know Him. No realization to which I can come will contradict their revelations. Why should "pure thoughts of my own" be so wonderful? Only fools reject all of history so that they might reinvent it for themselves. You don't have to do that to realize who you are, or who God is. My parents raised me with love, the same love they have with God. Rejecting either wouldn't be progress.

You need to follow pure thoughts of your own because for all you know, everything you believe in which you've read in your religious text could be wrong. Just for the simple fact that there are various religious "books" that each claim to be the one and only way means that your beliefs are most likely wrong. Heck, just for the simple fact of man thinking that he understands everything means they're most likely wrong.

Now however, if you do take that long journey to be left alone from civilization so that you may ponder life, while putting everything else you've learned in the past out of your head, and you end up coming up with the same conclusions, then hey, go right ahead and continue doing what you're doing. You'll at least have a much better understanding about it all unlike most people. To actually go out and choose an organized religion through your own free will is awesome and says a lot about your character. Something 95% of most followers haven't done or will never do because they're either sheep, don't have the time, or just don't care.

I wouldn't be so sure about that though.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said worshipping is worthless. It's self-satisfying, at the very least.. or I at least hope so. I'd rather not people worship just because they feel they have to when they don't like doing so.

When I said worshipping is worthless, I meant it more along the lines of worshipping being a one-way street between the worshipper and the Almighty. Those that pray to him FOR things, you're wasting your time. He/she/it is a busy erm, thing (?), so rather than spending all that holy time praying, going to church, and the like to worship him/her/it, it'd be much better to actually go out and do good deeds for others. Actions speak louder than words. The Almighty knows that he's awesome and I'm pretty sure he knows his creations think so. I doubt there is any need to stroke his/her/its ego through worship. Only someone such as Satan would crave that and well, who would want to do something associated with mister bad boy?

- N

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
Neildo: And what about those that are reforming Christianity which is supposed to be the "right" religion? Islam came after Christianity and Christian reform came after that.
*************
M*W: Good point Neildo!
*************
Neildo: Only what we ourselves belief in our heart about God is correct. Remember, so long as you're following ANY mainstream religion or cult, you're following some other PERSON's beliefs, NOT your pure personal feelings of an almighty.
*************
M*W: Also, Neildo, following others' belief systems detracts from the god incarnate in us.
*************
Neildo: When it comes to trying to be closer with God, I think everyone should take a long time out as all the past prophets have done and do some long and hard thinking about life. That's the only way you'll truly get closer to him/her/it. Otherwise you're just being tained by other's beliefs. The Almighty is inside all of us and that's all that matters. One needn't read a holy book, go to church, or pray to him. Those are acts just to help make you aware of the Almighty. But if you're doing those acts in an obsessive manner as most religious people do, those wind up being satanic acts for an insecure creator. Once you are aware of the Almighty, finding him/her/it should be done on one's own self. Worshipping is bad. All you need is that feeling in your heart and that's it.
*************
M*W: You've made an important observation. Praying to a god "out there somewhere" (like in the heavens) lessens God's magnificance in your own soul. Also, I find it strange that people worship a god "up there," because in the heavens is where Lucifer was, and therefore, the big lie began to evolve.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

But Neildo, it's just following our own instincts that got religion into trouble in the first place!
*************
M*W: But Jenyar, God gave us our instinctive nature. Man created religion. That's what got us into trouble in the first place.
*************
Jenyar: And that guidance always came in the form of prophets and various people who were willing not to follow only their own agenda, but put God first. How else do you think God influences us?
*************
M*W: Guidance comes from everywhere in the universe, because God is the Creator of the Universe, and we are intelligent life in the Universe, therefore, Humanity is also God. But your everyday garden variety of guidance can come from a stranger, a child, an animal, maybe even a flower, the stars, a tree, a street person, because all of these entities are God. It was not just the prophets of old. They were just the more outspoken ones.
*************
Jenyar: Christianity is just as fallible as any group of people together, but with one difference: they have a responsibility to keep Christ's message alive.
*************
M*W: And they have profitably done that for 2000 years, but that doesn't make it "true" or "infallible." Today it is not the same philosophy as Jesus preached 2000 years ago. It has been corrupted by human pride and greed. It's evil.
*************
Jenyar: And Jesus was a person.
*************
M*W: As is all of Humanity.
*************
Jenyar: It's true that He taught things that every person has to find in his own heart, such as love and forgiveness, but it's also important to realize that this is just a small part of God's message.
*************
M*W: Love and forgiveness and other like virtues are part of humanity's instinctive nature which ALSO is part of the One Spirit of God!
*************
Jenyar: "Religion" is just a container; the Bible is just a medium. The real miracles happen in people's response to God and in their supporting each other.
*************
M*W: Humanity is the "container," the Bible is the "medium" that controls people by "religion," and the "real miracles" happen because God is the body, mind and spirit of Humanity.
*************
Jenyar: Worshipping simply means giving to God what He's due.
*************
M*W: "Worshipping" means praising the One Spirit of God that dwells in Humanity. Anything other than that is idle/idol worship.
*************
Jenyar: You shouldn't worship a person, because that's not what a person requires or what he deserves; he requires and deserves love above everything else. But loving God means worshipping Him and talking (praying) to Him, and worshipping him means loving and praying for each other.
*************
M*W: You should "worship" humanity as one interconnected body of creation. Humanity DOES deserve worship--just look what we've accomplished in the past 10,000 years! Just look what we've accomplished in the past 100 years! To love humanity is to love God. The first thing we need to do before we can achieve world peace is to start worshipping humanity... loving humanity, because that is WHERE we see God!
*************
Jenyar: It's no accident that this was the heart of the "reform" Jesus taught. People were worshipping themselves instead of God.
*************
M*W: Jesus' philosophy was to "love the Lord God (our Creator) with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" and to "love your neighbor as yourself." Worshipping oneself is to have ego pride. Ego pride removes a person from the interconnectedness of humanity/God.
*************
Jenyar: That's why it's so dangerous to blindly trust your own feelings without taking into account what God has revealed over thousands of years.
*************
M*W: God gave us those instinctive feelings. If we don't trust ourselves, then there is no one we can trust. Not even God.
*************
Jenyar: You could be repeating mistakes that you should have learned from, and without a communion with God and other people who believe in Him, you have no way of realizing it.
*************
M*W: I believe humanity is basically good, not perfect, yet, but we are headed in the right direction. If we can't "commune with God" within our own consciousness and in all forms of creation, there is no communing with God at all. God gave us the instincts of what is right and what is wrong. Why should we trust a group of people (i.e. the "church") who are not in commune with the One Spirit of God that dwells within all of Humanity? the "church" detracts us from finding God within our own creation.
*************
Jenyar: You should know that the "church"..."it's your body - and in a way it's also His body,"....
*************
M*W: This is what I've been saying for years. All you've done is dance around it and use it for your claims.
*************
Jenyar: "grown from and sustained by the body and blood of Christ (why we have "communion" with bread and wine, see?).
*************
M*W: Jesus was an example (regardless of literal or allegorical) of what humanity could achieve as we evolve toward godliness and perfection.
*************
Jenyar: Truth needs to be sustained, or it fades. People forget and become misguided. There always has to be some kind of responsibility towards each other. Just living out your fantasies about who God is without being willing to be corrected is not responsible. I speak for myself as well. But the consensus just cannot lie with people or individuals, it has to lie with God himself.
*************
M*W: Yes, you are correct, Jenyar. "Truth needs to be sustained, or it fades." People do forget, as they have for 2000 years when the truth turned into a lie. What Jesus taught, be he a real man or a mythical dying demigod savior, the personality of Jesus Christ was an example of what humanity was destined to become. This Jesus came 2000 years ago, by whatever means, the second coming of the Messiah will be God perfectly manifesting within the eternal human race. Then there will be peace in the valley, and the "church" Jesus exemplified will be "built upon this rock" called Earth.

 

[firdroirich]

Where/what is religion?

It's at the bottom of the ocean; it can't be given to you, you have to immerse yourself in the water to get it. If you seek safety, remain on the shore. Religion is the shell, seek out the pearl.
- Rumi

 

[Jenyar]

But already if you follow back Christianity for 2000 years, the picture was mostly likely thus -- we can only reconstruct it: There was a new belief around, and some people were about to accept it, some have already practiced it. There were no books that the simple people could turn to. Prophets were many, and many turned out to be "false prophets". What was the source of the people's knowledge about the new belief? Here and there an honorable man, and that's it, Christian churches weren't there yet. That doesn't make much of a reliable or constant source.

I think you completely underestimate the powers that were at work and the circumstances that shaped Christianity. You're right that religions didn't spring into existence over a short period of time, but Christianity has only one reason for its existence: Christ.

There was only one prophet after the ones of the Old Testament, and that was John the Baptist. He didn't advocate a new belief, but a person: the Jewish Messiah. He was supposed to be the king that would restore Israel to the state it had been before the exile to Babylon. But when Jesus came he did much more, and with him people began to realize the direction God was taking. Jesus was the message and the messenger; they didn't need books or prophets. He was the "honourable man".

Do you think that people simply remembered what was being preached? I don't think so. Few of what was preached remained in people's hearts and minds -- and it was most likely the things they wished to have answered, their frustrations to have fed.

No, completely the opposite happened. What Jesus said and did was kept alive by his disciples, and the Spirit. If you read the New Testament you'll see where the fears and frustrations of the people are addressed in the form of epistles - but that isn't the end of it. These people are constantly reminded to "love as Jesus loved them". And Jesus made sure they were equipped to keep and relay His message.

The people were living by their instincts, by their superstitions, by the mixture of all the previous belief, and so they added those things from the new belief that suited them best. That new belief, as the people understood it, the thing that was in their mind, was an incoherent ecclectic conglomerate with some nice phrases -- and such belief structures simply don't work as "real religion", as there is too much unanswered and undefined issues -- which one answers as one sees best. This is another reason it went wrong.

I see you make a lot of these "answers". Maybe that's what you expect they needed, but Jesus was their answer. They were asked to let go of their superstitions and instincts, because it was leading them astray. That is where Christ's message differs from the other religions. It wasn't a new belief either - it was a disillusioning faith.

And look later: Those that were endowed with the *holy duty* to guide the flock -- what *did they do*? Start the Crusades, the Inquisition. There is no way that someone could persuade me to join a religion that did what the Christian church did.

Who are "they"? Did God speak to the church, or to individual people? He took people by their hearts, not by their social structures. The crusades were a retaliation against Muslim attacks on Jerusalem, the Inquisition has complexities of its own. They weren't just wars started for the fun of it. These things were a continuation of the evils that were with humanity long before Christ, and will be with us for a long time yet. They're not special because they were done in the name of Christ's church. After all, Jesus didn't build a temple and call people to attend it. He built a spiritual kingdom and invited the world to live in it.

The really bad thing about religion is SAYING it and NOT DOING it. This is what religion did to itself.
People saw, and we see, sin taking place every day, everywhere. And what do we do? We tolerate it. We join in. We know that it is bad, yet we tolerate it.
And this is the history of Christianity: it is the history of seeing sin, and tolerating it.

You generalize terribly. It's like pointing out the slaughter of American Indians and saying "and that's the history of Americans". Was killing natives what the New World was all about? Of course not, but people inevitably abused their new-found freedom and missed the point completely.

Belonging to a religion gives one a feeling of safety. Belonging is enough, you don't even have to practice it much. It is there, you know where to turn to, you stop looking, you stop searching. You say: ok, this is the place I can find my answers. The book is there. The church is there. Now, once I am here, I can go slowly, the rush of insecurity is gone.

And once safe, one can afford to numb down, this is what happens.
And this is the danger: Once belonging to an established religion, one *can* afford to numb down.

No, no, no! That's the worst that can happen! If you numb down you are doing exactly what Jesus condemned: a half-hearted, hypocritical approach to God. He heated the water so that people would start feeling uncomfortable in their safety zones - and people didn't like it.

But what's wrong with knowing where to turn to? Isn't a great problem with the world that people have nobody to turn to; nobody to trust? Everybody wants to be loved - do you see that as a weakness?

Those who keep looking, those who keep searching see that they cannot afford to numb down, they see it is bad to numb down.
The instinct of curiosity is preserved, it prevents you from numbing down.
And this then has a long line of consequences and implications.

I'll repeat: The truth is something to take hold of and keep alive. You have to practice it or it becomes a lie or a myth. Those who seek will find, but the finding is also in the seeking.

Do you know what you call people who are always looking but never find anything? Lost.

Another thing that really angries me with worshipping is that it makes the belief so verbal and verbalizable, so rational. As if your faith could be expressed with *words* and a few small acts!

Do yourself a favour and attend a Greek Orthodox mass or a Taize gathering someday. I think you will be surprised at the depth of the experience.

The solution, IMO, is to get out of that snug little place called religion, and you will see the challenges, you will feel the danger: and then, you will be forced to show some character, be forced to get some character. And only such a kind of character is the strong one, the one that is what it says that it is. That's the kind of character that actually lives by what it deems right and true.

I'm sorry if I come across as moralizing. But the above was my lesson with the religious I've met in my life.

Not at all. This is exactly what the church was built on. As Paul said to the Corinthians: "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.' "

Romans 5:3
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.​

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Religion was invented by neanderthals - fact.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

“Do you think that people simply remembered what was being preached? I don't think so. Few of what was preached remained in people's hearts and minds -- and it was most likely the things they wished to have answered, their frustrations to have fed. ”

No, completely the opposite happened. What Jesus said and did was kept alive by his disciples, and the Spirit. If you read the New Testament you'll see where the fears and frustrations of the people are addressed in the form of epistles - but that isn't the end of it. These people are constantly reminded to "love as Jesus loved them". And Jesus made sure they were equipped to keep and relay His message.

I am thinking real, simple, everyday people, illiterate and hard-working. They had not much time, nor strength to engage in religious thinking.
Not everyone can afford to go and preach -- and then live from the mercy of others. Someone has to work on the fields, someone has to make sure food grows. Someone has to build houses. And it ain't traveling prophets.

I see you make a lot of these "answers". Maybe that's what you expect they needed, but Jesus was their answer. They were asked to let go of their superstitions and instincts, because it was leading them astray. That is where Christ's message differs from the other religions. It wasn't a new belief either - it was a disillusioning faith.

This is our more knowledgeable position today.
Leading them stray? We need to keep the whole context of social development in mind: population grew, communities became bigger and bigger. Social stability and identity needed to be preserved. The old beliefs became inapplicable, as they sprung up in small communities and were ensuring stability and identity only within the range of those small and tight, tribal-like communities.
A new approach to organize and lead a community was needed. It had to be more abstract than the ones before, as it had to hold more people together -- and this was done by making the belief that organizes and leads a community more obvious in the sense of being verbalized.

Christianity came as a natural consequence of social development.

“And look later: Those that were endowed with the *holy duty* to guide the flock -- what *did they do*? Start the Crusades, the Inquisition. There is no way that someone could persuade me to join a religion that did what the Christian church did. ”

Who are "they"? Did God speak to the church, or to individual people?

The organisation of the Church, the popes and the archbishops are considered to be endowed with the holy duty to guide the flock.
Like it or not, the Church acted as any other earthly ruler: it pursued its interests.
To whom God did speak -- was a matter of what the Church accepted as such.
If they didn't like what that person said, the Church took care of him. Very effectively.

He took people by their hearts, not by their social structures.

Which people?! Maybe the first Christians. But certainly not the so called pagans, who were converted by force later. They converted under the threat of immediate death, and not because "Christ would take them by their hearts".

The crusades were a retaliation against Muslim attacks on Jerusalem, the Inquisition has complexities of its own. They weren't just wars started for the fun of it. These things were a continuation of the evils that were with humanity long before Christ, and will be with us for a long time yet. They're not special because they were done in the name of Christ's church.

Are you thereby saying that the "official Church" is NOT the right source to validate religious truth?

After all, Jesus didn't build a temple and call people to attend it.
He built a spiritual kingdom and invited the world to live in it.

Oh yes, and this was then carried out with sword and fire.

You generalize terribly. /.../ Of course not, but people inevitably abused their new-found freedom and missed the point completely.

Understanding how it happened does not make it any more justified or right.
They killed in the name of God, this is what they say. And so they killed in the name of God.

And once safe, one can afford to numb down, this is what happens.
And this is the danger: Once belonging to an established religion, one *can* afford to numb down. ”

No, no, no! That's the worst that can happen! If you numb down you are doing exactly what Jesus condemned: a half-hearted, hypocritical approach to God. He heated the water so that people would start feeling uncomfortable in their safety zones - and people didn't like it.

Of course this is the worst thing that can happen! But knowing that it is the worst thing that can happen does not make it any less bad or any less real.

But what's wrong with knowing where to turn to?

It eventually forces you to take sides. You take a side, and then, for the sake of honour and integrity, you hold on to this side, even though it may later turn out that what it does is not good.

Isn't a great problem with the world that people have nobody to turn to; nobody to trust?

Yes, it is. But just going somewhere is too simplistic. You put your whole life in the hands of somebody else. You may say, "Yes, but when it is God and Christ, then you have put your life in the right hand."

But how is one supposed to know in whose hands he should put his life to? Simply because *you* say that he should put it in God's hands?
I may speak to someone else, and he'll tell me I should put my life in XY's hands.

How do I know whom to trust?

Obviously, I need character to figure out whom I can trust. Which method to trust. Which prayer to trust.
And by the time I get that much character to be able to make a sound decision of that kind, I also have enough character to realize that I alone am the one into whose hands I should put my life to.

Everybody wants to be loved - do you see that as a weakness?

No, it comes naturally that we need love. Why would you say that someone would see it as weakness?

I'll repeat: The truth is something to take hold of and keep alive. You have to practice it or it becomes a lie or a myth. Those who seek will find, but the finding is also in the seeking.

And you know what I find to be the ultimate truth? Use or lose.
This I do have in mind, at least most of the times, this is how I understand things to be, this is how I live by. So far, everything else can be in one way or another derived from this truth.

Do you know what you call people who are always looking but never find anything? Lost.

And do you know what it is if you are doing the same thing over and over again and expect to get a different result? Madness.

Do yourself a favour and attend a Greek Orthodox mass or a Taize gathering someday. I think you will be surprised at the depth of the experience.

I haven't been at a Greek Orthodox mass or a Taize gathering, but of course I believe that I would be taken by the depth of the experience. It is just that *I* don't think that I could ever actually actively participate in it: I would feel as if I am trying to rationalize my faith.

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

Huh, this is so idealistic!
Oh yes, this is why soooo many people exercise, keep their promises, have a healthy diet, ... because they rejoice in their sufferings, in order to get some character. Naw.

And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

Well, I'll give you my take on hope. It is a very logical one, actually: Giving up hope is an action of inconsistency. It is a fact that we don't know everything and that unpredictable things happen.
It may be practical to give up hope -- as it may be a heavy and scary burden sometimes. But something you haven't thought of all things that can happen. What to do then, if you have no hope, ah, what to do then? Then you go crazy. So, in order to preserve sanity, it is good to have hope. And one needn't have a God to justify that. Did you see the film "The Shawshank Redemption"? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Religion was invented by neanderthals - fact.

*************
M*W: Weren't they the first ones to bury their dead?

 

[Jenyar]

I am thinking real, simple, everyday people, illiterate and hard-working. They had not much time, nor strength to engage in religious thinking.
Not everyone can afford to go and preach -- and then live from the mercy of others. Someone has to work on the fields, someone has to make sure food grows. Someone has to build houses. And it ain't traveling prophets.

But Rosa, if you always generalize like that you will never be able to appreciate the details. We're not talking about the cross-section of Christianity - as you said: we're talking about real people and real situations. And history contradicts you. Rome, Egypt and Jerusalem were melting pots for religion. Not only that, but people themselves were often revered as the gods themselves. Maybe that's why Jesus refrained from referring to himself as just another one. What He did do was pick people from their everyday lives and ask them to follow him. Remember they didn't have TV, cinemas or coffee shops. You just had to choose between religion and entertainment, and simple people like you describe had more reason to need God than theatre.

Jesus' disciples were lower-middle class Jews who had real occupations, like fishermen, but he called them to a new occupation, to become "fishers of men". They were asked to leave family and jobs behind and follow Jesus. That in itself isn't very strange either, because when you wanted someone to teach you in those days you followed him around or became his apprentice. Jesus was their teacher or 'rabbi', and He did nothing but travel and preach during his last three years. People came to listen to them and then went back to their work, or they met him during their everyday lives. He also spent time with people who were unable to work or were shunned by society: tax collectors, widows, the poor and sick. He made a big difference in their lives, and what He told them made a lasting impression.

This is our more knowledgeable position today.
Leading them stray? We need to keep the whole context of social development in mind: population grew, communities became bigger and bigger. Social stability and identity needed to be preserved. The old beliefs became inapplicable, as they sprung up in small communities and were ensuring stability and identity only within the range of those small and tight, tribal-like communities.
A new approach to organize and lead a community was needed. It had to be more abstract than the ones before, as it had to hold more people together -- and this was done by making the belief that organizes and leads a community more obvious in the sense of being verbalized.

Christianity came as a natural consequence of social development.

I think you need to read up about the circumstances in which Jesus and his followers lived and worked. Try this Frontline series, From Jesus to Christ, and The Jewish Roman World of Jesus for an overview.

To say that Christianity arose naturally out of the immediate needs of people is a gross misunderstanding. It did address a natural need, of course, and it did fill a gap that all those religions and gods could not fill. But the only people who were really interested in preserving their stability and identity were the Romans and the Religious leaders. Christianity formed like a diamond under that pressure, but it wasn't because people were trying to create a diamond. Do you think the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70AD just happend without warning or conflict? Do you think Christians did themselves or the "community" a favour by alienating the Romans and the Jews?

The organisation of the Church, the popes and the archbishops are considered to be endowed with the holy duty to guide the flock.
Like it or not, the Church acted as any other earthly ruler: it pursued its interests.
...
If they didn't like what that person said, the Church took care of him. Very effectively.

You're talking about 300 years later, when the Church and the Roman state were the same thing. Do you think the Roman Empire just evaporated without a trace? Did the powers that tried to rule the world just whimper and back down when Christians took over in government? I tell you, they weren't any more holy than America was when it was established as a Christian nation, or than it is today.

The same thing can be said of Constantine. Corruption didn't disappear under his rule, and to think because the banner of government was now Christian? everybody were saints is just naive.

Which people?! Maybe the first Christians. But certainly not the so called pagans, who were converted by force later. They converted under the threat of immediate death, and not because "Christ would take them by their hearts".

All people, but just like today, not all people accept what that means. Christians included - in fact, I'd say especially Christians. They're not prepared to bear the cross as Jesus did, to love as He commanded, and to resist corruption and immorality.

Once again you don't show much appreciation for how the church was established. Pagans weren't forcefully converted... how many examples do you have of forceful conversions before the Middle Ages, and how representative are they?

Are you thereby saying that the "official Church" is NOT the right source to validate religious truth?

What is there to validate other than the truth? The only "official" church is Jesus himself. It was the Temple before, and it was His body after its destruction. Only one of them survived. What you call the "church" is called in the Bible the "body of Christ". And it's in no better shape physically than Jesus was at his crucifixion: beaten and battered, barely recognizeable. God will accept only those whom He recognizes, and the church is not exempt from his judgment.

Understanding how it happened does not make it any more justified or right.
They killed in the name of God, this is what they say. And so they killed in the name of God.

Like those soldiers killed and tortured their prisoners in the name of America? Does that mean all Americans are like that, or that they will tolerate injustice done in their name? Just consider that comparison for a moment.

It eventually forces you to take sides. You take a side, and then, for the sake of honour and integrity, you hold on to this side, even though it may later turn out that what it does is not good.

A "side" cannot do anything that you don;t want to do. To take the side of God is to take a side against evil and corruption. How can that turn out to be a bad decision? And in the same vein, what does not wanting to take sides say about you?

But how is one supposed to know in whose hands he should put his life to? Simply because *you* say that he should put it in God's hands?
I may speak to someone else, and he'll tell me I should put my life in XY's hands.

How do I know whom to trust?

You trust someone who has proven himself to be trustworthy. Nobody is asking you to trust someone you don't know. At least get to know Christ, that's all advice I can give you. And be prepared to realize it's not be a decision that guarantees your comfort. Another good rule of thumb is to be the kind of person you would be able to trust. You'll learn a lot about God just by trying.

Obviously, I need character to figure out whom I can trust. Which method to trust. Which prayer to trust.
And by the time I get that much character to be able to make a sound decision of that kind, I also have enough character to realize that I alone am the one into whose hands I should put my life to.

You don't have to achieve character, you have to build it, just like you build trust. Nobody achieves trust, they exercise it, just like love - otherwise it's just a matter of time before it breaks.

You didn't give yourself life. A flame can't trust itself to keep burning, because it didn't start itself. But as you build up a relationship with God you will learn whether you can trust him or not - and be careful, you don't trust friends just because they make your life easier, but because you know you can count on them. The same is true with God. Bad times or bad Christians aren't an indication that he let you down, just that there will always be people who let God down. Pray with the heart of someone who can be trusted, and you will find that you already know that you can trust God.

And you know what I find to be the ultimate truth? Use or lose.
This I do have in mind, at least most of the times, this is how I understand things to be, this is how I live by. So far, everything else can be in one way or another derived from this truth.

What about what I tell you? Do you think I'm trying to lead you into a trap or force my beliefs on you? I'm really concerned that you know what Christ was all about, and that He wasn't a liar either. And what about your life. If that is the ultimate truth, why are you still expecting to lose it in the end?

I haven't been at a Greek Orthodox mass or a Taize gathering, but of course I believe that I would be taken by the depth of the experience. It is just that *I* don't think that I could ever actually actively participate in it: I would feel as if I am trying to rationalize my faith.

Do you want your faith to remain irrational? What about spiritualizing it? I can appreciate your wish to keep everything nebulous and undefined, that's where they are at their most pure. But even music or poetry is an expression of that. When you appreciate music you are already rationalizing and codifying. You can't prevent meaning from emerging out of everything. Even by just lying in the sun you are enjoying the privilege of its light, whether you choose to verbalize it or not. You are an active participant in life. You are words contained in a body.

Huh, this is so idealistic!
Oh yes, this is why soooo many people exercise, keep their promises, have a healthy diet, ... because they rejoice in their sufferings, in order to get some character. Naw.

He was talking about conflict. If you think that leading a good life builds character, you are sadly mistaken. People become vain when they meet no challenges. And if your pride goes undefeated you have no need for a good character. That's why Jesus said it's so hard for a rich man to become perfect.

Well, I'll give you my take on hope. It is a very logical one, actually: Giving up hope is an action of inconsistency. It is a fact that we don't know everything and that unpredictable things happen.
It may be practical to give up hope -- as it may be a heavy and scary burden sometimes. But something you haven't thought of all things that can happen. What to do then, if you have no hope, ah, what to do then? Then you go crazy. So, in order to preserve sanity, it is good to have hope. And one needn't have a God to justify that. Did you see the film "The Shawshank Redemption"? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I loved that film. It showed exactly what perseverance can do, and how character gives hope. But what if he was guilty - what is he actually deserved to serve a life sentence. Should one hope to escape justice? Hope in God is hope that justice will prevail, even if there is no evidence that it does.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

I think that a part of our misunderstandings/miscommunications are due to this: You observe the most issues we discuss from a religious POV, while I am at the sociohistorical POV.

But Rosa, if you always generalize like that you will never be able to appreciate the details.

Yes, indeed, I generalize from the sociohistorical POV. And yes, the details may get lost thus. I appreciate that you reminded me of that.

What He did do was pick people from their everyday lives and ask them to follow him. Remember they didn't have TV, cinemas or coffee shops. You just had to choose between religion and entertainment, and simple people like you describe had more reason to need God than theatre.

Good point.

Jesus' disciples were lower-middle class Jews who had real occupations, like fishermen, but he called them to a new occupation, to become "fishers of men". They were asked to leave family and jobs behind and follow Jesus. That in itself isn't very strange either, because when you wanted someone to teach you in those days you followed him around or became his apprentice.

Yes, I know that. But I am thinking like this: And who gave you food? Who gave you shelter?

Jesus was their teacher or 'rabbi', and He did nothing but travel and preach during his last three years.

He ate and he drank and he slept in places. Someone had to build those houses, make that food. Jesus didn't do it.

What I am trying to say that practising religion as a traveling disciple, one depended on other people. If everyone became a traveling disciple or a teacher, nobody would work on the fields. The economy would collapse.

People came to listen to them and then went back to their work, or they met him during their everyday lives. /.../ He made a big difference in their lives, and what He told them made a lasting impression.

I can imagine that. But how many people can someone visit in a few years?
Let's say he spoke to some 100 people all together in a day, on the average. That makes 3650 people in a year. In three years, that makes 10.950 people. Some of them died in the time of his preaching, some were too young to listen. That makes about 8.000 people or less. This is not very much.
The town I live in has 2.400 people, so I can imagine what 8.000 people is.
I just find it rather unrealistic that he influenced many many people really really deeply, that it is all.

To say that Christianity arose naturally out of the immediate needs of people is a gross misunderstanding.

Ah, I see, "naturally" is the problem. Then let me rephrase: "Christianity came as a logical/necessary consequence of social development." So the sociohistorical POV.
And it was out of the immediate needs, but not immediately. Things take time.

Once again you don't show much appreciation for how the church was established. Pagans weren't forcefully converted... how many examples do you have of forceful conversions before the Middle Ages, and how representative are they?

I'm sorry, I should have added the centuries: I was talking about forceful conversions *in* the Middle Ages, yes.

What is there to validate other than the truth? The only "official" church is Jesus himself. It was the Temple before, and it was His body after its destruction. Only one of them survived. What you call the "church" is called in the Bible the "body of Christ". And it's in no better shape physically than Jesus was at his crucifixion: beaten and battered, barely recognizeable. God will accept only those whom He recognizes, and the church is not exempt from his judgment.

Aha, so here's the clash of our POV's. No wonder that we argue.
Of course you are right, and I agree, from your the internal religious POV.

But those of us who are not inside of your religion, and this includes all the forcefully converted pagans, simply cannot take or appreciate your POV.
What Jesus taught may be noble and everything, but when people got killed in the name of this same love -- do not be surprised if they had distrust into anything connected to Jesus.
When somebody burns down your house, you will not think "Oh, but inside, he may be a good man, in some way." You can forgive the one who harmed you, but you are not likely to accept his belief.
Maybe this is exactly what Jesus wanted -- I don't know.

Like those soldiers killed and tortured their prisoners in the name of America? Does that mean all Americans are like that, or that they will tolerate injustice done in their name? Just consider that comparison for a moment.

Of course it doesn't mean that *all* Americans are like that. But enough of them obviously are, otherwise those tortures wouldn't happen.

Look, I don't know what you went through in your life, so I don't know how you personally feel about these things.

But I know that in everyday life, it is just next to impossible to take on the belief of the one who harmed you.

In WW2, the Catholic church (and by "Church" I mean it in the sociohistorical way, the actual organisation here) sided with the Nazis and the Fascists, who attacked our country. The Church said that "the earthly ruler has to be accepted, for he is the ruler that God chose". The Church was the traitor. It sold our people in the name of God. It took the Church almost till the end of the war to realize that it was their own people who were killed by the Nazis and the Fascists, and that this wasn't good.
It does not surprise that people don't trust the Church. It is normal that you don't trust someone who betrayed you.

And yes, the Catholic church has put the whole teachings of Christ into a very bad light, to put it mildly. But to join Christ, also means to join this very corrupted earthly organisation that says that it is God's representative on earth.

A "side" cannot do anything that you don;t want to do. To take the side of God is to take a side against evil and corruption. How can that turn out to be a bad decision? And in the same vein, what does not wanting to take sides say about you?

Sides are to be taken only in times of war. Right now, we are not in a war, are we?
I am on my side, this I am. Also, one can never know what the party one has sided with will do in the future. It is very likely that they may not go the same path.

But "To take the side of God is to take a side against evil and corruption." means that I would have to join the Church, and go along with everything it imposes on me, even though I may not like it. If I disobey, I'll get excommunicated.

You trust someone who has proven himself to be trustworthy. Nobody is asking you to trust someone you don't know.

Well, there you go. Do not be surprised that I am cautious when it comes to Christianity.
Like it or not, many bad things are in one way or another connected to it. We have our lives here, and I think it would be a mistake to join the Church for the sake of wanting to follow Christ.

At least get to know Christ, that's all advice I can give you.

Yes, I have. Maybe not in the way you find optimal. But all I know is that I don't want to be like that. No.

“Obviously, I need character to figure out whom I can trust. Which method to trust. Which prayer to trust.
And by the time I get that much character to be able to make a sound decision of that kind, I also have enough character to realize that I alone am the one into whose hands I should put my life to. ”

You don't have to achieve character, you have to build it, just like you build trust. Nobody achieves trust, they exercise it, just like love - otherwise it's just a matter of time before it breaks.

I didn't say "achieve". I said "get that much character". A certain measure of it, a somewhat stable ground to stand on.

Pray with the heart of someone who can be trusted, and you will find that you already know that you can trust God.

Yes. It is just that this God doesn't have the characteristics Christianity demands me to see in him.

What about what I tell you? Do you think I'm trying to lead you into a trap or force my beliefs on you?

That would be hard to do over the net. I say that you are defending your position. And this is what I find admirable and inspiring: seeing someone stand their ground, with integrity. What it is about, doesn't really matter that much, as long as it doesn't inflict harm.

I'm really concerned that you know what Christ was all about, and that He wasn't a liar either.

For me to call someone a liar, I would have to know this person. I don't know Christ, so I don't call him a liar.
Give me some credit.

And what about your life. If that is the ultimate truth, why are you still expecting to lose it in the end?

Oh, the "use or lose" principle is even simpler than you think. It is its simplicity that makes it so demanding and influential. It does not say that I "expect to lose in the end", nothing like that.
It's simply about "carpe diem", only in a more precise form: I either *use* this hour to write as meaningul a post as I can, or I can dumbassedly watch TV and just switch channels and *lose* this hour.

Do you want your faith to remain irrational? What about spiritualizing it?

Hm? How?

I can appreciate your wish to keep everything nebulous and undefined, that's where they are at their most pure.

I must say that whether you appreciate my likes and takes or not, matters little to me, as we stand on completely different grounds -- and I don't know you personally.

But even music or poetry is an expression of that. When you appreciate music you are already rationalizing and codifying.

I don't think so. I am very superstitious (" ") about certain things. I just DO them, and don't think much about them.

You can't prevent meaning from emerging out of everything.

That I agree with. But that meaning can be wonderfully "nebulous and irrational" too.

“Huh, this is so idealistic!
Oh yes, this is why soooo many people exercise, keep their promises, have a healthy diet, ... because they rejoice in their sufferings, in order to get some character. Naw. ”
He was talking about conflict. If you think that leading a good life builds character, you are sadly mistaken.

I am sorry, my sarcasm obviously didn't come across as such. I meant: People want it easy, they make it easy, and then they end up being wosses.

But what if he [Andy in the Shawshank Redemption] was guilty - what is he actually deserved to serve a life sentence.

He was not guilty. It is said in the film that another man killed his wife and her lover. That completely changes the whole thing.

Should one hope to escape justice?

That was not the issue of Andy's story.

He explained why he felt guilty of "killing" his wife: He said he didn't love her enough -- he didn't show her how much he loved her, that he was a closed book, hard to get to. He considered that to be his crime.

Also, I think that someone who actually comitted a crime, a murder would not have the attitude and the hope Andy did. Red, his partner, was guilty of murder, and he served a just sentence, and he knew it. He was an honest man though in that he accepted his crime and his punishment and did not deny it (as seen in the last scene before the release comission). He did not hope to escape justice.

Actually, an interesting thing happend here some years back: A young man tried to commit suicide, but was by accident found soon enough for the doctors to save him. He then asked to be put to jail for the crime of attempted murder of 1st degree -- and this happened. I think he served some 6 years or so, according to the laws and the verdict ...

Hope in God is hope that justice will prevail, even if there is no evidence that it does.

Well, I don't think that much of that kind of justice, as irresponsible as this may seem to you.

 

[Jenyar]

I think that a part of our misunderstandings/miscommunications are due to this: You observe the most issues we discuss from a religious POV, while I am at the sociohistorical POV.

But religion is part of the sociohistorical context. Actually, the further you go back into history the more they become enmeshed. You can't take the religious experience of people who believed in God or gods out of what they did or thought without losing the greater part of the picture.

Yes, I know that. But I am thinking like this: And who gave you food? Who gave you shelter?

He ate and he drank and he slept in places. Someone had to build those houses, make that food. Jesus didn't do it.

That's what the difference is: once they embraced God, He was thrir food, He was their shelter. But normal life and normal needs didn't disappear. Public meals were the centre of social interaction. That's where you saw your friends and talk about life, the universe and everything. It's no coincidence that the gospel of John has a meal in almost every chapter - and with a spiritual meal superimposed on these as well.

You can eat and praise God at the same time. As long as you can act and think, you can serve God. It's not one or the other.

What I am trying to say that practising religion as a traveling disciple, one depended on other people. If everyone became a traveling disciple or a teacher, nobody would work on the fields. The economy would collapse.

Ah, now think about this one for a moment. If Rome was built and suported by slaves (see slavery in Rome), and the whole infrasturucture depended on slaves (slaves outnumbered Romans about 100 to 1), what would have happened if slavery was abolished?

Jesus didn't call the world to become his disciples - He called only twelve people. They established an infrastructure that would support a comunity of believers outside the Roman dictatorship. Who do you think supported the poor, or took care of widows or the elderly? The Red Cross? Certainly not the Romans. On the other hand...

Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.​

But apart from the work of the disciples and apostles, the rest of the church mostly did exactly what they they doing before they became Christians.

1 Cor. 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. ... 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.​

So do you see now that practicing religion was not so separate from being who you already were. Breaking away from your responsibilities was the last thing that was expected of you, on the contrary, you were expected to perform your duties with greater responsibility, being towards God - in a new and much more humane environment: the community of believers, and ultimately the kingdom of God.

I can imagine that. But how many people can someone visit in a few years?
Let's say he spoke to some 100 people all together in a day, on the average. That makes 3650 people in a year. In three years, that makes 10.950 people. Some of them died in the time of his preaching, some were too young to listen. That makes about 8.000 people or less. This is not very much.
The town I live in has 2.400 people, so I can imagine what 8.000 people is.
I just find it rather unrealistic that he influenced many many people really really deeply, that it is all.

But only 200 years later the whole Roman empire became "Christian". Besides, you're not taking into account the people who became Christians without having known Christ personally. Here's one example:

Acts 18 24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. [See also the next chapter]​

Chruches often formed with nothing but the bare minimum of details, and that's why the bulk of the NT consists of letters to churches. Whenever they had questions they sent a messenger to Paul or one of the apostles, and they sent a letter back. This epistle was then read aloud to all the churches in the region. If that didn't do the trick, the apostle would visit them personally to clear up issues and problems, and to equip the church leaders to handle these new issues.

Ah, I see, "naturally" is the problem. Then let me rephrase: "Christianity came as a logical/necessary consequence of social development." So the sociohistorical POV.
And it was out of the immediate needs, but not immediately. Things take time.

Most Jews still see no need for Christianity, and no Roman saw a need for it either. The real need was for God, and Christ came to satisfy that hunger. It definitely wasn't primarily a social (practical) need.

Aha, so here's the clash of our POV's. No wonder that we argue.
Of course you are right, and I agree, from your the internal religious POV.

But those of us who are not inside of your religion, and this includes all the forcefully converted pagans, simply cannot take or appreciate your POV.
What Jesus taught may be noble and everything, but when people got killed in the name of this same love -- do not be surprised if they had distrust into anything connected to Jesus.
When somebody burns down your house, you will not think "Oh, but inside, he may be a good man, in some way." You can forgive the one who harmed you, but you are not likely to accept his belief.
Maybe this is exactly what Jesus wanted -- I don't know.

No it wasn't. But that is exactly what happened when people started confusing the need Jesus came to satisfy with their sociohistorical needs (as you do). A sociohistorical need is one that satisfies power - the better person rules, the stronger god dominates, the greater truth prevails. But jesus overthrew that notion very early on: He said "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth". He said his kingdom is not of this world, or his disciples would have fought for him.

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.​

People who kill in the name of love lose not only their victory, but they might lose their part in God's kingdom. Jesus was defeated so that the defeated might have hope.

People distrust God because of the suffering in the world, and they distrust Christians for what Christians did in God's name. They think they are being perfectly reasonable, but they're not. Nobody rejects money because it is a motivation for crime; you don't reject help because help is needed.

As with most things in life, what is important is that you are able to distinguish use from abuse.

But I know that in everyday life, it is just next to impossible to take on the belief of the one who harmed you.

Unless you practice what they lack and forgive them. It's almost impossible to trust people again who hurt you once. In all probability they can't be trusted. But that's the worst reason for you to neglect your duty or to reject what they should have stood for.

In WW2, the Catholic church (and by "Church" I mean it in the sociohistorical way, the actual organisation here) sided with the Nazis and the Fascists, who attacked our country. The Church said that "the earthly ruler has to be accepted, for he is the ruler that God chose". The Church was the traitor. It sold our people in the name of God. It took the Church almost till the end of the war to realize that it was their own people who were killed by the Nazis and the Fascists, and that this wasn't good.
It does not surprise that people don't trust the Church. It is normal that you don't trust someone who betrayed you.

And yes, the Catholic church has put the whole teachings of Christ into a very bad light, to put it mildly. But to join Christ, also means to join this very corrupted earthly organisation that says that it is God's representative on earth.

Now listen to another perspective. When the Catholic church began prosecuting the French Huguenots (protestants), many of them fled to South Africa. These were my forefathers. And when the British colonized South Africa, they decalred war on these refugees and the Anglo-Boer wars broke out. My great-grandfather on my father's side was on of the Boer leaders. My great-grandfather on my mother's side fought for the English. My point is, I don't go hang myself, or hate the British, or hate Catholics. A part of my history is Catholic, a part of it is British. But the part I choose is the one that belongs to God - the one that turns out that both families were Christian, and that I was able to learn about God before I had the chance to form prejudices or grudges against people.

You just don't have to go through people to get to God, you only need to go through Christ. God will separate the right from the wrong when the time comes.

But "To take the side of God is to take a side against evil and corruption." means that I would have to join the Church, and go along with everything it imposes on me, even though I may not like it. If I disobey, I'll get excommunicated.

Disobey? A church cannot be your boss. A church is a community of people who believe in the same principles. People who are excommunicated are people who oppose those principles - but some churches abuse this power (and many people can't distinguish between their personal preferences and Biblical principles).

To put it this way, when you learn about my beliefs you are also learning about my church, but more importantly, you are learning about my God. Even though it's just through my eyes, you can see that I don't agree with those people who hurt you, and I assure you God doesn't either. But He doesn't want to lose you because of them, it's unnecessary. Unless you have already made up your mind about God, in which case you should stop blaming other people and take responsibility for your own decision.

Yes. It is just that this God doesn't have the characteristics Christianity demands me to see in him.

Let's forget about what you think "Christianity" demands you to see. You had a different experience of Christianity than I had, and they probably differ in many ways. But they professed to believe in my God, and therefore I'm perfectly able to see where they failed you. If I could repair the damage they did, I would in a moment. If I could prove my sincerity to you I would. But I can't even ask you to trust me, because of the hurt people have caused you. You should learn what God wants you to see in Him, and I'm pretty sure it isn't those people who hurt you, or the sociohistorical reasons why He stretched out his hand to you.

That would be hard to do over the net. I say that you are defending your position. And this is what I find admirable and inspiring: seeing someone stand their ground, with integrity. What it is about, doesn't really matter that much, as long as it doesn't inflict harm.

I wouldn't have had the confidence if it didn't matter. If you look at my posts you'll see I'm also not really defending as much as "clarifying". The abuse of Christianity is not worth defending, and God doensn't need defending. But since many people reject God based on prejudices or misunderstandings that can be cleared up, I make an effort to try.

He was not guilty. It is said in the film that another man killed his wife and her lover. That completely changes the whole thing.

The reason I said that was that we are all like Andy in a way. We're here on earth, facing abuse, injustice and suffering every day of our lives, with only death to look forward to. We were served this llife whether we "deserved" it or not. If we were part of this world - I mean, if we belonged here - then those things should not have upset us. It's only if we refuse to accept that we deserve the death penalty for just being here, that we can have reasonable hope and persevere to take hold of the life we expect to have. Otherwise earth is our prison, and we just have to fight the hatred of people with no hope of ever being justified against them.

If we really believe in justice, then we must be able to have hope it will be served. In the end Andy was like Job: he was certain of his innocense, and that justified his hope.