• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another sincere question for theists...

Atlas said:






Has anyone marketed JESUS wine? Perhaps science can help us turn water into wine and we can market it under the name of JESUS.

Isn't that how it works already.?. ( water and other ingredients is turned into wine )

Really, it just needs to be marketed as such..

There is nothing untrue about proclaiming:

" Miracle Wine " ( used to be water )

Slap a ' Jesus' label on it, and watch the money roll in..
 
Farmermike - Karen

Oh, showing up and proving he was god would be a good start. Since god is omni-, he could really tailor make any evidence required by anyone.

And then you would have no choice but to acknowledge/love him and that wouldn't count for beans.
Why? Does god proving he exists suddenly remove free will?

When you die and ascend to heaven to bask in the glory of god, do you lose your free will and become nothing more than an automaton?

My substandard appreciation of world religion however, would lead me to believe that they contain elements of the truth but nothing like the real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Buda.

By the way, there is no objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus. If you have or know of any I’m sure the Vatican and every other religious group would pay handsomely for it.

Ossai
 
Re: Re: Re: Karen

farmermike said:
Atlas, you should be a big fan of God's fierce and uncomprimising side. Because God is often sold as the Bid Daddy in the sky, does not change the often uncomfortable truths about his nature as presented by Him in the Bible.
Karen,

I commend you. It can't be easy returning the hard questions this group sends to you. You might very much like an excursion into comparative religion. I can recommend Buddhism from personal experience. I really thought the contrasts with Christianity were illuminating. It struck a chord in me that there was a people who never knew original sin and hence never had a need for a savior. It was really an expanding experience in a lot of ways and it left me with a deeper appreciation of the teachings of Jesus because I had been exposed to an alternative.

Even as a Christian I had little appreciation for the God of the old testament. I was always more interested in peace and light and interested in how to lead a good life than in having God smite my enemies or hearing how He has done others.

Jesus had some good things to say on the subject... at least the way my parish priest explained it. I think that was the best. Not reading the Bible and having a good guy explain how God loved me. And why I should be on His side. It made a lot of sense in grade school.

I drifted away and back. The thought of God in your life has some allure. Taking responsibility for my own thoughts does too and a battle raged. Learning something of Buddhism helped and then in college, I took a few philosophy courses and some theater classes and I had a real awakening.

I don't probably have to explain the philosophy reference but perhaps I should clarify what I mean by theater. I took mostly acting from the department, that is, no set design, lighting, or costume stuff - just acting. I was in several plays besides and I was amazed that actors can really feel real emotions if that is the style they adhere to. Some actors don't, they merely get their exterior to look like the interior is experiencing a feeling, but many actors search their experience and dredge up fear and love and anger and really feel them and their exterior accurately portrays the interior feeling.

But there was more. People like a good story. Even if they've seen it before. They will take part in a performance as an audience and hope to be moved by the experience. I remember a moment on stage when with a silent gesture I had the audience's total focus. I felt a rush, it's hard to explain. But I knew they felt it too.

Church services are to a large part theater. If you can get a preacher with a little fire and the ability to crack a tear at his own telling of the joyful and sorrowful mysteries of your faith, you can't not believe the guy. He can play you like a fiddle.

And that ain't all bad. It can be a little dangerous. You might be listening to Jim Jones. But you might be listening to someone who really makes you want to live well, love much, and help others.

There is nothing wrong there. It can be dishonest if you know you are deluding yourself. I don't think you know that. But I came to know it. There was nothing to that old testament god that had anything to teach along the lines of live well, love much, and help others. I kept to the new testament when I studied. That shrank down to the gospels and then I focused more on what the Holy Spirit was telling me. Skip the Bible. What do my experiences in the world and my meditations tell me is true.

That's a dangerous drift for someone like you. But everybody has their own way. I drifted out of Christianity for the last time taking with it a desire to continue to live right, to live well, to love well too.

That's what is important. It's not whether you get that from God or not. It's whether you live well or not. These IslamoFascist terrorists know God but it is that old testament god that isn't about love or living well. Our jails are full of Christians; embezzlers, wife beaters, you name it. All the religion and none of the wisdom.

If you find wisdom and love and joy and truth in Jesus, I'm all for you. There are cracks in that structure that you can explore if you are fearless. It's not for everybody. You've mentioned Pascal's wager and if you think that is well structured then you're doing the right thing.

Hang around these boards though and take part in some discussions where you're not on the defensive and you'll witness some great alternative thought that is very enriching stuff. Not an excess of it but it's here, it really is.

You should register yourself and untie Mike so he can play too. There is plenty of room.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

Atlas said:
You should register yourself and untie Mike so he can play too. There is plenty of room.

Did you ever think that maybe Mike is having more fun being tied up?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

pgwenthold said:
Did you ever think that maybe Mike is having more fun being tied up?
I've never been a farmer and I really don't know what goes on in all those little white houses so far away from the neighbors that they can't hear your screams.

Mike and Karen don't see perfectly eye to eye on this Christianity stuff. I'm just worried that Mike has been tied up for a Spanish Inquisition.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

Diogenes said:
Is that any better/worse than a French Inquisition? Danish?
MMMmmmm, Danish!

[/Homer Simpson]
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

pgwenthold said:
Did you ever think that maybe Mike is having more fun being tied up?
I'm being spiritually hog tied and waiting for the smoke to clear
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

farmermike said:
I'm being spiritually hog tied and waiting for the smoke to clear
MMMmmmm, smoked hog!

[/Homer Simpson]
 
Re: uniqueness of the Bible

farmermike said:
Like C.S. Lewis said, when he was an atheist he had to believe that the majority of humanity had always been dead wrong about what mattered to them most but upon becoming a Christian he was able to take a more liberal view.

Karen thanks for reminding me of this I had forgotton. Im not sure if liberal view is all. I know what I believed before God as well as what I believe now.

Atlas (and Karen)

I know your talking to Karen but dont forget that drama is only for the first time audience. The seasoned goers notice the details and deeper meanings. There are those who run off after the performance ends. But they miss the encore because there was more to see. (but they are in the cars taking off, rushing back to the ordinary)

The seasoned goers who stay continue to come back not only for the performance but the experience, growth and extraordinary. The first timers do not always catch the vision of what is there.

:)
 
Re: Re: uniqueness of the Bible

Kitty Chan said:
Atlas (and Karen)

I know your talking to Karen but dont forget that drama is only for the first time audience. The seasoned goers notice the details and deeper meanings. There are those who run off after the performance ends. But they miss the encore because there was more to see. (but they are in the cars taking off, rushing back to the ordinary)

The seasoned goers who stay continue to come back not only for the performance but the experience, growth and extraordinary. The first timers do not always catch the vision of what is there.
:)
Hi Kitty,

I agree with that. Where I am going with the whole idea though is an inquiry into the nature of the experience. While the theater and the church service can both have an intellectual component it is primarily a felt experience. Or rather the spiritual experience is a deeply felt experience.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the show is. If it's a good one it will elicit a glowing response in you it's audience. Once that happens you'll want to come back and see the show again whether it's Islam, Hinduism or Christianity. The dialog is the dogma.

What you are really after is the feeling. You've found a show that offers it. Now you have to pay the admission. You suspend your disbelief and listen to the pitch all in the hopes of regaining that hopeful, safe, loving closeness. All religions offer it. In that sense all religions are true. They elicit the magic feeling. The one you know is God in your heart. Later you find you've bought in hook, line and sinker and are defending a holy book that paints your own wonder loving feeling (God) as a megalomaniacal jealous monster, threatening your loved ones with torture forever.

The feeling is true. All cultures down through time know it. The books are not. They require you to give up a corner of your intellect to believe the lie and then ask for more. Don't even teach your children evolution. Some religions don't let you dance. Some you must cover yourselves head to toe.

The living God is the feeling inside you. Not the words from the book. Get that message straight or you struggle in the law, the talk, the rules, the inconsistencies and you miss the joy that can be yours. The books are fear based. In the end they are an evil Santa who has hijacked the Christmas story. To me, they are a dark filter that prevent you from gazing directly at the light.
 
Diogenes said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by farmermike
But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Missed this one.. Thanks jessica )


Farmermike,

What are you referring to as the ' First ' Bible ?

Don't know how that got attributed to me, was it Kitty?
 
clippity-clop

Diogenes said:
Ahhh. God so loved the world, that he decided to drown everyone and start all over again..


Why do people so easily accept the Idea that God had to have someone killed in order to redeem everyone else, when it would be a simple matter ( when you are God ) to just forgive everyone who repents? ( assuming repentence is necessary )

For God so hated sin and its sideffects, that he paid the cosmic penalty due us, (assuming the wages of sin really is death). As for the flood, I don't think from the account, that God took any pleasure in it and the very fact that it hasn't been edited out, speaks to me of the Bible's authenticity. I think the intervening years of human history have more than proved (and no doubt tried) his goodwill and boundless patience.
****************************
Was it Atlas who suggested I give Budhism a go because I would find nothing challenging or offensive to my self-determination in it? Something more along the lines of what I would come up with on my own?
***************************
Ah yes- the evidence, bearing in mind that histroy does not lend itself to the scientific method
O.K. ........Old Testament prophesies detailing some very specific attributes of the Messiah, which were born out hundreds of years later in the person of Jesus Christ
-historical references in the Bible re the larger ancient world, that originally were considered false but that archaeology has since affirmed
-Paul- a Jew of the Jews- perscecuted Christians but left his high position at great personal cost, after a life-altering encounter with God, to spread the gospel
-the disciples who feared for their lives in the wake of the crucificxion but later went to their deaths proclaiming the resurrection
-the enduring relevance and resonance of scripture, despite having been addressed to a particular time and place
-the unparalled force for good that Christianity has proven to be, down through the ages and which seems to go completely unnoticed around here. I've seen a lot about the abuses bandied about, but curiously nothing of its acheivements. Were not nearly all the early western instituions of higher learning courtesy of Christianity? Who was it who said, "I want to know the mind of God"; poor deluded victim of his times.
******************************************
And fianlly,as inspiring as church can be, it can also be a drudge when the focus slips from God to the guy in the seat beside you. I wouldn't worry about letting your gaurd down in the tide of emotion.
 
farmermike said:
For God so hated sin and its sideffects, that he paid the cosmic penalty due us, (assuming the wages of sin really is death). As for the flood, I don't think from the account, that God took any pleasure in it and the very fact that it hasn't been edited out, speaks to me of the Bible's authenticity. I think the intervening years of human history have more than proved (and no doubt tried) his goodwill and boundless patience.
****************************
Was it Atlas who suggested I give Budhism a go because I would find nothing challenging or offensive to my self-determination in it? Something more along the lines of what I would come up with on my own?
***************************
Ah yes- the evidence, bearing in mind that histroy does not lend itself to the scientific method
O.K. ........Old Testament prophesies detailing some very specific attributes of the Messiah, which were born out hundreds of years later in the person of Jesus Christ
-historical references in the Bible re the larger ancient world, that originally were considered false but that archaeology has since affirmed
-Paul- a Jew of the Jews- perscecuted Christians but left his high position at great personal cost, after a life-altering encounter with God, to spread the gospel
-the disciples who feared for their lives in the wake of the crucificxion but later went to their deaths proclaiming the resurrection
-the enduring relevance and resonance of scripture, despite having been addressed to a particular time and place
-the unparalled force for good that Christianity has proven to be, down through the ages and which seems to go completely unnoticed around here. I've seen a lot about the abuses bandied about, but curiously nothing of its acheivements. Were not nearly all the early western instituions of higher learning courtesy of Christianity? Who was it who said, "I want to know the mind of God"; poor deluded victim of his times.
******************************************
And fianlly,as inspiring as church can be, it can also be a drudge when the focus slips from God to the guy in the seat beside you. I wouldn't worry about letting your gaurd down in the tide of emotion.


I don't see why Jesus had to die for our sins to be forgiven. God could have done that in an infinite number of painless ways.

The Flood is irrelevent. It is not supported by the evidence and it is philosophically contradictory. If you'd like, I will elaborate on this topic.

History often lends itself well to the scientific method. Thomas Jefferson having children through his slaves for example.

The prophecies are circular. They predict events which are referenced later in the same book. This is not allowed. You can't predict something and then declare it fulfilled without outside sources. Also, you assume the Bible is infallible and not edited at a later date to make it seem more credible.

Christianity has been the source of alot of happiness and beautiful art. This does not improve its veracity.
 
swan song?

O.K.- When someone lands on this planet, claiming to be God and is sufficiently convincing to change the course of human history, I'm gonna give that a closer look and some creedence to match.
 
farmermike said:
... Was it Atlas who suggested I give Budhism a go because I would find nothing challenging or offensive to my self-determination in it? Something more along the lines of what I would come up with on my own? ...
Yes, Karen that was me who recommended Buddhism. Did I misinterpret this exchange you had with bluess?
bluess said:
Karen (or Mrs. Farmermike):

Thanks for your discourse.

My question - Have you explored the sacred texts of other religions?

If you have, what is about the Bible that so attracted you?

If not, do you think that such exploration could benefit your religious practice?
farmermike said:
No. What I tried to express at the outset was that I'm a pretty hands on kind of person and not naturally given to contemplating the mysteries of the universe. My substandard aprreciation of world religion however, would lead me to believe that they contain elements of the truth but nothing like the real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus Christ. Like C.S. Lewis said, when he was an atheist he had to believe that the majority of humanity had always been dead wrong about what mattered to them most but upon becoming a Christian he was able to take a more liberal view.
And yes, I do hope to become better versed in this area.
I thought you were saying, according to the last line in your post, that you'd like to be better versed in the ideas forming the basis of other religions.

It was in that spirit that I recommended Buddhism. Not "give it a go" in the sense of abandoning Christianity. (Although, in total, I do think it is a better spiritual philosophy than Christianity.) I just think that it illuminates the Christain faith in it's contrasts. It does not threaten Christian beliefs. I only recommended it because I thought you were saying you were open to understanding the fundamentals of other religions and for me, the only one with anything substantial to add is Buddhism. Islam adds nothing - same God. Hinduism adds nothing until you get past the many gods issue. It does have a lot to say about the spiritual experience though that you won't find easily in Christianity.

Again, I only made the recommendation because of your post to bluess where you seemed open to it.
 
farmermike said:
O.K.- When someone lands on this planet, claiming to be God and is sufficiently convincing to change the course of human history, I'm gonna give that a closer look and some creedence to match.

All the Popes

Julius Caesar

John Frum

The British Monarchs

Jesus

All of the Pharohs of Ancient Egypt

Chinese Rulers under than Mandate of Heaven

Wovoka of the Paiute Tribe

Charles Manson


This list could go on forever if I wanted to get really deep into research. Do you know what these people all have in common? They all changed people's lives and claimed either to be a god, taking direct orders from a god, or handpicked by the gods to rule mankind. Actually, John Frum is a little different but people THOUGHT he was magical. Basically the same.

Jesus only takes up one slot of many.
 
King Merv

I would have to look it up but I think the difference is Jesus said He was the only God.

Whereas the others heard from or were a god amoung many. Manson said he was Jesus come back didnt he? The popes are Gods reps on earth.

I could be wrong but its what I remember. :)
 
Kitty Chan said:
King Merv

I would have to look it up but I think the difference is Jesus said He was the only God.

Whereas the others heard from or were a god amoung many. Manson said he was Jesus come back didnt he? The popes are Gods reps on earth.

I could be wrong but its what I remember. :)

I don't see how this matters. Ok, Jesus said he was the only God. Good for him. Why is he right and the others wrong?

If I recall correctly, Mansons followers claimed he breathed life back into a dead bird. Pretty good resume for the second coming of God if you ask me.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I don't see how this matters. Ok, Jesus said he was the only God. Good for him. Why is he right and the others wrong?

If I recall correctly, Mansons followers claimed he breathed life back into a dead bird. Pretty good resume for the second coming of God if you ask me.

the original statement was:

Originally posted by farmermike
O.K.- When someone lands on this planet, claiming to be God and is sufficiently convincing to change the course of human history, I'm gonna give that a closer look and some creedence to match.

You suggested the list that fit that statement

I gave a observation of the list that still only Jesus said He was God the others did not. Nothing to do with whos right or wrong just who claimed what.

And Im curious how could you say that breathing life into a dead bird is a good resume for a second coming?

I would compare the healings of Jesus and say He wins on that comparison.

But the problem with the statement of being a good resume for a second coming is that is breathing life into a dead bird has nothing to do with the second coming.
:)
 

Back
Top Bottom