Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Dennis Says: "You In Your Small Corner...And I In Mine"







You In Your Small Corner...And I In Mine


Dennis Diehl - EzineArticles Expert AuthorI really enjoyed the responses to the Grain of Sand article.  It is not that we can all agree on the deep things of science, quantum physics and cosmology, but it  is that many with a COG background have grown up to know that these things are there to be studied , observed and understood even if it also ends up being opinion.  It is informed opinion!  Being informed about anything besides Bible reading is not one of the COGs greatest strong points. 

As a pastor, I cringed, even back when, to hear someone say, "Well Eve...."  or "Adam said...", along with most pronouncements  from "God" when it was really an author of Isaiah, Jeremiah or Ezekiel who "said."  Church of God pastors, much less laity, know virtually nothing outside of their very small world of "God said..."  If they do, they are terribly quiet about it.  They don't know about anything such as "action at a distance," parallel universes, string theory, Brane theory, the bi-cameral mind, or the information over the last 20 years about human origins that has demolished "A Whale of a Tale" or "A Theory for the Birds."    That modern birds are most likely the descendents of the dinosaur , feathers preceded flight for other reasons than flying or that modern whales have the remnants of pelvis and hind limbs eludes them.  All quite wonderful stuff actually.  It matters little if the universe is plasma based, full of dark matter that explains the push apart of space and time or holographic in nature.  It is that one knows the possibilities in an age where excellent knowledge, and I hesitate to say this....is increased!

I like the idea of parallel universes that other flat universes like our own may be just out of reach.  I like the idea that perhaps when they touch at times, they produce a new universe in the resulting explosion and big bang as we might say.  Can I prove it.  Hell no!  Physicists can't and I'm no physicist. 

But the possibility exists which is all that matters.  The math seems to work until it doesn't. 

The point is that the COGs have yet to put aside childish things which include everything from real human origins versus why the story of an Adam and Eve is told, to the false perspective that all the New Testament characters loved and all believed the same one thing.  They did not and if you now where to look, within the text of the NT is the sarcasm and face punches that each deliver to the other to send the message of "follow me, not him," much as we see today.  Truly nothing new under that sun.

I have learned that discussion with differing views is great, but arguing is fruitless.  Never in the history of this blog, and most others I expect , has just the right argument been offered for this or that view where others said, "you know...you are right."  Never happened far as I remember and never will.  Each wants their own view to  be the truth which is hangover from WCG days of wanting to know  "how did you come into the truth."  It would have been better asked, "how did you come into the present truth,"  but too late now. 

No one can be in their perspectives where they are not.  I can't be where some are because either I used to be there and moved on or never want to be there in the first place because it makes no sense to me.  Group think does not work in the pursuit of real truth and individuals, not organizations produce real truth, painfully and often after ridicule and scoffing have run their courses.  Being ahead of one's time never worked out well for the theologically or scientifically curious.  Hierarchy must demolish individuality quickly or it will cease to be organized.  Oh to have a church where what you study, believe or see for yourself is encouraged and not crushed.   The crush factor in the COGs is an art form by now.

Pot shots at others is a skill and need of the insecure.  Name calling or abusive challenges mean nothing in reality.  They speak little of the one who causes them and volumes about the one that inflicts them.  No one likes the feeling of being ill informed or outright wrong.  But as I have said in the past, I have never met anyone who belonged to the false church or believed the wrong things.  It is where one is when one is there. 

I think we hold our ground out of the utter insecurity of relinquishing it.  I had it all figured out and someone tells me I don't?  The way I see science matches how I see the Bible and you dare tell me they don't match and I am kidding myself?  You say I can't believe in both Adam and Eve and Genesis and science well done when I know I absolutely can?  How dare you tell me what I can't mix and match.

For example, I have never had a good answer from a fundamentalist as to why Jesus death was the most hideous and sacrificial of all deaths ever.  When one calmly looks at the story, it seems merely an weekend inconvenience for God the Father and Jesus.  God knew he would bring him back and Jesus seemed to know he would be coming back...in a mere three days and better than ever.  That is a far cry from the kind of death and sacrifice portrayed even in the Bible.  Every sacrifice in the OT stayed dead.  They didn't just seem to die.  They actually died and have not been seen or heard from since.  Jesus, if you read the news and history, did not die the most awful death "above all men."  General Crawford captured by the Wyandot's in Ohio trumps Jesus by a long shot.  A burning tire around your neck or being buried alive after digging your own grave in Nigeria or Somalia seems a bit more awful to me.  And I bet those men and women cried out to their God to be saved and heard nothing back.  No one to date has explained to me how Jesus death was the most amazing thing and that God "gave his only begotten son," and not add on , "for a mere three days getting him back better than ever."  Everyone I ever buried is still dead.  Shouldn't a real sacrifice stay dead to be a sacrifice? 

Part of the answer is that if the doctrine of Jesus kept Jesus dead, you have no way to make a religion out of that.  You would have no way to prove that dead was different from any other dead we all experience.  You must get a god resurrected and available if you are going to have a Church.  But in fact, it makes no sense to say that Jesus died the worst and most sacrificial of deaths.  He was gone three days and back better than ever.  Even as far as being crucified is concerned, he died in a mere six hours when that kind of death that tens of thousands experienced at the hands of Romans took days and only when your body fell off the cross and was eaten by dogs were you done with it.  Ministers are so used to exaggerating and emotionalizing Jesus death as presented contradictorily in scripture habitually.  They don't think it through.  Or maybe I'm nuts.  :)

At any rate, good on all you who have expanded your thinking to include science well done. Even if proven inadequate or wrong, real science has the habit of admitting or catching mistakes or wrong theories and moving on.  Religion thinks there are no mistakes or if they find one, kill the person who brought it to their attention and bury it in double talk.  (Read The Surprising God Log for excellent examples of this kind of doublespeak.  http://thesurprisinggodblog.gci.org/  )


The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
Richard Dawkins





82 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your new business card...
_____________________________
Dennis C. Diehl
"Killer of Scared Cows"
Meat Available Upon Request
_____________________________

I look forward to 'meet' more of your posts...
lol

what's with all this truth seeking anyway?
another seekeroftruth

Anonymous said...

Frankly there is no distinction between the evil athiest and the evil religionist. Both are self-righteous, intolerant, brutal as hitler and Pompey popes have proven.

Scientists have invented the most brutal instruments of death and the god boys have implemented them.

Scientists invent medicines that claim to treat illnesses but they have side affects as bad if not worse than the illness and the corporate monkeys make billions.

The fact is all humans, whether they believe in god or no have proven all to willing to do to others what they wouldn't want done to them, whether it be as simple as calling them names or as brutal as killing them because they are less evolved or because they don't confess christ.

All humans are evil and at the end of the day rot like the lowest bottom feeder rat or leech does so how we figure we are so smart when our smarts perish with us is pure vanity.

Anonymous said...

Your new business card...
____________________________
Dennis C. Diehl
"Killer of Sacred Cows"
Meat available upon request
____________________________

looking forward to 'meet' more of your posts...lol

what's with all this truth seeking anyway?

another seekeroftruth

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
Frankly there is no distinction between the evil athiest and the evil religionist. Both are self-righteous, intolerant, brutal as hitler and Pompey popes have proven.......etc....."

Wow...I bet you're a joy to be around. lol.


DennisCDiehl said...

"what's with all this truth seeking anyway?"

Good question! I'm a rather compulsive thinker and have been since I was kid. I was the kid that took the bus to the library on a Saturday and spent hours with my head crooked sideways reading book titles in the science and religion sections. Go figure.

Chit chat and "don't you know who I am" types have ALWAYS aroused my attention.

My bedroom bookshelf was full of Dinosaur books of the day and there weren't all that many at the time.

I am blessed with passive aggressive humor (is that a blessing?)and a common sense from my dad that didn't allow me to enforce some of WCG's more stupid majoring in the minors and thus no regrets on telling folk to do things that were either stupid or could be fatal.

I also am a bit underemployed and underachieved , a bit on the lonely side with only Chewie the Wookie Shih Tzu here with too much time to think over the past, present and future.

If I didn't think it over and find a placeor some meaning for this ridiculous WCG experience and write it off my chest until it poops out or I do, I'd be bored more than I am and maybe a bit looney...lol (Ok..more looney)

I would have made one hell of an enthusiastic paleontologist!
:)

DennisCDiehl said...

PS I have a split Theology/Science brain evidently. At my mom's funeral last week, I thought I could make it through until we go to "How Great Thou Art." Two phrases got me sobbing a bit at deep level as my sisters sang it loudly next to me and I not singing anything.

"When I in awesome wonder..consider all thy hands have made, I see the stars....."

and

"When Christ shall come, in shouts of adoration, what joy will be, I scarce can take it in..."

I wasn't emotional over mom's passing at 95. It was those two concepts that must be deeply rooted with no place to go and unresolved as if they ever could be it seems.

PPS My 97 year old dad was holding my hand at the time but my mom's sister, at 100 wasn't feeling well enough to come to the service. lol

DennisCDiehl said...

As long as I'm at it...

My question and comments about Jesus death and sacrifice is NOT meant or asked out of disrespect for anyone's view or the traditional view. The original question was wept out to me by a client whose only daughter had committed suicide and her pastor "comforted" her by telling her that "Well, God lost his only child too.."

Big mistake. She screamed back at him "No!!! Jesus and God knew it would only be three days dead and then come back better than ever. If I knew my daughter was coming back on Sunday, I'd be getting a party ready on Saturday. But she is DEAD!. Shouldn't a sacrifice stay dead? It was a mere weekend inconvenience...."

It's hard to argue with a mother whose daughter committed suicide being told that. The pastor apologized and I imagine he got to thinking as well

Anonymous said...

My Comment:
In reading the repeat question that Dennis has I recognize that he has absolutely no understanding of the real questions that religion tries to answer.
1. Just what is life? What is it that turns all of the elements involved in any type of life into something that has this thing we call life?
2. Just what is time? What is it that defines the movement defined as time? We define everything that has life as a movement? Is there anything that has always existed that has life, but is not affected by the movement of time?
I say there is. Why, because time demands movement. Everything that exists in the universe as we know has a beginning and an end, but it would not exist if there is nothing that exists that has life the is not affected by the movement of time to start the movement.
AB

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous said...
My Comment:
In reading the repeat question that Dennis has I recognize that he has absolutely no understanding of the real questions that religion tries to answer."

And you know this? Which question do I repeat and go ahead and answer it. Also, use your real name since I'm sure you'll want us all to know who really is explaining all this to me.

DennisCDiehl said...

I'm endeavoring to figure out what your point is with the rest of your comment on life, space and time. Prett heady stuff to jam into two short points.

DennisCDiehl said...

and.....this explains how I don't understand the real questions theology tries to answer??????? You got me on this one! lol

DennisCDiehl said...

If the question you refer to is "In what way was Jesus sacrifice a sacrifice?" then answer well...

1. In what way did God so love the world and "gave his only son." if he gets him back in 3 days as a co-God.?

2 Explain how Jesus was "marred above any man" as we read in Isaiah if Isaiah refers to Jesus, which I don't think it does. Millions have been much more marred than Jesus was and had much more horrible things done to them over a much longer time.

3. Why not staying dead is not a real sacrifice, as the OT "types" stayed dead, when coming back better than ever and very soon is .

4. Why if the story of Adam and Eve is mere mthology and sumerian rewrite in a Hebrew agenda, anyone since is under "Original Sin" as it never really happened and no Eve ever really "sinned."

just asking. Inquiring minds really want to know

Anonymous said...

Small minds reside in small corners.

Anonymous said...

No, more like damage goods reside in small corners.

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
No, more like damage goods reside in small corners.


Maybe so, it's just how it is. Feeling damaged or provoked to find out what it was one wasn't told or didn't know yet is no weakness. Failure is what pushes one to seek a better answer.

I don't feel damaged as much as provoked to not repeat the ignorance my non theological education at the hands of shallow Church of God provided. No shame in that.

DennisCDiehl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DennisCDiehl said...

DennisCDiehl said...
Does calling me "damaged" make you feel better? Does it make whatever conclusions you have come to in life more correct than mine? Is my mind "small" because" it's ok to me to let each be where they are in the process of living and learning?

You're a fool if making others feel damaged or small makes you undamaged and bigger.

Answer the questions oh wise one and include your real name and affiliation.

DennisCDiehl said...

If the last two comments are two different people then both of you answer the question I asked. If you both are one and the same, answer it. Anyone can label another

Anonymous said...

"Frankly there is no distinction between the evil athiest and the evil religionist. Both are self-righteous, intolerant, brutal as hitler and Pompey popes have proven."

And what makes you think Hitler was an atheist? Why are people who don't know much about Hitler constantly bashing Hitler? We've been told so many lies about Hitler anyone who thinks he knows about Hitler is deluded.

Wasn't it Eisenhower who intentionally starved 1.5 million German POWs to death? Perhaps he was the epitome of all evil, and not Hitler.

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest proofs we are under a totalitarian fake democracy are all the refutable lies told by the establishment (especially the news media) about out enemies. Like Saddam had WMD, Hitler started the war, and Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Ho ho ho. It never stops.

DennisCDiehl said...

Until you give an actual answer to my question and identify yourself as an act of commitment and courage, you are no different than a Dave Pack who must know by now I have challenged him to debate his views with me on theology. A coward who has nothing of substance to say or contribute

DennisCDiehl said...

If you wish to revel in a loooooong drawn out BS answer and long winded apologetic to a very short and direct question, try this for fun. If you don't end up getting partly through it and saying, "uh, sure, fine, whatever.." you're a better man than I am.

DennisCDiehl said...

If you would enjoy a very long winded apologetic and answer to a very straight foreward theological observation, enjoy this....

http://christianthinktank.com/2littlepain.html

Anonymous said...

Response to Dennis,
First let me say I was responding to the original posted material and not any of the comments you made before I posted my comment.
It is not possible to address all of the diverse ideas you and other people have regarding their little world, but the two factors I presented are important no matter what we believe.

There question what is man was an old WCG question, but the real question is what is life. Even ancient people understood the value of life and most of them recognized that life was in the blood whether it was an animal or a human being. You know all of this, but it seems to me that your use of the analogy of a carbon wetsuit indicated there was something inside that wetsuit that disintegrated when the wetsuit was destroyed or integrated back into other life forms throughout the universe. The question what is life must start with a life that has always existed whether it is seen or unseen. This fact is the origin of the belief in an eternal being that has always existed. If science can explain how something can come out of nothing I have not seen the evidence.

I agree that that many if not most religious people do not think rationally, but there are theologians that are capable of going through many of these things point by point with logic and reason that puts everything in perspective.
I will make other comments regarding some of the things you ask a little later.
I will give may name later but for now I am,
AB

DennisCDiehl said...

We can argue "what is life" and where did it come from until the cows come home . Science, not religion does a much better job at that.

As far as the Five Sensed Carbon Based Wet Suit, that is just an analogy or a way to express that consciousness seems to abide within and is not the same as just brain or even mind. As buddhism asks, "who is the me that notices the I." That's just philosophy and something we're not going to ever settle, especially here.

I was looking more for someone to answer just how is Jesus sacrifice such an amazing thing and in what way did God give his only begotten son that is so astoundingly different from what so many others have gone through.

Byker Bob said...

The nagging question just waiting to be asked is, "Would you like to replicate Jesus' trial, scourging, and crucifixion, experiencing it all in the first person, for yourself?" I'm Christian, and believe me, I certainly wouldn't want to! Looks like a pretty big, majorly painful event to me. Who amongst us would welcome an opportunity to give their testimony by being boiled to death in oil, or burned at stake, or stretched unnaturally on some medieval torture rack, as others were?

On another topic, great music is always moving, and praise music is no different. I'm often teary eyed when we sing "How Great Thou Art", or "Amazing Grace" in church, especially these days hearing the passion the band injects into their electric guitars, drums, and keyboards. But, then again, one Memorial Day weekend over ten years ago, while I was still a non-believer, I totally lost it (actually in the presence of my girlfriend at the time) when a public service spot showed the Viet Nam wall to the background music of "Amazing Grace." There were probably some of my friends' and classmates' names on that wall.

Lastly, the unity of thought we thought we experienced in WCG was always a myth. If you seriously got to know anyone beyond the group's cliches and platitudes, you realized that there was great diversity of thought. We were almost taught to speculate, and to invoke various conspiracy theories. But, we were kept in bounds by HWA's legendary temper, and the threat of being disfellowshipped if we expressed ourselves. There was no transformation of the heart there, it was all conformity to the legalism of the church by sheer fear and willpower. I think that's one of the factors which kept me from imagining that there could ever be any sort of real spiritual experience. Yet another trap, courtesy of Armstrongism, the "gift" that just keeps on giving things that no sane person would want.

BB

DennisCDiehl said...

Blogger Byker Bob said...
The nagging question just waiting to be asked is, "Would you like to replicate Jesus' trial, scourging, and crucifixion, experiencing it all in the first person, for yourself?"

Of course not, if it real history, anymore than I would wish to experience what Col Crawford experienced at the hands of the Wyandots or Spartacus at the hands of the Romans. However, this is not the point. The question is , "in what way was this the most amazing sacrifice and in way did God give his ony begotten son?" since Jesus is said to have come back quickly better than ever.

Anonymous said...

That's no the point BB. I'd not want to suffer Col Crawford's fate at the hands of the Wyandot. The question is however, in what way was Jesus death a real sacrifice and in what way did God "give" his only begotten son if he was dead a mere three days and came back better than ever unlike a real sacrifice. dd

Anonymous said...

Response #2 to Dennis,
Dennis said” “We can argue "what is life" and where did it come from until the cows come home . Science, not religion does a much better job at that.”

Here is where I disagree. Science can only look at what is, but if a logical beginning cannot be tied to what is; there is an unexplainable factor that prohibits any logical conclusion. We know that we are the product of human reproduction, but unless science is able to create life where life has never existed and explain just how it came into existence they offer nothing that we do not already know. The best minds can speculate, but they cannot define what is often referred to as spirit. I believe you have mentioned that you believe there is an intelligent something that exists and even scientist are looking for that something that will open the door to understanding life’s beginning.
My personal belief system includes the God that has been defined as spirit (without form) that has eternally existed and has all of the attributes defined in the Christian bible. Where I may differ from some who embrace the Christian faith, is translating this into words that form a mental image.

I’ll stop there, but will try to give my view on some of the other questions you ask a little bit at a time.
AB

Anonymous said...

My understanding of Jesus Christ is that he didn't deserve to die because he was sinless. It wasn't the torture or method of death that sanctified him but his perfect living by the law in letter and spirit.{I was taught the GTA version(The Real Jesus book by GTA)}
I don't believe God knew Jesus would succeed. God had to actually wait to see if Jesus would succeed. If he didn't God would not raise him from the dead. Thus an unworthy sacrifice.

another seekeroftruth

Anonymous said...

all the idea that Jesus was sinless or that God "knew" or didn't know something is just hearsay and speculation. I suppose that could be what was going on but is just another apologetic. Others would not agree that Jesus as "fully God and fully man" could ever fail. It's a can of worms at best. The Gospel accounts don't agree with even what happened much less why and Paul made all his views up based on OT scripture that he often misquoted and misapplied but that's a whole other story. As we know, Paul only knew the Cosmic, Hallucinatory and in his head and visions Jesus and not the real human as far as any evidence portrays. Paul gives a very Gnostic view of his Jesus..Peter,James and John gave Paul little credibility nor he them. dd

Anonymous said...

all the idea that Jesus was sinless or that God "knew" or didn't know something is just hearsay and speculation. I suppose that could be what was going on but is just another apologetic. Others would not agree that Jesus as "fully God and fully man" could ever fail. It's a can of worms at best. The Gospel accounts don't agree with even what happened much less why and Paul made all his views up based on OT scripture that he often misquoted and misapplied but that's a whole other story. As we know, Paul only knew the Cosmic, Hallucinatory and in his head and visions Jesus and not the real human as far as any evidence portrays. Paul gives a very Gnostic view of his Jesus..Peter,James and John gave Paul little credibility nor he them. dd

Anonymous said...

I'm not looking for proof. Just sharing that one idea from above.

Dennis said..."God knew he would bring him back and Jesus seemed to know he would be coming back...in a mere three days and better than ever."

I don't believe God knew Jesus would succeed. God had to actually wait to see if Jesus would succeed. If he didn't God would not raise him from the dead. Thus an unworthy sacrifice.

another seekeroftruth

Byker Bob said...

Anonymous 11:51, you are quite right in that there are any number of additional points which could be brought into discussion, and knowing our formidible cast of characters here, I am quite certain that they will be.

Hypothetically (supposing for the moment that this were open to question) the only thing which would really matter would be whether Father God considers Jesus' life, death, and resurrection to be adequate to accomplish the salvation of mankind, and the reconciliation of the creation to Himself. If what we call the Holy Bible is what its name implies, then God seems to indicate through those portrayed as working for Him, that Jesus' sacrifice was indeed totally sufficient to accomplish that. God's acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice becomes just as much a part of the miracle as any other facet of the process.



BB

Anonymous said...

I realize just quoting the texts is not a way to know what actually is what. I believe part of the problem is that just because in a dialogue in the Gospels Jesus is said to have said this, or elsewhere God is said to have said that proves nothing and never can. It is hearsay in our day and age and just a story and one four authors and an Apostle disagree about big time in the context of it all.

The issues are all connected I suppose and cobbling sayings and quotes that we have no real way of knowing were actually ever said much less what they originally were suppose to mean is futile

It seems like analyzing Hansel and Gretel to get at what was really going on in the minds of the author and characters, or perhaps Louis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland Characters and deep meaning of it all....endless

Questeruk said...

Surely the gigantic sacrifice of Jesus was His entire life as a human, and with it the potential for His eternal death? That when He died, He would stay dead, if He failed in His life as a human being.

This is the way I have always understood things, (which may or may not be the WCG belief). Jesus Christ was an eternal being. He became a human, and lived a perfect life. But He also had had the potential to fail, and to sin. Without this possibility there was no point in what He did, and no real sacrifice.

The Bible claims that He did not sin, and so, while His death was painful, there was at that point, the assurance that He would be resurrected in three days. He was resurrected because He had succeeded in His mission, but all His life the potential was there for Him to fail.

Up until the time of His death, it was not certain that He would succeed. He was risking a life that was already an eternal life, but was capable of being snuffed out if He failed.

Had He sinned, then not only would He have stayed dead, but all hope for humanity would also be gone, as no other human would be resurrected either. Hence He became the saviour of mankind.

That was, and is, my understanding on this matter.

Anonymous said...

Someone raised the point that Paul and the disciples misquote OT scripture, or even quote stuff that isn' there. Some, if not all of that, can be explained by the fact that they were quoting from the Septuagint, their Bible of that day. In other cases, there are quotations from ancient scrolls and manuscripts which have already passed into antiquity.

You need to restudy your jokes! Don't you remember the little old lady who said that if King James English was good enough for Jesus and the disciples, then it was good enough for her? These gentlemen quoted from the Septuagint, not from the KJV!

Anonymous said...

Jesus as an eternal being and god when he arrived is perhaps the sticking point. Again, that is the story and is frankly little different from that of Mithras and a whole cast of God-men popular during the day. Outside the Gospels there is debatably little public comment on any Jesus figure of the Gospels. It was Paul who first wrote of the Cosmic Christ and the Gospels followed decades later to bring this cosmic christ down to earth as a story which the four gospels could not agree on. The NT gives an erroneous impression in its order as to what was going on.

It is much easier to believe a human was a god when the story is so old than if someone today made the claim for sure, We'd not give that person a second look and recommend meds. I don't see where Gospel Jesus himself portrayed himself as God in the flesh. This seems to be a conclusion of five writers in the NT none of whom were eyewitnesses to anything that actually happened or didn't happen no matter what our Sunday School impressions are.

I understand the reasoning very well and am not being critical, it is just the more I hear it, the more I realize the whole big picture and all connected problems with text, books, writes, motives and background leave me blank on conclusions

Anonymous said...

PS Who actually wrote the NT and when, of course, is a huge topic itself. From my study, the gospel names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were later additions to anonymous early second century writing with any original words lost in the thousands of copies copied by copiers. dd

G.G. said...

Myths are not factually correct but are true.
“All religions are true but none are literal.”
“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”
― Joseph Campbell,

Questeruk said...

Anonymous March 12, 2013 at 2:46 PM said:-

“I don't see where Gospel Jesus himself portrayed himself as God in the flesh.”

Really??? I’ll just give one example:-

In John 8:56 Christ is quoted as saying “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”
John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Very clearly Christ was claiming to be the ‘I AM’ of the Old Testament.

And the Jews understood His meaning, which was why they immediately wanted to kill Him, for speaking what they considered blasphemy.

Questeruk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

responding to 2:51 PM

I believe we have the God given(or BigBang or Cycclical Comorphal Cosmological given) right to formulate and reformulate are beliefs
regardless of any given texts. Not really searching for PROOF per se just sharing ideas about Christ's worthy or unworthy sacrifice as to the blog post from dennis.

another seekeroftruth

Anonymous said...

...metaphors are like functions...
ABSOLUTE TRUTH we will never know

Anonymous said...

I know Quest...John is considered the most Gnostic of the four, it quotes long passages of Jesus saying much that no other gospel records or seems to know. Witness John 13-17. Who wrote all that down that night :) Besides John credits Jesus with a 3 year ministry but the others with only one. John has Jesus drive out the moneychangers at the beginning of his story while the others at the end which is more familiar to us. Who is right historicallY? Both can't be factual realities dd

Questeruk said...

“It is much easier to believe a human was a god when the story is so old than if someone today made the claim for sure, we'd not give that person a second look and recommend meds.”

True, but reading the gospel accounts, a lot of the ‘weirder’ stuff Christ said either lost him followers, or his closer disciples just sort of ignored it.

It was only after His resurrection that they finally start believing that actually this was the ‘real deal’.

Anonymous said...

"It was only after His resurrection that they finally start believing that actually this was the ‘real deal’"

Some might need more proof for this than 'hearsay'.

another seekeroftruth

Questeruk said...

It's not really 'hearsay' for the disciples, if they actually saw and talked to a resurrected Jesus.

Of course that only applies if you put any credence in the gospels. If you don't, then anything goes. Believe what you like to believe.

Anonymous said...

Unless there is more than just one AB who reappears here from time to time, AB alternatively calls himself Albert Boocher.

DennisCDiehl said...

I do like these sentiments and observations:

“All religions are true but none are literal.”

“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.”
― Joseph Campbell,


I better lay off for a time . Stood in my apt this am with some funky and niggly pains in the chest, arm and jaw which , having taught CPR leave me not stupid lol . Probably got myself a little anxious .

Thanks for all your comments. (See original Title of this posting) Back to our corners!

Anonymous said...

Hope you feel better and take care Dennis.

I hear what you're saying Questeruk. Freedom to believe what you like to believe is an attitude so often forgotten amongst religious folk. Yet it's obvious to me that if God exists, freedom is the most important thing to him. Maybe that could be summed up with the phrase, "Freedom is everything and Love is all the rest"

That's why 'this' story of the sacrifice of Christ fascinates me. Living forever?.....more time to be free?

another seekeroftruth

Anonymous said...

I started going to WCG as a young child, and even back then I wondered some things about Jesus that I still do not know the answer to. For one thing why did he have to die to save mankind? Why can't mankind just be saved? Why does someone (Jesus) have to be sacrificed? I know the answers that are given about a price having to be paid, and God not being able to abide sin etc.. but it still doesn't seem like an explanation. It is the equivalent of an eye for an eye. For instance if someone kills another human and is truly sorry and will not do it again, then what good would it do to go kill someone else in his family to even the score. It achieves nothing. Even if the murderer is not sorry it still achieves nothing to go kill his son or his mother. Perhaps we can achieve satisfaction by killing the murderer himself. Most of us aren't murderers though, perhaps in the right circumstances we might kill, but many of us would just crouch in a corner and wimper instead. So why would a sinless person have to be sacrificed for our sins, be they coveting my neighbors wife or stealing a candy in the store? I think with these questions I could not accept the Christian faith.

Head Usher said...

I agree, Anon, I don't think anyone has particularly good answers to these questions. One of the current COGers might get on here and explain that, well, the law of god demands blood/death as the payment for sin, and the law must be satisfied. But that just kicks the can down the road. Why did god formulate his law that way? Why couldn't it have been formulated differently? And why is the law okay with the innocent paying for the sins while the guilty goes free? That loophole seems ripe for exploitation and corruption, especially if the guilty is sacrificed against his will. And how come this law isn't formally set down anywhere in writing, complete with section and subsection. The bible says that the law says this and the law says that, but apart from the 10 commandments and a few other ordinances such as what to do if there's mold in your home, or if you have a dangerous animal, that law is kind of just to be inferred and guessed at. And what if all this stuff was just scrawled out under the influence of some ancient hallucinogens and/or mental illness? I am sure a similar percentage of the population in ancient times thought god was talking to them as experience such psychoses today.

Head Usher said...

"That loophole seems ripe for exploitation and corruption, especially if the guilty is sacrificed against his will."

Sorry, should read, "even if the INNOCENT is sacrificed against his will."

Anonymous said...

See what I mean? Supposedly intelligent people who do nothing but make personal comments and insults.

Unwilling to acknowledge the truth about human nature even though we see daily reminders.

With all the people suffering in this world because of evil doers you'd think the first thing we would do is at least admit that we humans have a problem; but instead we resort to denial and diversion.

As long as we are not affected personally we don't care. But the effects of human evil hit closer and closer to home with each passing day, as was demonstrated in Newtown.

Soon our denial will no longer be of any affect.

Anonymous said...

Eisenhower would not have even had to go to Europe if it weren't for hitler, and the German people wouldn't have suffered if they had rejected hitler in the first place.

They merely reaped the fruits of the seeds that they themselves sowed: they thought themselves greater than they actually are were humbled.

DennisCDiehl said...

I always wondered why , if there is a God that needs us to apologize or repent, we could not just come to the point where we said, "I was wrong, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, I love you." Cut out all the middle men and ground for debate and conflict and hear, "I forgive you."

I also wondered why "without the shedding of blood THERE IS NO forgiveness of sin." Why not? Why not just say I forgive you. More middlemen and room for great abuse in that blood thing

Anonymous said...

A thought for the day
Why do we need all of the rules and regulations to please a god we do not believe exists misses the whole point of religion. It would be nice if every person was perfect and had a sincere desire to create a perfect world where everyone was focused on what contributed to this perfection.
The questions that ask while god demands all of these things fail to recognize that it is not god that is making these demands, but those who continually demand that god fix all of the problems if he really exists. God allows us make the decisions regarding how we live and the problems we encounter are created by human beings not a god. Something to think about!
AB

Anonymous said...

Germans did not reap the seeds they sowed. Germany was destroyed by the Zionist-controlled Anglo-American empire because Hitler had the guts to get his country back from the Zionists who were subjugating it. The US Zionist zombies went to war for Zionism, just like they do today in the Middle East, fighting Muslims who hate Israel because they know Israel better than we do.

Hey, why are the 13 stars at the top of the Great Seal of the USA arranged in the shape of the star of David? I could cite countless indicators, admissions, and evidence for Zionist control of the USA, Churchill, UK, etc.


Anonymous said...

"I also wondered why 'without the shedding of blood THERE IS NO forgiveness of sin.' Why not?"

Because the wages of sin are death.

Well, I guess you could die of suffocation. But "I forgive you" doesn't kill anybody.

Anonymous said...

An equally good question is how come a god that is trying to make a paradise heaven place where everyone gets along so perfectly is so concerned with so many symbols, rituals, genuflecting and the like, which really tends to distract people away from fixing all of the problems that prevent us from getting along. In fact, by the looks of it, the whole point of religion seems to be to stir up intolerance, judgmentalism, and strife.

whatmeworry said...

I always wondered why , if there is a God that needs us to apologize or repent, we could not just come to the point where we said, "I was wrong, I'm sorry, Please forgive me, I love you." Cut out all the middle men and ground for debate and conflict and hear, "I forgive you."

Well, maybe God DOESN"T need us to apologize or repent. Since the Bible was written by men for men, maybe all the hoop de doo was started as a big chain letter, and down through the ages it was erased and modified by extortionists who wielded such stories to keep the crowds compliant and in fear. Isn't that what the New Covenant is all about? That you can't possibly "qualify" by doing acts and good deeds? That all God wants from us is to be better to mankind than we are to ourselves? All these guilt trips and rituals and holes in the road! Head trips and angst, one and all.

Anonymous said...

Athiest advocate eugenics, scientific experiments on living human beings, the inventing of innovative ways to kill, etc.,etc.,

But they must go to politicians for funding; so we have politicians, many of whom are god boys, and athiest who claim ape ancestry, skipping merrily along as they destroy the earth and its inhabitants.

They are like two wings of an evil bird,; they are like candle burning on two ends as they do everything in their power to make the earth like all of the other lifeless planets.

Head Usher said...

"Isn't that what the New Covenant is all about? That you can't possibly "qualify" by doing acts and good deeds? That all God wants from us is to be better to mankind than we are to ourselves? All these guilt trips and rituals and holes in the road! Head trips and angst, one and all."

IMHO, christianity has traditionally worked via the head trip of a huge carrot and a huge stick incentivizing an undefined duty. You better "x" in order to get the carrot and avoid the stick. The only problem is it's impossible to pin down exactly what the bible says god thinks "x" is. A serious, balls-to-the-wall attempt to pin down "x" is more likely to wind up destroying your faith than it is to yield a satisfactory answer for "x". The carrot is always tantalizingly out of reach, and the stick an ever-present threat.

There's so many things in the bible like Acts 2:38, that say things like, you must "repent." The convenient thing about statements like this is, how can anyone be sure if they've really "repented" or not? And repented of what exactly? Isn't every human being a black box full of an infinite number of unknown sins? Reliance on the undefinable is an amazing tool to keep believers going in circles, chasing after their spiritual tails.

Jews say there's 613 things you have to do, but create escape clauses for most of them. Catholicism says you can do whatever you want so long as you tell the priest about it afterward. Protestants say you just have to accept Jesus and then it will naturally follow that you'll be good (except that it doesn't) but it doesn't matter if you actually are good or not, except that somehow it still does. Armstrongism says you have to do everything the bible says and there are no escape clauses, and you have to accept Jesus and he'll do the heavy lifting (except he doesn't) but whatever you live in denial of, god can't hold it against you.

It's convenient that no one can be 100% sure this carrot and stick don't exist, so that keeps a lot of people bound, just in case.

Anonymous said...

Until you stop your incessant habit of debasing people by name you will have people posting anon.

Anonymous said...

If one is a killer of sacred cows and in the end he dies and rots, assuming something living buries him, is he any better than any other animal?

Athiest grunt and bark, just like the god boys, but when their belly is empty or their life is in peril, the philosophying ceases and the begging for someone to help begins.

Anonymous said...

When our bellies are full and we live safely, we begin to imagine ourselves as superior.

Once we begin to starve or our lives hang in the balance, we suddenly desire intervention from someone other than ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Usher said:

"... you must "repent."

That ranks right up there with, "you MUST relax!" The must kinda puts pressure on the relax!
lol

Anonymous said...

As I view the different ideas presented here I see ideas about the religion of bible that makes me wonder where they came from. To me the bible was put together to point out human problems and provide a solution that would give hope to those who are faced with the many challenges in the struggle for survival. It seems that somewhere along the way the messages that were meant encourage and give hope have been corrupted or ignored. Does anyone else here see this trend?

Byker Bob said...

The Bible is an awesome book, Anonymous 6:07, if one gives it a fair chance.

The problem many have is that in our past religious experience, elements of it were used to prop up a cruel, intrusive, and toxic authority structure. That threw the whole concept of a Bible way out of balance for many of us, so that even the more benign Christian groups, where there is genuine love and caring for members, took on a skewed appearance, and to some, became very similar to Armstrongism.

It's so very difficult, after spiritual rape, to get back "home" again, even to the point of recognizing the Bible as the positive influence that it has been for many over the past centuries. Motivation is key. A person actually has to want to look for positives. If one does, that's what one finds. If one wants to look for the negatives, then that's what ends up getting found.

I don't blame anyone here for how they feel. It's not their fault, it is the fault of false, and abusive teachers. I'm sure it often breaks God's heart.

BB

Anonymous said...

Bob what u say is correct but I don't just blame the lack of integrity of those ministers; those who believe today are part of the most literate peoples in history and should read and believe that which they can already under stand.

But instead, many have resorted to rejecting the bible outright simply because a few jackasses who claimed to rep resent God were actually just plain old fashioned con artists.

The true believer separates the two.

Anonymous said...

Head Usher said...
"The only problem is it's impossible to pin down exactly what the bible says god thinks "x" is. A serious, balls-to-the-wall attempt to pin down "x" is more likely to wind up destroying your faith than it is to yield a satisfactory answer for "x"."

Well said. It seems to almost always be the fundementalist or those that have the WHOLE truth and claim to speak for God that end up spreading the most evil in the world. I think the problem lies with the belief that you or any other human being can have or understand the WHOLE ABSOLUTE truth. As humans, we can only form more functional beliefs that may or may not take us to wherever we wanted to go. We CAN build and form more functional beliefs, whether it's another scientific step forward or a more peaceful and loving society. I love science but science will never have all the answers either. Athiests are just as bad as fundementalists too.
Check out:http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112481/darwinist-mob-goes-after-serious-philosopher#

another seekeroftruth

Anonymous said...

"A person actually has to want to look for positives. If one does, that's what one finds. If one wants to look for the negatives, then that's what ends up getting found."

And a person who looks for neither will find truth.


Paul Ray

Velvet said...

"Part of the answer is that if the doctrine of Jesus kept Jesus dead, you have no way to make a religion out of that."

I dunno, Dennis, the Evangelicals in the Church seem to make pretty good bank preaching a crucified/dead Jesus, as opposed to the living, resurrected Head of the Church we used to hear about.

For all their trinitarian idol-worship, Jesus is hardly ever mentioned anymore, and when He is, either the people around Him are more important, or the only thing they preach about is His death. Over and over and over and over again. ("You crucify Christ afresh," as Paul warned the early Church.)

Then again, I can see why the Evangelicals in the Church are afraid of the living, resurrected Saviour: They don't want to be accountable to Him for their apostasy and heresies, so it salves their pricking consciences to think of Him as dead.

Velvet said...

"And what makes you think Hitler was an atheist?"

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Also don't forget the salient point that Hitler had the full backing of the then-pope to carry out the Holocaust.

Velvet said...

"God had to actually wait to see if Jesus would succeed."

I refuse to read anything written by the devilspawn GTA but this is what I remember the Church teaching; this is also why Jesus was tempted in the desert, because He had to qualify to take the leadership of the earth away from Lucifer. ("The Kingdom of God is among you," meaning the ruler of that Kingdom was present, NOT how the professing Christians misinterpret that verse.)

Also, don't forget that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for the whole world, everyone who has ever lived or died, to receive a chance at salvation.

Again, the professing Christians limit His sacrifice,by saying only a few are saved in this life, and everyone else will burn in their hell. Which is the opposite of what the Church taught, that everyone will get a chance.

Velvet said...

"And the Jews understood His meaning, which was why they immediately wanted to kill Him, for speaking what they considered blasphemy."

Yep. The Evangelicals in the Church now teach that the Jews didn't know Jesus was the Messiah. They even say the disciples didn't know He was the Messiah! (When I pointed out that Peter said He was the Messiah point-blank, there was a lot of handwaving and mumbling, but I never did get a good answer to that particular heresy. Still, it serves their "orthodox" anti-Semitism...there is a Canadian minister in the Church who boldly preaches neo-Nazi "replacement theology" and even posts these sermons to the Internet!

Anonymous said...

A more well-rounded approach to Hitler's private religious views shows he believed in a Jesus, but was at the same time anti-Christian. He believed in a Jesus that served his own sociopathic needs and the purposes of the Nazi party. Like Napoleon, religion was something that was useful in helping him to win and control the people. However, many of the people with whom Hitler surrounded himself, especially Himmler were consumed with the occult and a neo-Teutonic pagan Ariosophy. I think more than anything else, Hitler was someone who liked ideas that he found useful, but this was not the same for him as believing in these ideas or investing in them.

Anonymous said...

Frankly I don't see how any atheist would be any more philosophical about the meaning of life than the apes he descended from.

Apes are concerned about their next meal, sleeping, sex and avoiding injury or death. Despite all that it dies and no one buries it.

Why we children of monkeys and apes ponder our origins is vanity because every day is just another step towards non existence.

Frankly the athiest is hopeless and destined to be maggot fodder.

Retired Prof said...

Nobody is destined to be maggot fodder unless their body lies out in the open where blowflies can get to it. More commonly, people are buried in moist soil, where they turn to compost slowly if embalmed, more rapidly if not. The cremated dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere, and much later their ashes go back to the soil. Mummies (frozen or dried) take longer, but on a geological time scale even they are soon gone.

One way or another we all rejoin the biosphere. It makes no difference whether we believe in a deity or not.

As for your statement "the athiest [sic] is hopeless," we should all avoid attributing psychological states to all-encompassing abstractions: "the atheist," "the housewife," "the criminal," "the golfer". . . . I know some atheists who get hopeless at times, but if they take the medication they have been prescribed for depression, their mood lifts.

Furthermore, all the atheists I know have hopes of some sort--not all the same. It's a safe bet none of them have the hopes theists have. The point is that you should not assume that people have no hope at all simply because their hopes are different from yours.

Anonymous said...

Paul Ray wrote...
""A person actually has to want to look for positives. If one does, that's what one finds. If one wants to look for the negatives, then that's what ends up getting found.""

"And a person who looks for neither will find truth."

More likely, that person is dead.

another seekeroftruth

Anonymous said...

"numbered as sand or the stars" It's called poetic license, the Bible invented it.

As for as the suffering of Christ: contrary to the popular 'twleve hours' belief, the Son of Man was tortured for 40 Hours by Temple police and the Roman army. Isaiah is making a reference to His physical APPEARANCE, that it was so disfigured, it was "beyond human likeness--"

They made minced lamb out of Him.