Friend or God convert me

Great Debates
61

So much to respond to!

Lib, Poly, et al: I’ve tried to understand the John 3:16 quote in Xian terms. The basic problem here a difference of opinion on humanity’s fundamental nature. You all see it as sinful and needing to be saved, hence the sacrificial nature of Jesus’s life and resurrection.

I disgree that humanity is inherently sinful. Oh, we’re stupid, ignorant and often down right obnoxious, but inherently evil? No.

Evil does exist and people do evil acts, but is it inherent in our nature? Again, no.

Therefore, no need to be saved. Oh, certainly we need to be educated and informed, which I see as Jesus’s major contribution to the world. His message of loving one’s neighbor as one loves yourself is wonderful and elegant in its simplicity. I also believe in taking responsibility for my actions. Finally, there’s respect, I respect other people. Until they demostrate otherwise, I believe that every person has consciously decided to follow the spiritual path they’re on. It’s their decision and I need to respect that decision.

So, if I agree with Jesus so much, why ain’t I a Xian? Several reasons.

First, disagreement with the idea of the inherently sinful nature of humanity.

Second, monotheism. The J/C god ain’t the only god on the block. I have personal proof of it. I can’t explain it or demostrate it, it was a personal revelation. Sorta the same way when you found Jesus’s love, can you explain/demonstrate that objectively to another person?

Third, the homosexual thing. While I’ve made my peace with the J/C god and we’ve parted ways peacefully, his followers are a different story entirely. Just about every Xian Church demands I change a fundamental part of my personality just to be considered “moral.”

There’s more, but I think I’ve explained enough.

Sqrl: Thanks for the welcome. Hugs back atcha!

62

[… wincing …]

I appreciate your gracious conciliatory intent, but rest assured that I do not see things quite the way you’ve put it.

63

::sigh:: “… the kingdom of God is among you” is the original translation.

(Just following the resident gnostic around, keeping him out of trouble.)

64

Sqrl, I take your point. If pressed, any Christian is going to say that this is God’s world, and therefore what is in it is “good” (unless corrupted by human or devil, on some understandings), there is a really strong tendency to be anti-existential (using Matt’s short form definition of what I gather is a very deep philosophy I’ve never understood clearly) and reserve “this is really where good things happen” for the afterlife. I don’t. But as Gaudere keeps pointing out, I’m not your typical Christian.

Freyr, two points that ought to be made relative to your post. Not so much to refute as to clarify and expand.

In the original, Jewish-Christian understanding, what Jesus did was to bring a new and closer relationship between man and God. This still applies. But, at least originally, Jews didn’t see sin in criminal-law terms, but rather as man falling short of a mark God had set, which leads to a sports metaphor where Jesus becomes coach and personal trainer. I don’t expect that Gaudere is going to hell or that she is suffering overly from the absence of God in her life, but I think she’s missing out on things that His known presence would add to her enjoyment of this life. Same, other things being equal, for Sqrl or you. I downplay the whole sin issue as much as possible; it’s an issue that seems to drive people away from Christianity. “Hey, join my church and you can have a whole new guilt trip!” :frowning:

The other thing is that a substantial minority of Christians are gay-affirming. Not every Episcopal church or United Church of Christ congregation will welcome you with open arms, but most will – and not condemn your sex life. Unitarian-Universalist (UU) churches are not strictly Christian, but many UU members are, and their churches are heavily gay. Many individual Protestant churches are gay-affirming, and so advertise in alternative newspapers. And, of course, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC) is predominantly gay-oriented.

When I took communion two weeks ago, I was given the cup by one member of a Lesbian marriage, the wedding for which was held in our church the year before we moved here. And my wife belongs to a lay order which has several gay officers (an absolutely wonderful and deeply spiritual gay man from CT who recently died was the Minister Provincial (=President) for several years). Many of us Christians have the same opinion of Fred Phelps and his ilk that you presumably do.

65

Ah, JM, I had started to write a post applying Jesus’ words about his omnipresence from the gnostic Gospel of Thomas “…turn the stone, and there am I” to you – but anybody not familiar with the text might think I was flaming you! :slight_smile:

66

I am not gnostic. I know nothing, at least nothing of any importance. Least of all do I know what the original translation was, since it might have been first translated by some nomadic desert dweller, for all I know. Or for all you know either.

But the original text is given by Strongs as [932 2316 2076 1787 5216]. [1787] is entos. Its sole other use is in Matthew 23:26 — “[You] blind Pharisee! First, cleanse what is within the cup…” Do you think that ought to have been translated as “cleanse what is among the cup…”?

67

Surely.

This God seems to have a hard time making converts in my opinion. But were there a god, this one makes then most sense.

What exactly do you mean by this? Creation is under control of the devil. God can try to save people, but if he cannot they are plunged into hell upon death. I guess that is control in some strange manner. There is no guarantee that the Devil won’t ultimately win, mind you – not sure the soul of the individual, but over all of mankind forever. And since you are either with God or against him, how do you think he will treat those who side with the devil in this battle?

So is not killing, not stealing, not taking oaths, not hating, not lusting. What is your point. Oh. I know. What you are trying to say is that it is actually an ideal we should ignore.

Who cares? You mean that by the gift of hearing and keeping the well taught teachings of Jesus those romans were saved? Or that one who knows what sin is should not continue sinning such that grace may abound all the more? All you are attempting to do is increase my agony!

Don’t you know that, even if every Bible burst in to flames this very minute the holy spirit would live on?

I don’t even know who those people are.

Well that is true. But I know I’m not reaching. And yet I am still sickened by the hypocrites. They claim not to love their possessions or be greedy but they refuse to keep Christ’s teachings. What in the heck is wrong with them? What a horribly fallen world this is.

You say I don’t need to be moral – that Jesus did not teach what is written in the Bible, so I should dance, yes? Well, I don’t dance. The ones who equate Jesus’s teachings to poison kool-aid tell me keeping them is impossible, so I should mourn. Well, I don’t do that either. I just wish I could understand what is wrong with people.

68

In some languages, that is how they describe the position of contents in relation to a cup I suppose. :shrug:

NASB, NIV, and RSV all say “the kingdom… is among you”, and that most lines up with every other time in Luke and elsewhere Jesus mentions the kingdom of God (51 times in the gospels).

69

Hey Joel? Why are you going out of your way to insult people?

70

The Ryan said:

Sorry! I thought “or” was a typo.

As for your question … no, because God never converts someone who isn’t asking to be converted.

71

So why do his followers try?

72

Oddly enuf, Libertarian & I have sorta of the same answer- I would say as long as you have faith (in a life & good affirming religion) then you do not need to be “converted”. My branch of the Church says that your faith and your good works will likely get you to your heaven.

EB: those who try to “convert” are wrong. Those who try to show an alternative are doing right.

As for the OT G-d, and “love”: yes “Y” did a lot of smiting and stuff. One reason for that was because he was the G-d of only one people, and wanted no others. Other peoples and their gods would have happily wiped out His “tribe”, so He had to be “defensive”. “Y” was a G-d of “Law” more than love, altho he did love his people. JC, on the other hand, is a messenger of love and tolerance- for everyone. Paul thought the tolerance thing was going TOO far, and began more “thou shalt nots”.

Now, Sqrl, I will point out that the Mystic Celtic Christian Church may well fill your faith needs better than pure “paganism”. They beleive in “magic”, and practice Tolerance. Other gods, including the Celtic gods, are accepted. In fact, at least one Celtic Goddess, Bridget, is a celtic saint. But, that is only a possible option- if you are REALLY happy where you are, stay there.

73

Daniel, I know about them but I can’t follow any teachings that Paul had a say in writing because he IMO and most other Gay people who know is one of the main causes of homophobia today. As I said earlier, if I were to ever change my faith (which I would say would be impossible) then I would be a Quaker. At least with the more liberal bunch of Quaker’s I know that I won’t be actively discriminated against and that my deepheld personal beliefs won’t be subject to constant attack to conform to the status quo. I would much rather have a personal experience among my gods than be one of the sheep following the shepherd being told what to believe.

Polycarp, “…, Jews didn’t see sin in criminal-law terms, but rather as man falling short of a mark God had set…”

That is how I always viewed sin but from every Christian church that I have ever attended it was always more that sin is to be punished. The Baptist school that I was forced to go to in Japan was the worst about this. (I didn’t go by choice exactly but it was the only school that I was able to go to in the area where they spoke English primarily.) My aunt who is now dead and a die hard Episcopalian was equally judgemental and closeminded about it. I suppose it is a sign of a small mind when one sees the world in absolutes of black and white even if in practice one doesn’t follow this principle. I know not all Christians are absolutists in that fashion but enough of them are and are vehemently so that it really ruins the loving persona that is portrayed by Christians out on the conversion hunt. You gave Fred Phelps as an example earlier of someone that most mainstream Christians wouldn’t follow because in my opinion he is a total moral absolutist and actively encourages hate among his congregation as both a position to expand his congregation and obtain free advertising for it as he almost always makes some type of news when his people show up to scream at the “Fags” who will “burn in Hell” and be “poxed” just like “insert name of current individual who has been murdered in an anti gay frenzy.” I have seen them many times and every time I find that just their presence demeans the religion as a whole.

I know not all the churches out there are that way and not every gay man feels the same way I do. I know several other gay men personally who have been driven from their various churches as homosexuality became an issue. Some of them fell out of those teachings (I was never one of them as I was always a practicing heathen thanks to my mother and friends from early on) but was given the chance to follow them if I ever saw fit. My friends who were driven away were almost all for the issue of their homosexuality. Of the ones who still have Christian faith only a few actually attend a church of some kind and even those churches are carefully selected for their pro-gay stance.

We have seen all forms of people come onto the boards here and overall I wouldn’t say they would be an accurate portrayal of Christianity at large. It would be nice to think that the majority of the Christians out there were actually loving, caring, and nonjudgemental but countless personal experiences have proven otherwise. I know not all Christians are the right wing zealots whom I have given examples. But, as I said before, the ones that are really make the religion as a whole that much more unappealing for someone that has views that the their interpretation of the tenants are inimical and amoral thus should actively be attacked and discriminated against. Since the dogma of the religion is morally and logically ambiguous because the complete opposite interpretations can be deduced from identical passages then in my opinion the religion as a whole is illogical and morally loopy. :slight_smile:

HUGS!
Sqrl

74

Don’t be too hard on poor old Paul, Sqrl. In his view, homosexual desire was a punishment given by God for man’s sinful nature (cf. Romans 1:25ff). According to him, it was something from which you were cleansed by the new life in God’s grace mediated by Christ’s redeeming death. (Does this sound Snarkish to you?) There is plenty of evidence indicating that he was a closet case self-condemned by the Jewish Law who grasped at the whole grace idea as a way out of his own self-debasement.

It’s the self-righteous types who are convinced they know the Way of Righteousness (for everybody else; rarely if ever do they look at their own sins) who use Paul’s work to judge gays. I don’t find him condemning gay people; for him they were sinners, like everybody else, able to find a new life in Christ’s grace. His only negatives on gays other than the Romans passage are in shopping lists of people who need to repent. He was not being a J. Edgar Hoover.

Paul was homophobic, to be sure. But it was an internalized homophobia, and he deserves the same compassion you’d give anybody working through coming out. He was not the Fred Phelps of his day, but more the John Henry Paulk.

Nah. Lessee, what’s the polite way to say, “you’re full of BS”? Oh, yeah…“It would seem you are in error, my friend.”

The basic doctrine is quite simple: one God, creator of everything that is. Uniquely knowable through the person of one Jesus of Nazareth, who lived something of an exemplary life and about whose death some strange stories are told. The guy taught love, compassion, and non-judgmental attitudes. And told us to go do likewise.

Needless to say, with human propensity for taking heaven and installing a toxic waste dump, we’ve dressed it up with all kinds of moral strictures, careful definitions of who is “saved” and how they got that way, a Platonic metaphysic that any eight-year-old can see the contradictions in, with savings clauses to weasel one’s way around the contradictions, and a bunch of other trappings. Then set it up as, what’s the phrase, Lib.? – “a way for religion politicians to exert power.”

But the basic message is pretty clear. Love. Don’t judge. Do good when possible. Feel good about yourself; you’re a child of the Most High. I’d add in, “love the world He gave you; He’s on record as calling it all good.” But that’s not in the basic message.

Now, granted, this is not the way FriendofGod or some of your relatives might have put it. But they’re working from the trappings. What’s the rule of research: “If it all possible, go to the original source.”? I did. And He loves me. And we love you – even if you do tell bedroom stories to gross people out from time to time! :smiley:

Hugs right back atcha!
Poly

75

Uh, no. Existentialism is the belief that life has only the meaning which we give it.
-Ben

76

You forget Poly, that I agree with you and the doctrinization that you mention. I just don’t feel that is an adequate religion for me as its dogma is too binding. The basics of the religion are the same as mine, ie find love and spread love where you can. (That is a gross oversimplification.) You keep saying to go back to the source and make it more basic. That is exactly what paganism did for me. It presented a morally unambiguous way to correspond with a higher power with proof of its existence everywhere. I don’t have to even fight with dogmatic problems because there is really no dogma to follow.

Somewhere on the first page you said that my faith wasn’t wrong and I appreciated that you said it was just incomplete. It seems that in your last set of statements that the completeness of your religion is wrong so you have to simplify it. I see a major problem with this as you tried to tell me my faith was incomplete at first and then when I mention problems that arise by having a “complete” faith you back away and say that you need to simplify it. Could you explain the discrepancy.

HUGS!
Sqrl

PS. That wasn’t supposed to sound snotty. It just came off that way in writing. I am genuinely curious.

77

Wow, you do have a way of asking tough questions! Whaddaya say we round up Satan and Phil, go over to Lynchburg, and beard Falwell in his den? :slight_smile:

To answer you, I’m gonna have to bring in Upanishadi Hinduism (to the extent I understand it – not very well) and invent a “dogmatic paganism” that you, Matt, and the others would recoil from. But allow me a bit of systematics for the sake of argument, and also that I am not in any way trying to insult or belittle your faith if any wording I should happen to use might seem to do so. 'Kay?

The faiths descended from Abraham (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and a few oddballs) are united in an insistence on one single God, creator of and “above” the world. He is in His Creation, He works through it, but Chaim, Zeeshan, FoG and I would all recall at any equating of Him with it. “He’s all that, and more…”

Now, any Hindu worth his salt is quite capable of accepting the seemingly-contrary-to-logic assertion that the multifold deities of his faith are, at rock bottom, one, the Brahman whose work the Atman is. And that Siva and the rest are manifestations of that one bottom-line god. Further, any of these deities can take on human form and live as a man; Vishnu made a career out of it, with something like 16 avatars to his credit.

The Greek scholars who converted to Christianity, however, did not have the benefit of the Upanishads and the scholarly treatises on Hindu metaphysics, and would have had a problem shifting their paradigms to comprehend it in any case – they had a big problem just dealing with the idea that “change” can be real!

So they constructed an elaborate metaphysic involving a single ousia with triple hypostases for God, and a split personality for Jesus, in order to fit the simple idea that “God manifested Himself in an unique way in the person of Jesus” into their systems. And any dogmatic theology restates, in one way or another, this intricate foofaraw to “explain” how this worked. (Anecdote: I once had occasion to counsel a quite intelligent woman who had no problem with one God, God shows himself through Jesus, Holy Spirit is God working in us, all one God, but was terrified that she was “not saved” because she could not grasp, much less accept, the dogma of the Trinity. Such are the webs we weave ourselves! :()

Now, if I understand animistic paganism accurately, and of course I am not schooled in it, there is a spark of the divine in everything (Christianity has no problem with this) and thus it is worthy of worship (red flag! Only God is worthy of worship! Yeah, but they’re not worshipping the tree, they’re worshipping God as revealed in the tree…). Analogously to Hinduism, these various “pieces of godhood” are mystically one, brought together in a god and goddess viewed as fructifying aspects of a single spirit found throughout Creation. And hey, I have no problem with this: “This is my Father’s world” to quote the old hymn. And if Christianity has historically been very patriarchal and given no credence to the feminine aspect in the divine, it has at least given lip service to the idea that God is neither male nor female. In a patriarchal society, He chose the image of loving Father and a male avatar – but He is by no means restricted here. And of course in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, “Spirit” is feminine, and a statement of the order of “She comes into our hearts to lead us to Christ” would have been quite proper to our buddy St. Paul the Closeted.

So I see my belief structure as “complete,” without the Greek bookkeeping categories – though I quickly add that I am certain I have much to learn yet! And I see yours as “incomplete” because, though you have encountered the divine through His works, you do not (according to my interpretation) know Him in a loving interpersonal relationship through the living Jesus Christ, who is today as surely (IMHO) a living human being capable of interpersonal human relationships as are you and I. And that those who would invest Him with their smallmindedness have turned you off to His love is to my mind a great sin.

I believe in the Trinity – I love and trust one God who is, on my understanding, revealing Himself in three distinct persons (as well as through his world). I do not have any intellectual or emotional investment in the Dogma of the Trinity, if you can see the distinction.

And I am certain that much of what I have said here is inaccurate, because I have not walked in the garden of your mind, and have no way to know what it is you truly know, and feel, and love as regards your faith. But I have done the best I can to compare and contrast what I understand of yours with what I myself believe, and welcome the opportunity for correction and further dialogue on this.

78

Is SqrlCub going to heaven?

My belief is that everyone who honestly tries to find God will find their “reward,” if you will (everyone’s concept of this is different).

Some Christians feel this way. Ithink that Judaism is like this as well for the most part.

What says the other religions and the convictions of individual Dopers who, while sharing a name of their faith, practice it as disparately as Polycarp, Trisk, Zion and FriendofGod?

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, one week, 21 hours, 28 minutes and 49 seconds.
5195 cigarettes not smoked, saving $649.47.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 4 days, 55 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]

79

Then you will be glad to know that in most of the Celtic churches Paul is looked upon as simply one of the Church fathers, his letters are there for mainly historical reading. We do not follow the Pauline “thou shalt nots”. We have no problem with gays. Gays can be “married” in several of the more liberal branches.

80

I originally said:

evilbeth responded:

God’s followers don’t try to convert people, at least I don’t. We can’t even if we tried! God does the actual converting. What I and so many believers do is try to be sure everyone has a fair shot of hearing the gospel proclaimed. In other words, to make sure that people know that there is something to ask about!