Abra wrote:


I have known many people who lay claim to some form or another of personal spirituallity but, as you have indicated, there is no fanatacism, no complex creeds or sets of rules and most of them tend to crowd together at the far right side of that insidious political scale. They are very nature oriented and partial to maintaining balances in all things.

Also, I just had to tell you that there is a 13 year old who goes to my school and (when he can't sleep) he is working on Einsteins theory of relativity because he thinks it needs to be developed further. He may have a research grant come fall, they are working on it for him - imagine that - a 13 year old completing his doctoral thesis in something like astrophysics.

Your post about Inflationary theory make me thing about that. In fact I think I'll post the article about him in science and philosophy - do be sure to go there and read it - the two of you may have a wide age differential but you may have more than one thing in common.

I'll post it now.

MsHarmony's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

She believes in a religion that basically has as one of its core principles that refusal to believe in the God is basically the same thing as rejecting the God.

That's a tough problem, for someone who wants to believe in Christianity. It truly is.

The religion itself certainly seems to be implying that there is "no excuse" for nothing believing in this God. I believe Paul actually wrote a verse that makes that specific claim in the book of Romans.

Actually that's a feeble verse anyway, but still, these kinds of things are indeed within these texts.

Even Jesus teaches that only "Good Trees can bear Good Fruit", and if you aren't willing to believe in this "God" you can hardly be considered to be a "Good Tree", etc.

The Old Testament also contains a verse somewhere that says that "No good can come from a non-believer".

These kinds of claims are unfortunately all through this doctrine.

So the people who want to believe in these doctrines are truly stuck between having to simultaneously support these doctrines, whilst simultaneously not wanting to truly support them in their heart.

It's a tough religion to support, IMHO.

I mean without actually supporting extremism. Because the doctrine itself contains extremists view in many places.

This is why it's virtually impossible to support it verbatim.

The only answer I know is to recognize that the religion cannot be true verbatim.

But once that's been accepted then "all hell breaks loose" as they say.

The next thing you know people are renouncing the entire Old Testament as nothing more than fables, and claiming that Jesus is was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

Sound familiar?

That's precisely the path I took and it works for me.

Owl check it out.

I dont feel stripped or criticized at all, in fact, I wasnt really directing that observation AT you , just making a generalization about generalizations in response to your observation


Im not sure WHAT the root of my beliefs has to do with what I mentioned though,, as all people have some ROOT to their beliefs and many of them manage to ALSO have self accountability


I was comparing how I feel when the assumption that I have no self accountability is made merely because I am christian

and how others might feel when an assumption is made that they are not 'good' or 'right' if they dont have a certain belief system

respect appreciated, but I truly believe that humans will interpret the book in many different ways,,based upon their experiences in life

I have faith in the books historical relevance concerning cultures and customs of biblical times, but I dont believe that all cultures and customs (by nature of being in the book) were directly ORDERS from God although they were definitely inspired of God to be written about for the messages and morals they might teach to others. Some is written about direct orders for specific situations given to specific people and some are more generalized instructions for living life in general. Its not a two dimensional book, philisophically speaking and I dont think all christians believe it is. Inspired of God is not the same as ORDERED by God, although there are indeed commandments and instructions which DID come from God included in the books.

I dont really have a problem supporting the religion when I understand it to be complex and varied in its methods of relaying the message.That may put me in the middle though, between those who feel it has to all be a VERBATIM instructional from God and those who feel that if its not ALL Verbatim , none of it is relevant.

Yep I know what its like to be in the middle. I know some Christians who believe that the Bible is either completely true or a big giant lie. I have found spiritual truths in the Bible as well as many many other books. Even books that later were said to be plagiarized. It doesn't matter. If you get something from it that enlightens you, take that and don't worry about the rest or about anyone else stomping all over your sources.

good advice, I will take it,,

The question then becomes: "What exactly was the message?"

Moreover, was the "message" necessarily conveyed only to the Hebrews?

This are the questions that I have answered for myself. And I answer them in a way that many "Christians" do not like. Because, let's face it MsHarmony, a LOT of "Christians" (including many organized Churches and clergy), hold out the notion that Jesus is the "only begotten son" of the God of the Old Testament, and that basically, not only is the Bible the only "inspired word of God", but the words and teachings attributed to Jesus are "The Only Way". In fact, not just the words and teachings, but they even hold out that it's extremely important to actually acknowledge and basically worship Jesus as "the only begotten son of God".

I have no problem accepting that *some* of things that found their way into the biblical cannon are indeed inspired by "The Holy Spirit" if you wish to call it that.

However, I believe just as easily that many spiritual writings throughout all cultures of humanity where indeed inspired by "The Holy Spirit".

"The Holy Spirit" simply being another name for "God Consciousness"

So having accepted this, I accept that many spiritual writers have been divinely inspired to write things. Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Jesus, and even modern people who are alive today.

Notice that Jesus is just another name on the list. He hold no special place over any of the others.

Christians can often get pretty irate at anyone who suggests such a thing. And that's really sad.

That's what causes all the friction between "Christians" and everyone else. The fact that the Christians get all bent out of shape if Jesus is placed on a pedestal and worshiped as the "only begotten son of God", who they claim died to "pay" for our sins.

That's a scenario that I'm never going to accept. And many non-Christians aren't about to accept it either. It's truly an outrageously disgusting concept for many people, including myself.

So the bottom line is that to ask these people to accept this picture is the very same thing as asking them to accept that "God" is outrageously disgusting.

It's never going to fly.

And then to accuse these very same people of "rejecting God" because they refuse to believe that "God" is disgusting, is just injury on top of insult.

There is no justification for this picture, IMHO.

Every time someone tries to justify this picture then need to reduce "God" to being utterly inept and helpless, like comparing him to a solider who goes to war and gives his life for his country or whatever. Humans do that sort of thing because they truly have no choice. Either die in war, or sit by and do nothing and let the enemy just take over your land and either kill you anyway or make you their slave.

Humans are desperate when they give their lives to save others.

A God that would need to pull such a theatrical stunt just to convey a "message" to his creation would indeed be grossly inept and outrageously unwise, IMHO.

That kind of thing is just totally uncalled for. Especially if we're going to hold out the notion that "With God all things are possible". Because then there is no excuse for such a lame and ignorant approach to communication.

It's just totally unacceptable from my perspective.

Therefore, there must be something wrong with those stories. They are either totally made up fiction like Jeanniebean suggests, or they were sparked by a real event that was grossly misunderstood, as I suggest.

But there's no way that those stories can be the willful knowing planned behavior of an all-wise God.

That's how strongly I feel about that.

~~~~~~~

I got somewhat side-tracked there in my own ramble, a point I really wanted to make is the following:

If Christians can so easily believe that God could inspire the Hebrews to write things down, then why is it so hard for them to believe that God could inspired anyone else?

What's wrong with believing that God inspired Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and so many others, far too many to mention?

I have extreme difficulties with a God that supposedly creates an entire planet filled with people and then focuses solely on the Hebrews. The Hebrews were so great. In fact, they were actually quite crude and ignorant based on their very stories.

The whole idea that the Hebrews would have been "God's chosen people" doesn't wash with me, I can assure you of that.

I personally think the Indians from India would have been a better choice.

from Phillipians

2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;




,,so I do believe all knees shall bow at the one exalted above all others, namely Jesus


BUT

I am far from irate with those who do not agree,

the truth will be the truth regardless of what anyone 'believed' to be true,, so this doesnt really concern me

I feel jesus is the anointed one and will be at Gods right hand when we face our judgment, I feel he will be there regardless of what those there with him 'believed' in thier mortal life.

I dont believe exalting him was the main message although I do think its as helpful as having a car to travel interstate,, his message was not personally about HIMSELF so much as how we are to treat ourself and others and how we are to worship God so I doubt his judgment will be based squarely or solely on whether he was 'exalted' in someones life,,,,

I realize that this may sound potentially offensive, but it's my sincere thoughts when I read the scriptures you've posted above especially the following line:

2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

The whole idea in this religion is to ultimately have your ego preserved by God, and ultimately "exalted" by God. Perhaps not to the degree that the authors of the Bible exalt Jesus, but certainly to some degree. In fact, even Jesus is quoted has having spoken of those who will be the "least" in the kingdom of heaven.

So the whole idea of a heaven that is hierarchical based "classes" of egos that are either well-exalted or not so well exalted has actually been established in these scriptures.

All these scriptures ultimately do is attempt to preserve the "ego" by glorifying it in an afterlife, if you're simply willing to ignore the "ego" in this life.

To me, that's the most oxymoronic philosophy ever created by mankind. They place extreme importance on the "ego" in the afterlife, yet claim that the only way you can have your "ego" (your sense of individuality) exalted in the afterlife is to refuse to acknowledge it in this life.

The whole religion is nothing more than a carrot on a stick for the ego.

Do as we say in this life, and you'll get your egotistical reward in the next life!

The Eastern mystics do away with that whole concept. Instead they recognize that there is no such thing as an "ego", in this life, nor in any other life.

They don't appeal to your ego. On the contrary they do everything in their power to get you to stop thinking in terms of ego at all. They show how it's just an illusion that has no basis outside of your very own vantage point.

The only way that egos could be preserved in a spiritual world is if we are indeed separate entities from "god".

Look at what you've just stated above, even you have Jesus being a separate ego standing at the "right hand of god" and being exalted by God as a totally separate egotistical (individual) being in his own right.

You even need to preserve the "ego" of Jesus to be eternally separate and distinct from the "ego" of God.

(i.e. if you have a problem with the word "ego", just replace it with the word "individuality" like so:

You even need to preserve the "individuality" of Jesus to be eternally separate and distinct from the "individuality" of God.

All Christianity does is preserve "egos" for eternity. And have them either "exalted" or "disgraced" by some head honcho "ego" called "God".

Where the term "ego" simply means "An individual totally separate sentient entity".

We must forever be totally separate "egos" from God, including Jesus. And God's "ego" can never be trumped and must always be "exalted" above all other egos.

In fact, as the story goes, a "fallen angel" name Lucifer, or "Satan", committed the greatest "sin" of all by refusing to forever be an ego that is less "exalted" than the ego called "God".

This religion is the extreme opposite of Eastern Mysticism.

Eastern Mysticism recognizes that the "ego" (i.e. the sense of individuality is transient and just illusion), whereas Christianity is a religion that preserves the "ego" for all of eternity.

They demand that God is the "ultimate ego" that must never be trumped by an other ego ever. And that all other "egos" (individual beings) must forever remain separate from this main "God ego".

Truly, that's the difference between these two views of spirituality.

One recognizes the illusion of the ego and tries to get people to see that illusion for what it is.

The other view clings to the illusion of the ego to the point where they can't ever imagine losing their ego, thus they have devised a religion to preserve their egos for all of eternity. And that very ideal requires that they create a supreme ego that must trump all other egos in importance, authority, and exaltation (i.e. God) with a capital "G" to exalt its ego.

And if a person refuses to exalt this supreme ego, then they are seen to be the same as Lucifer or Satan, refusing to accept that they will forever be a 'lesser' ego than "God".

That's the bottom line for this religion.

But it's certainly NOT what the people are thinking who do not buy into this religion.

WE all have different perceptions

I dont equate EGO into this at all, in fact, its more about the balance of EFFORT and SACRIFICE and RESPONSIBILITY and STATUS


the idea that we are all equal is correct in the sense of our human value, but not true in the sense of our EFFORTS, SACRIFICES, RESPONSIBILITIES and STATUS

like in the military, where a Captain is given more responsibility(and privilege to match) and is therefore EXALTED in his status compared to those he is responsible FOR

like in a family, where the Parents are given more responsibility(and privilege to match) and are therefore EXALTED in their status compared to those they are responsible FOR

like in a classroom, where the TEACHER is given more responsibility (and privilege to match) and is therefore EXALTED in her status compared to those she is responsible FOR


my role as a parent does not have much at all to do with my EGO, yet in balance with the higher RESPONSIBILITY and SACRIFICE required of me, I do expect a higher STATUS in my home for which I am responsible for the well being of the other persons and things within it,,,


it makes just as little sense , to me , for parents to be EQUAL to their children

as it seems to make to you for God to be 'greater' than his children

Yes, we do have different perceptions entirely.

In ever situation you've describe there is indeed an element of "individuality". In fact, every instance you've given is an aspect of a "social" environment.

That kind of "individuality" is as "real" as physical reality. In that sense "egos" are indeed "real" in a physical sense. But since the entire physical world is recognize to be illusion by the mystic, anything that is physical is also an illusion (i.e. individuality)



You keep talking about RESPONSIBILITY, and SACRIFICE, but you fail to realize that you are the one who CREATES all of that.

If you have children to be RESPONSIBLE for, it's only because you have CHOSEN to CREATE them.

Should you be RESPONSIBLE for what you CHOOSE to CREATE?

I would certainly hope so.



Equal in what way?

Equal in "authority"?

What is "authority" other that EXPECTATIONS?

Of course, a parent should be "responsible" for helping their child learn, and in that sense the Parent must take the LEAD to TEACH the child properly.

But does "authority" truly need to even be part of that equation?

I think not, at least not for very long. Obviously the parent is going to need to exercise "intervention" when the child is to young to know better. If your baby is crawling toward a cliff, you're going to run over and grab the child and stop it from what it is about to do (i.e. fall off a cliff).

However, if you need to continue to use "authority" to keep the child from falling off cliffs forever, there's there's something drastically wrong with your mentoring style or the Child's ability to learn and grow.

At some point the child will need to be able to become a sovereign thinking individual in its own right.

At some point the child needs to be able to understand that jumping off a cliff is not a good idea, NOT simply because it would be a violation of your "authority" if it did so, but because it fully understands the consequences of jumping off a cliff.

If you take "Authority" to be the primary attribute of being a parent, then I would personally say that you have it all wrong.

The primary attribute of a good parent should be "Mentoring Skills" not mere "Authority".

To focus on "authority" as being the primary concept is a wrong mentality to begin with, IMHO.

You don't "teach" via authority, you teach via intelligence.

If you need to rely on authority then you're a horrible teachers/parent, IMHO.

So yes, we see things from entirely different perspectives.

I see no reason to reduce a supposed "God" to the mentality of so many humans. It's no wonder our children aren't learning very good morals. Parents don't know how to teach morals. All they know how to do is be "authoritarians". That's not "teaching", that's just using brute force as an excuse for a lack of true mentoring skills, IMHO.

I see authority as a status earned through responsibility

thats just how i see it,, if I am RESPONSIBLE for a person or a thing, I have AUTHORITY over it

I think human mentality is all we have to rely on for now, as even those who dont believe do so because of values that they think makes sense based upon their HUMAN existence, ,,,and HUMAN value systems..

There are two different ways to look at "Authority".

You can view it as a position that you are very fortunate to have. And thus USE your "authority" wisely.

Or you can view is as something that other people must "recognize" that you have. In other words, you can revert to an idea like, "You must do as I say because I have authority over you!"

In other words, you can abuse your position of authority by simply demanding that other people respect your authority for no good reason other than the mere fact that you just happen to be in a position of "authority".

That kind of mentality right there is fruitless.

Hitler was most certainly in a position of "authority". If he had any children he would have had the authority of being a parent. As a leader of a government he most certainly had governmental and political authority.

Should you just "blindly" do as Hitler says simply because he is in a position of "authority"?

I would certainly hope not.

You have every right to "question" anyone's position of "authority", and you even have the right to suggest that they are grossly abusing their position of "authority" (as you would probably suggest in the case of someone like Hitler).

Authority held out as mere "authority" alone is an empty concept that holds no intrinsic value of it's own.

~~~~~~

However, if you happen to find yourself in a position of "authority" over other people, you can indeed use that situation to the best advantage for everyone involved. And the best way to do that is not to rely solely on your "authority" but instead to use the resources available to your because of your authority to best "mentor" the ones you are interesting in teaching, leading, or helping to grow.

But if you just sit back and rely on your authority alone as your main source of power, they have have totally wasted your very position of authority, IMHO.

You gave some examples of positions of authority. Let's look at them in more detail.


He may not be "exalted" at all. He may simply be "obeyed" because the people who are under him know that if they refuse to obey him they will indeed face major trouble and problems. So they obey him mostly out of FEAR of what will happen to them if they refuse to obey him.

At least that would certainly be true, in boot camp with new soldiers under him.

It is certainly possible that soldiers can grow to RESPECT him for other reasons. But I doubt that they would automatically respect him just because he's in authority.



I doubt very much that they are "exalted" for those reasons. They are probably "exalted" because their children have come to love them, and their parents have also show love to their children.

In fact, children who have had horrible abusing parents have probably never exalted them even though those parents were indeed in a position of "authority". They clearly abused their position of "authority".

No one exalts "authority" just because it's "authority".



Again how well a TEACHER is exalted does not depend on their position of authority, but rather on their ability to properly mentor and help students do understand things well.

In fact, I'm sure there are many examples of teachers that students do not like at all. Why? Probably because those particular teachers are indeed trying to get by on pure authority with little or no true understanding of how to properly teach, mentor, or inspire students.

I don't believe that anyone exalts authority for authority's sake.

If a person who is in a position of authority is exalted it's probably because they are using their authority WISELY.

by my beliefs,,,

the lists of what may or may not happen and how authority may or may not occur are endless,,,but this was my main point


that jesus earned his authority by being first and by taking RESPONSIBILITY for our sins


by my beliefs, and is therefore not about ego or classism, but EARNED respect based upon a HEIGHTENED responsibility

According to the New Testament Jesus didn't "earn" any such thing.

Read the scriptures:

They go through a very lengthy arguments trying to argue that Joseph was direct descendant of King David, and thus Jesus inherits by "birthright" that he is the "King of the Jews" (even though Joesph wasn't even his father)

They also have Jesus being the "Only begotten Son" of God, not because he had "Earned" this position, but rather because God magically impregnated Mary with his only begotten son.

Jesus doesn't "earn" anything. It's all supposedly bestowed onto him magically from the "Heavenly Father".

In fact, it makes absolutely no sense to speak of Jesus as having "faith". Because if Jesus had to have "faith" that could only mean that Jesus himself was a clueless mortal who was merely "guessing" just like anyone else.

But how could Jesus speak with "authority" if he was only guessing?

Either Jesus KNEW that he was God incarnated, or he didn't. And if he didn't KNOW it, then everything he was claiming to KNOW about the heavenly father could only have been a GUESS.

That's a major problem in itself.

Jesus could not have both: KNOWN he was God, and NOT KNOWN that he was God simultaneously. He either KNEW the mind of God, or he didn't. There can be no middle of the road.

Moreover, you have Jesus "Standing at the Right Hand of God" at some judgment day. But that's a polytheistic vision of Jesus. Not unlike the idea that Apollo was the Son of Zeus.

Either Jesus was God incarnate, or he wasn't.

Look at what they say in the scriptures.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The word was God, and the word was made flesh in Jesus. Therefore these scriptures are claiming that Jesus was indeed God made flesh.

Why would "God" need to "earn" any authority? His authority is innate in the mere fact that he is the creator of all things.

The only way that Jesus could have "earned" anything, is if he wasn't "God" to begin with.

But that blows this story clean out of the water.

That only blows your story out of the water...


It's time to stop believing the "lie" and read the Bible for yourself...

Where do you think I got the information I just posted?

I couldn't care less what so-called "Christians" think they believe.

My only interest is in addressing what the stories actually claim.

I even posted actual scripture to show directly what issues I speak to.

It's the authors of the Bible who try to claim that Jesus was the "only begotten Son of God" born of a miraculous virgin birth.

It's the authors of the Bible who have Jesus saying "I and the father are one".

It's the authors of the Bible who have Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM"

It's the authors of the Bible who claim that God is "The Word" and that Jesus was "The Word made flesh".

Look it up yourself. It's all in there.

Read the Bible for yourself.

I already have.

just seems like we are arguing semantics here abra, for me creating was how he EARNED his authority, with responsibility comes the authority and also should come the status and respect

it makes sense to me, not because I am better or smarter or better, but just because it does

lol, I said better twice, been watching too much Harrys Law,,lol