Why Not...

Streen wrote:

Yeshua said that if i found out the truth that it would set me free , and it did , but when i shared that bliss with other christians they started making it more difficult for me and started with all these does and donts so i gave up on being a christian and became me again.

You shouldn't judge Christianity by the people who supposedly follow it. "Christian" just means "Christ-like". If those people don't understand that there is nothing you have to do, then they don't understand Christ.

It's a religion based on fear.

If that's what you think, then your understanding of the Word is poor (or at least, someone lied to you). Christianity is based in Love. I could get into great detail, but I think that would be more of a personal discussion. PM me if you wish.

He created us "broken" and commands us to fix ourselves or else face eternal damnation.

Not true. We were made perfect, with free will, which includes the decision not to follow him. He did not make this world (or us) screwed up the way we are. WE did that. We are not set out to "fix" ourselves, but only to trust in Christ that he is the only one that can.

Like i said i am set free

to me it seems obvious that the bible is not literally true - like, duh

i mean there are historically accurate pieces in it, sure

it is in part a historical document, but there was never a ship that really did hold two of every single animal on earth, thats just silly

there may have been some ship somewhere near some place that was underwater, and there might even have been some animals on it i dont know, but it wasnt the literal origin of the rainbow and all the rest with lions and tigers and bears

to my way of thinking, the components of religious belief which are TRUE are the parts which result in personal and collective transformation - the CHANGE is real, the psychological growth into a more balanced and perceptive human being is real

but the various literary devices which are used to direct this process are almost superfluous; theyre tools rather than facts; ideas that channel perspective and perception so that the human BEING can mature

not historical FACTS in the same way as which of the founding fathers were present at the drafting of the Constitution
(many of them were DEISTS btw - the misconception that christian people created america to be a wholly christian nation is false. there were christians who assumed such but there were quite a few others who did not want america to be in any way religiously biased: look up founding "fathers deist" and "jefferson bible" to start)

when people confuse this, they change something that is powerful and -- well, "divine", into something dogmatic and tyrannical: from hallowed to hollow

next, it seems obvious to me that if god created me, and he knew everything in the world, and also everything about me, and he loved me, then he would know that im not able to believe what christians seem to believe, and that would be cool

he would actually say "you did great son, im proud of you" without me ever having to accept some rumor about some guy who could raise the dead, and died, and is still alive, but gone

watching us, but not here with us

well he is here but he isnt here; hes here with us but he isnt like, RIGHT HERE

see what i mean?

if i give a kid a box of crayons, i dont expect him to paint the sistine chapel; i expect him to come up with some awkward $h!x that MAYBE looks good under a magnet on the refrigerator, and i will be proud of him that he did it

i dont expect him to come up with a something that is way beyond the tools that i gave to him

when i read the bible, jesus said that his followers are supposed to be performing miracles the way that he did

no one is

people pretend to
and people point to things that are "miraculous" and say "thats jesus" or "thats god" but it seems to me that those sorts of things happen equally to all people of all faiths, and so either christians are wrong about these miracles being from god, or at least wrong about what god is and how god works

jesus also told his disciples that his return would happen in their life times - which it obviously didnt

its been 2000 years, and every minute of that time there have been untold multitudes expecting the sky to part and a trumpet to sound ANY MINUTE

for 2000 years!

there's also the fact that so many of the people in the church are just plain wrong about so much, generally speaking

and so many of them are so incredibly judgemental, and opinionated, and downright hostile, that i cant help but to think "whatever theyre doing, it isnt good, and i dont want it screwing me up the way its screwing them up"

and then theres this http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/june/creflo-dollars-board-apologizes-for-plane-fundraising-video.html

thats one in an endless line of confidence artists scamming the shirts off of gullible audiences all over the world, and i cant help but think "if you people knew what the heck you were doing, you would have this shot in check by now"

but we're still arguing about dinosaur bones and bathrooms and its fine if you cant keep up, go at whatever pace you need to, but let go of the idea that you have any business telling anyone else they're going the wrong way

Christianity is not based on fear of god, but on fear of death. The whole purpose of heaven is so that there is something after, for those too scared to transcend and become as one with the Force.

I felt the presence of the divine and it scared me.

It wasn't until later that I discovered the divine can be found everywhere.

I didn't go back for political reasons.

I won't go back now because I am a Jedi of this Temple and that is all the label I need right now as far as religion is concerned.

Streen wrote:

He created us "broken" and commands us to fix ourselves or else face eternal damnation.

Not true. We were made perfect, with free will, which includes the decision not to follow him. He did not make this world (or us) screwed up the way we are. WE did that. We are not set out to "fix" ourselves, but only to trust in Christ that he is the only one that can.

Though we "messed up" in the beginning, for an eternal divine being to cast out his "perfect" creation from some awesome garden, and as an omniscient being, he knew it would happen and could have precluded it from the get-go. So, he did create us flawed, or broken, or ill (whichever you choose) and, in order to rejoin him, we have to make ourselves better. A piece of fruit? Really? Why did he make it to begin with? Maybe god was the one who tempted us to eat of the forbidden tree.

Like most creation myths, there are many things wrong with it and doesn't explain the world very well anymore.

One can try to explain "God's" will all they want, or call "him" out, but divinity by definition is beyond our ability to understand so when you do, remember you can not possible be right about it.

I for one have no interest in partaking in arguments that can't be fathomed adequately, let alone won. If I am going to shake my fist at anyone it will be myself.

Thankfully, I'm mostly over that too.

Luthien wrote: Like most creation myths, there are many things wrong with it and doesn't explain the world very well anymore.

im not sure anyone really knows what it means anymore

ive heard that its likely a fusion of at least two other stories which were likely integrated as a result of a cultural/religious syncretism that happened before written language, but i dont claim to know

i recall someone here at the temple mentioning that as well, but i wouldnt be able to say a name

personally i think its a story of mans evolutionary leap to higher order cognition - like we learned to compare things to each other and make abstract value judgements, and thats where the "knowledge of good and evil" originated and also when we lost our "innocence" and saw our "nakedness"

Prof. J Peterson likes to mention that human eyesight evolved to a great extent to detect the ripening of fruit and the movement of snakes

and i mean he has got the research of evolutionary biologists as a foundation for the position so whether there is a relationship between that and the story or not, it is definitely interesting

but anyway this is a great example of where i think that a literal interpretation misses the point

but lol who am i? just some dude on the internets

Indeed. I don't know the original intention, nor do I care anymore about it. The bible is a collection of books written by men with imperfect understanding. I don't put too much stock in the reality of myths, but, rather, the lessons behind them. Whether or not god exists is beyond any understanding I can muster. It's all speculation for me until it can be proven true, historical accuracy/inaccuracy aside.

rugadd wrote: One can try to explain "God's" will all they want, or call "him" out, but divinity by definition is beyond our ability to understand so when you do, remember you can not possible be right about it.

What I can't fathom is why anyone would want to serve a deity like that.

Nothing is above being wrong/evil if we're going to view things in those sorts of terms. Not even god.

Sorry, I know I'm mostly talking to myself here.

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

rugadd wrote: One can try to explain "God's" will all they want, or call "him" out, but divinity by definition is beyond our ability to understand so when you do, remember you can not possible be right about it.

What I can't fathom is why anyone would want to serve a deity like that.

Nothing is above being wrong/evil if we're going to view things in those sorts of terms. Not even god.

Sorry, I know I'm mostly talking to myself here.

I viewed it as a fragmentary view of the divine, limited by my own corporeal incarnation. By holding onto a set of values as obligatory to its presence (the experience), it might best define those which give the most useful (?) meaning to the experience of it. Else, change the values and try again....

... and instead of using the experience to define the source, the experience is defined by both source and recipient. I mean the source might even be within oneself, but that detail could be incidental if the intended result is the experience itself.

So by understanding its defined (to some extent!?) by your own limitations/capabilities/self then you can more easily relate the experience back to your own self in terms of progress, rather then characterizing any anthropomorphism of the divine experience and stagnating personal development into dogmatic servitude. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with dogmatic servitude... well at least not all the time.