A Plea for Compassion

Comments: 91

1. 

   Steve Ferguson

   21 July 2014 at 5:24 am

   'The closest verse in the Bible that one can find regarding Transgender or Intersex persons is Matthew 19:11-12. ”But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."³ That’s hardly a condemnation! Rather, quite the opposite. I ask where this message can be found in in the commentary.'

   Well said Ernesto.  I have long wondered about this text as well.

   And this text illuminates your other point, about an 'ideal' Christ being different from we less than ideal Christians.  In fact, when I see the Bible, I don't see 'black and white' as much as a long spectrum of grey.  Whether it being the issue of slavery, nudity, polygamy or vegetarianism, there seems to a lot of 'ideal' behaviours that none of us can easily embrace.  

   And Jesus seems to suggest that is ok – He meets us where we are.  None of us can really embrace nudity nowdays, even though it was the intended state 'in the beginning' (Gen 2:25), a phrase Jesus links to ideals, such as monogomous hetrosexual marriage (i.e. no divorce).  And yet God Himself introduced clothing, as a permissive rather than perfect acknowledgment of a broken world with broken people in it (Gen 3:21).  Moreover, whilst there are ongoing biblical examples of holy nudity (1 Sam 19:24; 2 Sam. 6:20-23; Is. 20:2; and Micah 1:8), we all reaslise that public nudity is no longer possible for virtually any of us on account of climate change (we no longer live in a lush temperate garden) and sexual perversion (seeing each other naked tempts us to sin).   

   'Telling LGBTIQ and heterosexuals alike that they are not acceptable or not perfect because they cannot or choose not to procreate is far from anything which is in Scripture, and a “loving and compassionate” church should never tell its members that.'

   Much agree.  This 'black and white' view is not actually consistent with scripture or the actions and example of either God in the OT or Jesus in the NT. 

   The good news of all this is God meets us where we are – not where the 'ideal' is, otherwise none of us would cut it).  A man without feet can't participate in the rite of footwashing, or at least not 'properly', just as a eunuch was not permitted into the Temple. And importantly, we don't expect any of these 'broken' people to be 'healed' of their 'sin' before taking communion in fellowship. 

   In fact, the eschatological message of Christ, in fact one of its key points, is that in Him we now can have full communion, even in our broken and unhealable states – the eunuch especially! (Isaiah 56:4; Acts 8:26-40).

   Now how do I look at homosexual behaviours such as sodomy? Not entirely sure to be honest.  However, I do acknowledge the messiness of this issue, just as I acknowledge the messiness of a 1001 other issues facing Christians.  And the hypocritical way Christians, especially in the SDA Church, seem to pick and choose some issues (like homosexuality) without simply ignoring others (like divorce, which is likewise less than 'ideal') is somewhat astounding.

   'Harold, in his quest for some kind of ratification, resorts to the last line of “defense” remaining”: the reproductive possibilities. Yet, sadly, he does not realize, or maybe that’s not his concern, that he is causing further pain to members and non-members alike by doing so, even as he still fails to get it right.'

   I was also greatly disturbed by Thomas Harold article.  It seemed to not only condemn homosexuals, but even had the nerve to suggest that a homosexual practicing celibacy (which the SDA Church itself promotes as 'ideal' in that situation) as not good enough.  I agree with your critique here. 

    Harold seemed to suggest a 'one-size-fits-all' view of sexuality, being monogomous hetrosexuality (with Thomas attempting to deny Jesus' teaching about celibacy in heaven) at odds with the spectrum of behaviours that Jesus Himself seem to recognise in Matt 19:11-12.
2. 

   William Noel

   21 July 2014 at 1:31 pm

   Ernesto,

   I would be happy to count you among my friends and to have you as part of my spiritual family, my church, because you know what it means to struggle with sin and suffer the darts and swords of the self-righteous and intellectually opinionated.  You also know what it is to minister God's love to those who are hurting. So I pray that you will continue ministering God's love wherever He gives you opportunity.

   Those who would condemn others because their gender orientation is different from their own would do well to heed the warning Paul gives us in Romans 2:1 where he says "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things."  They may not be doing the same acts, but they are infected with the same disease of sin that Jesus died to save us from.  They are equally in need of a savior and have no basis for pursuing or declaring anything other than the healing, redeeming and transforming love and power of God.

   Still, there is something in what you wrote that disturbs me.  When you are defending yourself from attack it is very appealing to adopt the views of those who are also being attacked for the same or similar reasons, yet in so doing we place ourselves in danger of losing sight of facts.  Several of these caught my attention in your appendix. 

   First, the concept of "Freedom of religion" including freedom from religion has appeared only within the last century.  The argument originated with the American Athiest Movement and was never seen in any political or legal discussions prior to the 20th century.  That said, the condemnations spewed by some religious leaders and the way their followers sometimes try to impose their beliefs on others makes the concept appear appealing and credible.

   Second, the description you provided about marriage and the constitution is another modern invention that ignores the weight of history and legal fact.  The US Constitution does not mention marriage.  Why?  Because at that time the church was recognized as the historic means by which certain vital statistics were recorded and kept.  The state became involved in marriages for several reasons primarily related to documenting for inheritance and property rights.  Marriage became a constitutional issue with regard to issues of fairness.  One aspect of marriage history that advocates of same-sex marriage would do well to remember is that the only times such relationships have received the sanction of the state have been when that nation was in sharp moral decline and on a short path to national collapse from within rather than at the hands of any invader. 

   Third, you wrote "Nobody forces churches to perform a wedding for anyone the churches don’t want to."  That claim is simply false.  For example, in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachussetts the anti-discrimination statutes in those states declare that any member of the clergy who refuses to marry any same-sex couple is guilty of an act of discrimination and they do so at the risk of suffering civil and/or criminal penalties.  More than that, in New York the state recognizes marriages performed by clergy as valid only if they are ordained by their denomination and their ordination is recognized by the state.  If someone complains they have been discriminated against by an ordained member of the clergy, that person is supposed to automatically lose their state recogniztion of that ordination and any marriage they perform will not be considered valid.  I am not aware of any Adventist pastor being accused in that manner but the Southern Baptist Convention has documented at least three cases of it involving their clergy.  The last report I saw a few months ago said the church was contesting the law in court.
   1. 

      Manuela

      21 July 2014 at 2:19 pm

      "First, the concept of "Freedom of religion" including freedom from religion has appeared only within the last century.  The argument originated with the American Athiest Movement and was never seen in any political or legal discussions prior to the 20th century.  That said, the condemnations spewed by some religious leaders and the way their followers sometimes try to impose their beliefs on others makes the concept appear appealing and credible."

      That stance is developed through development of societies. The Supreme Court ruled this in several decisions already and it developed over time. So as of today it is true that it means actually both and not just one.
      Example would be the Rulings in regards of Civil Rights Act and others. 

      "Second, the description you provided about marriage and the constitution is another modern invention that ignores the weight of history and legal fact.  The US Constitution does not mention marriage.  Why?  Because at that time the church was recognized as the historic means by which certain vital statistics were recorded and kept…"

      There is more than just the US. However even in the US marriage is in fact today a civil contract between 2 persons. As societies evolve (for good or bad) so does the law unlike some denominations which seem stuck a few hundred years ago. Amish spring to mind and some others.

      "Third, you wrote "Nobody forces churches to perform a wedding for anyone the churches don’t want to."  That claim is simply false.  For example, in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachussetts the anti-discrimination statutes in those states declare that any member of the clergy who refuses to marry any same-sex couple is guilty of an act of discrimination and they do so at the risk of suffering civil and/or criminal penalties…"

      That is wrong. It has been claimed by several denomations and extreme right winged websites however neither the court rulings on that issue nor the actual law supports this claim.
      In fact all US states and all other nations which allowed Same-Sex Marriages have an exemption for religious organizations.
      Example New Yorks Marriage Equality Act reads: "

       PROVIDED THAT NO CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER
      AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR  SOCIETY
      FOR  ETHICAL  CULTURE LEADER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE
      WHEN ACTING IN HIS OR HER CAPACITY UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION.
        1-A. A REFUSAL BY A CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER AS DEFINED IN SECTION TWO OF
      THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE LEADER TO
      SOLEMNIZE ANY MARRIAGE UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT CREATE  A  CIVIL
      CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION."
      http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8354-2011
      
      So no no law forces any religious organozation to participate in Same-Sex Marriage.
      
      1. 

         William Noel

         22 July 2014 at 12:33 am

         Please keep studying.  There is a lot more history to the topic than you are describing.  There also is a lot of variation depending on what direction you are looking because social and legal concepts on the topic have not developed uniformly or consistently from one country to another or even one state to another within countries.  Probably the biggest challenge in differentiating between what is actual history and what is political correctness masquerading as history.  There's a huge amount of the latter going around today.
   2. 

      Jim Hamstra

      21 July 2014 at 2:47 pm

      William,

      Excellent comments nearly all of which I fully concur.

      at that time the church was recognized as the historic means by which certain vital statistics were recorded and kept.  The state became involved in marriages for several reasons primarily related to documenting for inheritance and property rights. 

      This has often been true but certainly not universally.  For example the Dutch have one of the most complete archives in Europe of civil vital records going back several centuries, for a rather different reason.  Though much of what you say might apply to Dutch society today this was not true when they assigned the responsibility for capturing vital records to the civil authorities rather than the churches. 

      After the low countries (some of the last vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire) gained independence from Spain, they did not establish a single state church as was common practice virtually everywhere else in Europe at the time.  Rather they recognized both the Durch Reformed church and the Roman Catholic church as valid state religions.  So for the first time you could get legally married in more than one religious venue with equal secular validity.   In order for this to work, regardless of where you got married and who officiated, all marriages had to be recorded in the civil registry.  Later they added registrations of births and/or christenings to the civil registry.  Thus creating the first state-maintained (as opposed to church-maintained) vital records archive.  Much of this archive is now online.

      The Western roots of legal religious freedom (not freedom from religion as you rightly explain) and of civil archives of vital records are closely tied together.   Both experiments were pioneered by the Dutch (though not in their modern form).  Menno Simons (like my own ancestors) hailed from Friesland.  He taught that it was wrong to bapitize babies.  One of the few things that the Dutch Catholics and the Dutch Reformers could agree upon was that the Anabaptists were heretics (another being their hatred of the Spanish monarchy).  Particularly ironic given that the Dutch word for "baptized" is gedoopt which literally means "got dipped".

      Ironically the State of New York whose recent actions you rightly excoriate, has only maintained a civil archive of vital statistics since the late 1800s, one of the later states to adopt this practice. Probably New York provides one of your best examples for your arguments.
3. 

   Stephen Foster

   21 July 2014 at 9:29 pm

   The ‘American’ concept of separation of church and state is older than the USA; which is to say that before 1789 it was an ideal of some founders. Further, separation of church and state in this context has historically always meant both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
    
   When Thomas Jefferson was governor of Virginia he drafted the Statute of Religious Freedom. This particular document guaranteed that no citizen "shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…" That represents freedom from by any angle/perspective. (This law passed on January 16, 1786.)
    
   It’s not logically/practically possible to have freedom of religion without having freedom from religion. It isn’t logically/practical possible to have freedom from religion without having freedom of religion.
    
   In order to be free from the imposition of religious laws and penalties, individuals simply need to have the freedom to observe or not to observe any religion.
    
   Thanks to Ernesto for so much documentation. Thanks to Manuela for quoting statutory language.
   1. 

      Stephen Foster

      21 July 2014 at 10:39 pm

      Corrections: …That represents freedom from… from any angle/perspective.

      …It isn’t logically/practically possible to have freedom from religion without having freedom of…
       
   2. 

      William Noel

      22 July 2014 at 12:58 am

      Stephen,

      Jefferson's concept of freedom from religion was very different from the modern concept.  His concept was a defense of liberty, that individuals had the inherent, God-given liberty to decide what to believe, how they would practice their faith, and to not believe in a diety if they chose.  The view advocated by LGBT+ militants is that that people must be prevented from expressing any opinion that is not in complete support of their views.  The American Athiest Party takes it even further by claiming that any expression of religion that can be seen or heard, or taking any action based on religious principles is an infringement on their claimed right to not be impacted by religion.  That also is the current position being taken by the US Department of Justice in religious liberty cases. 
      1. 

         Stephen Foster

         22 July 2014 at 2:39 am

         William,
          
         It’s for the best that we not address each other on these boards. It’s possible that Manuela or some other individual would benefit from addressing your statements. However I do wish you well, brother.
4. 

   Bugs-Larry Boshell

   22 July 2014 at 12:21 am

   Years ago I started a wedding homily (brother in law and fiancé, still married) thus: "Jim and Mary, this may shock you, but no one can marry you." That brought them out of wedding day stupor, marked by slashing, burning stares of confusion! Eventually I explained, "No one can marry you because you marry each other. It's your commitment that makes you married." Looking back I should have alerted them to my verbal device.

    

   The registration of marriage is a civil matter.

    

   Super Guy, the god mankind has created in our image (Grumpy Grandpa, AKA Jehovah, et. al.), has, through the ages, been plastered with endless layers of prejudice and bias dredged from the bleak caverns of carnal minds. If the generally accepted versions of the Christian God and heaven  is accurate, heaven will be a hell of a place. Count me out, sleeping forever is a pleasant alternative. Superguy is the embodiment of the mess we are in. He is the author of pain, which is actually us in our stage name.

    

   The thing I see illustrated by the life of Christ is that God isn't what you thought he was or what you think he is. Bigotry cloaked in religious garments is repugnantly human, and is even a version of self-hatred, not a feature of any legitimate version of God.  Jesus didn't seem much to identify with Jehovah.

    

   No one requests birth. There are no human flaws. Much of what we are is inexorably what we were born with. So the blessings and curses of our lives are imposed by opinion, not by "God."  It is apocryphal Superguy, the collective, human alter ego in operation.

    

   Rehabilitating  Superguy doesn't help, and isn't possible. Search the scriptures, religious authors, develop an ethic of acceptance from those endeavors,  you end up in the circulus in probando, your premises are unprovable so your conclusions are defective. One can't draw only the good stuff from Superguy and claim that is the authority, neither can a posture of condemnation be righteous since it all comes from the same barnacle supply. Opinions, opinions. No independent authority.

    

   I know what God isn't. I don't know what he is. Christ's statements that God is love tells me nothing theoretical or concrete. However, I experience love and that is authority as close as I can get. My application of my experience creates in me an attitude of love in response. There is an Ideal in operation, barnacle free, that empowers my ideals.

    

   Every human being is related, every person one sees every day, shares with everyone some genetic material from the past. To harm anyone in word or deed is an offence against oneself.

    

   There is no pain levied with the God OF Love.

    

   The imposition of one's opinions on others is a violation of the First Commandment. If that isn't true then there are effectively nine of them, since virtually no one makes worshiped images any more.

    
   1. 

      William Noel

      22 July 2014 at 1:02 am

      Larry,

      Well said!  Does anyone remember Genesis 2:24?  "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."  We choose to be united.  How we do it may vary considerably from one culture to another.
   2. 

      Stephen Foster

      22 July 2014 at 2:21 am

      “Groovy Bugs; pass that thing down here.”
       
      In reality Larry, having, claiming, or worshipping any other god (like your love god) instead of the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob violates the first commandment.
      1. 

         Bugs-Larry Boshell

         22 July 2014 at 4:29 am

         Stephen, we still are paired on the Tower of Babel! I never said what you say I said! No, there is no love-god. And there is no Superguy god. He is a bad dream of a god. Are you calling Christ crazy? You seem to diminish his articulation of God as Love. God of Love can't be worshiped. It is not subject to being plastered with ultra-versions of hapless humans. You can't calmly remodel the God of Love to suit your whims.

          

         The concept of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was fine for that time. That was Jehovah, Superguy. The ornery cuss who ordered genocide, loved billions of smelly, dead animals to his sacrifice, swamped the world with water, doomed billions of people to die because two people made a mistake,  enjoys our suffering  during that ten thousand eons, maybe winnable, "great controversy" with that old Lucifer Devil.

          

          Christ modified everything. If you like Superguy so well, you should be killing some animals as sacrifice. Superguy is familiar, we built him as a kind of a drug of convenience. I think you might be addicted!

          

         You can't worship, build a theology ( human implemented barnacles), remodel, anthropomorphize, conflict with science,  or rationalize Christ's revelation of the God of Love. 

          

         Totally simple. If you don't like Christ's version of God as Love, I guess you will just have to stick with Superguy, the mentally graven image, the heavenly probation officer! 
         1. 

            Stephen Foster

            22 July 2014 at 7:45 am

            Are you now suggesting that you can get with Jesus, or relate to Him? Would it be accurate to say that He “modified” things to your satisfaction Larry?
             
            If so, we have the basis for some understanding at the Tower of Babel. As Steve Ferguson said, Jesus was/is God/Love. It would seem that it’s cool if He’s the One to which you relate.
             
            By the same token would it make sense to you not to limit Him; that is, that Jesus/God/Love cannot be limited (except by what love is or isn’t)?
   3. 

      Steve Ferguson

      22 July 2014 at 2:44 am

      'Years ago I started a wedding homily (brother in law and fiancé, still married) thus: "Jim and Mary, this may shock you, but no one can marry you." That brought them out of wedding day stupor, marked by slashing, burning stares of confusion! Eventually I explained, "No one can marry you because you marry each other. It's your commitment that makes you married." Looking back I should have alerted them to my verbal device.'

      Actually I believe even in RC theology you don't need a priest to marry you.  Just like anyone can baptise you.  It is only a later convention to afford full legal status to the couple, even though they even realise in spiritual terms no one can marry you except yourselves before God.  After all, that is how the first marriage happened didn't it!
      1. 

         Bugs-Larry Boshell

         22 July 2014 at 4:33 am

          

         I don't know about all states, but in broad-definition of common law states, such as Colorado, a minister isn't required. The pair can purchase a license and meet the registration requirements by filling out the certificate and sending it to the register. To be legally married not even that is required. If you declare in any form (joint checking account as Mr. and Mrs., for example) that you are husband and wife, in Colorado you instantly are married. If you don't like each other even in short order, a legal divorce is mandated. No time required. I had a wedding business for a few years, officiating at probably two hundred weddings (had a combo package, I was officiant and DJ. Yes many couples liked that).

          

         I'm not aware of RC theology on the subject. I married a divorced Catholic lady 25 years ago (still married to the same one after all these years!) and we certainly couldn't be married in her church by a priest. And she had to surrender role as a "Eucharistic minister," partly due to her previous divorce and my proclaimed membership in the catholic church (note small "c"). As you might guess, joining the Catholic (see capital "C") is not in my bucket list. 
   4. 

      Steve Ferguson

      22 July 2014 at 2:46 am

      'The thing I see illustrated by the life of Christ is that God isn't what you thought he was or what you think he is.'

      Jesus was God Bugs.  Not a god, not a min-deity of God, but the God.  Or so Christians believe. 
      1. 

         Bugs-Larry Boshell

         22 July 2014 at 4:44 am

         I don't think you are wrong in your belief. Wouldn't I violate the First Commandment if I maintained that? However, I would encourage you as a loving, caring brother, while the "doors of probation" are still open, to get right with Superguy before he slams them permanently shut! (God of Love doesn’t do stuff like that).
         1. 

            Jim Hamstra

            22 July 2014 at 8:57 am

            Would a God of Love allow all the suffering in this world to go on forever?
            1. 

               Bugs-Larry Boshell

               22 July 2014 at 6:16 pm

               Jim. as an affirmation of faith, your statement is just fine. Otherwise it is a trick question.

                

               Which leads me to my next statement. Your flimsy premise is that there was a time without "sin" and pristine restoration will come based on what?  

                

               Wishful thinking, hypothesis, is operative with malleable Superguy, but not operative with the God of Love. "Suffering" in the world has an imaginary genesis with those idiots, Adam and Eve (couldn't God have used a condom scuba mask over his face and breathed that breath of life somewhere else and truncated all this trouble?). Adam and Eve clearly were more powerful than God since they made a mess he couldn't immediately wipe up. Maybe he is still working on a viable solution, thus the delay in his second appearance.

                

               Jim, you know as well as anyone, for the world there is no "forever." When the sun as a red giant it will be hell here. So suffering is doomed no matter what.

                

               Sin, suffering, and evil have no good explanation. The experience of the God of Love is the salve that makes coexistence with them tolerable.

                

               And of course there is death, the perceived evil that removes us from all evil, limiting our exposure to no more than ten decades. Now that is a delicious enigma that converts your trick question into a trick answer!

                
            2. 

               Jim Hamstra

               22 July 2014 at 6:25 pm

               Well you have cleverly avoided my trap 8-).  For me it is absolutely an affirmation of faith, and for you it is surely a conundrum.  So I thought I had a win-win?

               Without divine intervention we are indeed headed for fire in a few billion more years, and then perhaps later for ice in a few trillions of trillions more years.
            3. 

               Jim Hamstra

               25 July 2014 at 4:55 am

               I suppose you could claim that a God who has not bothered to intervene in earthly affairs in the past 5 billion years (more or less) would not bother to intervene in the next 5 billion years (more or less).  After that it would be too late if current models of solar evolution are correct.  Sorry but that is not my idea of a loving God. 

               So then if we cannot say that God is Love but only that Love is God we have constructed a lovely fair-weather concept of Love-Guy.  Love-Guy is nice to have around while we can enjoy a life of love (and/or love of life) in its various manifestations.  But when the "quality" of our "love-life" inevitably diminishes with advancing age or untimely misfortunes, then perhaps we should go for passive or even active euthanasia?  Try to go out on a high note?  Suck on our medicinal marijuana until we feel that all is fine while our world burns around us?  Or until we no longer eally care about anything or anyone?  Hope we do not OD and end-up on a bum trip?

               Being at one point in my youth a fairly good chess player, I have developed an ingrained habit of thinking ahead to the end-game.  So I am wondering what Bugs-Larry might think IS the end-game, or do we just make haphazard feel-good moves and then resign when things ultimately and inevitably turn against us?

               This reminds me of playing chess with my nephew's 8 year old son.  He was enjoying the game immensely and not thinking too much about his long-term strategy.  Then he suddenly realized he was running out of pieces to trade.  So he ran off and started playing something else with his brothers.  You can do that when you are 8.  What about when you are 80?
            4. 

               Bugs-Larry Boshell

               26 July 2014 at 10:21 pm

               Superguy and I had this nice game of chess going and all of a sudden he jumped up, shouted "checkmate" and abandoned me looking at an unfinished game.  Heard he was hiding on line somewhere.

                

               Jim, you have wandered into the mine (mind?) field on this interventional God. When and where has he meddled? Don't you think the world was formed by the same natural process of all other celestial bodies? Or did God personally choose and propel the aggregates, including water, to the gravity center that collectively became life-supporting earth? Did he personally direct the dissonant symphony of materials, including the big bump that created the moon, in its first few billion years of assimilation? Maybe he threw the rock that wiped out the dinosaurs. He must enjoy chaos because there sure was/is a lot of that going around these days! Sounds like bumbling Superguy to me. (Please don't rejoin with the  placebo of interpretation).

                

               Show me inconvertible evidenced of previous Superguy intervention and I will up locate him and resume our game. We can discuss his future interferences and my offer of advice. He can help me devise an "end game," where among other things, he and I can set a time for you and me and S. to confab over a heavenly cocktail (nonalcoholic, of course) and argue who was "righter" during our earthly expedition.

                

               Your version of Superguy is the lousy  weather version of God. He theoretically "manages" some threats to human life, maybe super volcanoes, asteroids, sun burps, disease, and others, but not sieges of Stalingrad, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, to name a few? He is either inept, fickle, psychotic, and a fiddler with the rules of nature.  Or all of the above!  Even millions of innocent animals sacrificed and a guy on the cross hasn't seemed to make him predictable or sensible.

                

               Unlike Superguy, God of Love is not the creation of imagination. Not an interventualist in human lives or history nor a manipulator of natural forces. Is in harmony with knowledge and science. Can't be worshiped. Unprejudiced. Cordial with every human, always has been.

                

               Unlike Superguy it can't be described or imagined, only experienced. It has an magic, evocative effect unavailable in any other way.

                

               As to endgame, opiates are unnecessary. I concluded five decades ago that my extensional question weren't actually answerable. Peace was the result and survives! God of Love rules! When I go to sleep at night, I happily go into enough of a coma to be unaware endlessly if I don't wake up. A kind of daily preview of death, I think.  After observing the death of about two hundred people as a chaplain, the only regretful one was a middle age guy who felt he had too often taken the safe road rather than the daring one. Never once saw fear of meeting God.

                

               I, so far, have awakened happily from my periodic preview of death. I am alive, and I know I will be exposed that day to the experience of the God of Love.

                

               Does the God of Love escort one into death and remain where death becomes eternal life?
   5. 

      Steve Ferguson

      22 July 2014 at 2:59 am

      'I know what God isn't. I don't know what he is.'

      Bugs I have a real soft spot for what you are saying.  You certainly have a point.  Human being routinely put God in a box, making Him in our image, rather than realises we are made in His.  That is actually idolatry.

      What you seem to describe is transtheism, or an ontological empahsis that tries to see God as someone who can't be seen, a transcendant non-being outside of space and time itself.  What you seem to continually say on this point has much to do with the views of theologians like Paul Tillich.  Popular theological writers like Karen Armstrong also heavily promote this idea of God.

      Your point just here is also an apt one, and it was as early as the Middle Ages that Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars starting describing God only in negative terms (what God isnt'), rather than positive term (what God is).  Again, I believe that is a point Karen Armstrong makes repeatedly in her books, and it is a good one.

      However, there is a danger if this is the only way you view God.  A transcendant God outside of space-and-time is rather pointless, in that we can't have a relationship with that non-being.  There is little point praying to that deity, or expecting that deity to care a stuff what happens to us here on earth.  

      In fact, again as Karen Armstrong points out in her NY Times best-selling book, The History of God, many cultures do believe in an ultimate trascendant deity (Hindus and ancient Greeks included), but again, that deity is too distant to bother worrying about.  At most, that transcendant "No-Guy" (to invert your phrase) is simply the Deist's blind watchmaker, who puts things in motion but then has no other involvement with us.

      The only solution to all this in my mind is the Trinity.  The Father is your transcendant "No-Guy", which the scriptures say no-one has ever seen, who is Source and outside of space and time itself.  The Father is not sitting on a literal thrown anywhere, or even "exists", because the Father is outside of matter, space and time itself.  Most Christians (including Adventists) don't understand this, and adopt a type of Tritheism or Bitheism – the worship of 3 (or 2) separate gods.

      The Son is God made manifest in corporal form.  The Son is not merely a god but is the God found in space and time.  As the Father was transcendant, the Son is immanent.  We can never know the Father, who is not approachable, but we can know the Father through the Son, who is personable and relational.

      Finally, the Spirit is God omnipresent.  The Spirit is everywhere in space and time just as the Father is techincally nowhere.  

      None of this is new.  The original Greek father understood all this, as is reflected in the Nicene Creed.  The Catholics never quite understood it with their silly Filioque clause, not realising the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, because the Father alone is Source, remaining outside of space and time, the 'original non-place' that existed before space and time itself was created at the Big Bang (or whatever original creation event).  

      As the Catholics never really understood this, they past on their lack of understanding to Protestants, and from them to Adventists.  If we even read FB#2 on the Trinity, you can see Adventists adopt a version of the Catholic Filioque clause in our wording, showing we likewise don't understand the original Greek formular.
      1. 

         Jim Hamstra

         22 July 2014 at 8:59 am

         You have given us your Eastern Orthodox view twice now.  Not being of that persuasion myself, could you enlighten me on whether these definitions relate primarily to the roles of the various god-hoods within the Trinity, or to their fundamental nature and origin?
         1. 

            Steve Ferguson

            22 July 2014 at 2:09 pm

            I wouldn't call it my Eastern Orthodox view per se.  I would rather call it the 'original' formulation of the Trinity, which is was of course, before the unknowing Catholics slightly screwed it up, not understanding what the Greeks were on about.  

            But apart from the Filiquoe Clause, which doesn't make much sense, of course the Catholics are 'orthodox' on the Trinity, as are Adventists. 

            Obviously I am a seventh-day Adventist.  This is just what I have learnt from reading from Christian history in depth. 

            It is vital you understand I am not suggesting modalism (one God that successfully transforms into three modes, where the notion of three 'persons' is an illusion) or tritheism (the worship of three separate gods, which I think many in the West in fact do).  The word 'person' doesn't mean the same in the original Greek as it does now in English. 
      2. 

         Bugs-Larry Boshell

         22 July 2014 at 4:04 pm

         Stephen, your trinity analysis is metaphor that appeals to a human need for a kind of rationality in religious discourse. And that is where I "turn left at Albukurke," (credit to a cartoon character). Each person is entitled to assemble his  virtual jigsaw puzzle or a lego composition as fits his metaphorical bent. In my way of thinking one construct is as good as another, so while I am deconstructing traditional religious discourse, mythical language, I see no compelling reason to embrace one that borrows from the debris I have just created. Dipping into elements of quantum theory creates new metaphor but doesn't rescue religious thought from opinion.

          

         This is a new age where secular, scientific wires are no longer insulated as they cross the bare threads of religious thought. As an example, Genesis has gone down in flames, ignited by current physics. It's not the Galileo dilemma that the church would eventually wink at, reinsulate the wires, of what goes around what up there, but now it is creation as an endless natural process that hopelessly short-circuits religious thought. If you don't have a "Creator" what is God? 

          

         My  "turn left at Albukurke," is created and illuminated by this flare flipping me over the edge into the swirling whirlpool of Scylla and Charybdis.

          

         That is where the life boat of God is Love arrives. It's an experience. A common one, ageless. No option necessary or possible for one or another opinion. Mental constructs employing ancient defunct rhetorical or mythical language are not operative. Christ framed it in a three words and acted it out with his life. He  "turn left at Albukurke," before there was one!
         1. 

            Bugs-Larry Boshell

            22 July 2014 at 4:15 pm

            Steve, not Stephen I know which one you are, probably just a metaphor gone bad! Drat, can't I get anything right?
            1. 

               Bugs-Larry Boshell

               22 July 2014 at 5:20 pm

               Obvoiusly, no, in answer to my rhetorical quesstion. From this point on, S. will be my abbreviation for you both.
         2. 

            Steve Ferguson

            23 July 2014 at 4:11 am

            Ok thanks Bugs.  Yes, we all have to find our own way. For me, forget all the historical arguments for a moment (did Moses really exist, did Jesus really historically rise from the grave), the Trinity makes the most sense to me as a philosophical construct for explaining God.

            It is the only way we can get around the paradoxical limitations of viewing God in just one particular way – by embracing paradox itself!

            Whilst I do share your transcendant view of God, as a "No-Guy" rather than a mere "Super-Guy", I think only holding that view is limited and leads to a Deist impersonal blind-watcher view of God, who couldn't care less if I lived or died.
5. 

   Elaine Nelson

   22 July 2014 at 2:55 am

   But you still need a state license if you want your marriage to be legally recognized.
   1. 

      Bugs-Larry Boshell

      22 July 2014 at 4:44 am

      Not in Colorado. See my post just above.
6. 

   Elaine Nelson

   22 July 2014 at 6:00 am

   Check my comment:  You said they must have a license in Colorado, I said nothing about any marriage ceremony.
   1. 

      William Noel

      22 July 2014 at 12:49 pm

      Elaine,

      There are a number of states where basically you buy the license at the courthouse and, as long as you have a minimum number of witnesses sign it (and in some also have it notarized) then you are legally married. 

      The other way to be married without a license or official registration is to simply live together and conduct business jointly as though you were married ("common law").  I remember one couple I knew in High School who decided after graduation to "shack-up together" (this was the 1970s) and they had a joint checking account for something like 18 months before he decided to dump her.  You've heard the old saying about "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."  Let me tell you, when he took a fancy to another woman and married her, the day she found confirmed they had recorded a marriage license at the courthouse she swore out a warrant for his arrest charging him with bigamy.  I don't remember the details about how the case was resolved, but that first woman took him to the cleaners in more ways than he ever imagined!
   2. 

      Bugs-Larry Boshell

      22 July 2014 at 1:33 pm

      Apologies Elaine for not being clear. No license or ceremony is necessary in Colorado to be legally married. Cohabitation and representation of marriage through a joint checking account as Mr. and Mrs., or even a utility bill as such suffice to legally prove marriage, without any time constraint. I knew a couple that lived together for three years, when they split, she went to an attorney hoping for some alimony. She showed a joint checking account that had each of their original names, not Mr. and Mrs., and she was defeated in her quest. She was not legally married in Colorado after three years of cohabitation. Had they set up the checking account on day one, as an example,  as and Mr. and Mrs. Joe Blow, a legal divorce would have been required from then on. I know, that leaves the state marriage registry a bit of an accuracy sham, but state efforts to modify the law have always been defeated.
      1. 

         Elaine Nelson

         22 July 2014 at 3:52 pm

         Colorado is too busy counting their tax revenue from marijuana to be concerned over marriage license!
         1. 

            Bugs-Larry Boshell

            22 July 2014 at 4:24 pm

            Carole and I live part time in Arizona and Colorado. Our vehicles still carry Colorado plates. We are considering Arizona registration to avoid the threat of police search-stops we hear are occurring. Thanks to my SDA background (yes, there is more than one good thing lurking there) I never smoked anything, so inconvenience, not threat of arrest, is the motivation!
7. 

   Joe Erwin

   22 July 2014 at 1:30 pm

   Ernesto, I hope your plea does not fall on deaf ears. As another ex-adventist, I can testify that there are many wonderful and compassionate people in the church–but far too many who are leap quickly to judgement. One can only take so much of that before feeling unwelcome in the church. I suspect that you, Ernesto, like I, developed high expectations of the church community. The thing is, the compassionate and sincere Christians in the church cannot force those who are rigid and holier-than-thou perfectionists to abandon their hyper-judgemental exclusivist attitudes. It is what it is–but it certainly is not a group to which I wish to belong.

   I'm interested in your "4th generation" heritage. My own religious heritage includes deep roots in adventism. I know my grandparents on my father's side joined the church around 1900. On Mom's side, both her grandparents (Marvin Henry Preston and Addie Adelle Robinson) were adventists. It is my impression that their parents were also adventists, but I do not know for certain. It seems to me that Preston and Robinson were both common surnames in early adventist history. Does anyone here have access to any information on early Prestons or Robinsons in the church? Both lines seem to have arrived in Oregon quite early (from Michigan). My great-great grandfather, Gustavus Hines Robinson, had uncles who were early Methodist missionaries to the northwest (he was named after his uncle Gustavus Hines).

   Please contact me at:                agingapes                          @          gmail    DOT   com

   if you have any relevant information.

   Thanks in advance. 
8. 

   Stephen Foster

   22 July 2014 at 2:16 pm

   Frankly, I didn’t gather enough information from Ernesto and his situation to say much (which is good; because as previously indicated, we’re all virtually in the same boat.) I can say however that when any of us render discriminating, distinguishing judgments as to who “the compassionate and sincere Christians” are, and who the “rigid and holier-than-thou perfectionists” with “hyper-judgmental exclusivist attitudes” are, based on whether or not they agree with us; then we have done some projecting.
    
   Then again, it’s easier to criticize that to which one would not “wish to belong” from a distant and elevated perch.
   1. 

      William Noel

      24 July 2014 at 1:47 pm

      Jesus told us that we would know people by their works.  When I see someone like Ernesto giving shelter, comfort and hope to those whom society has been attacking, that is God's love in action.  That is ministry where it counts and when it is most valuable.  

      On the other hand are the professed followers of God whose only acts of compassion are to put money in an offering plate before before spending the rest of their week avoiding helping anyone in a meaningful way.  Worse than that, they scorn the people who do get involved in touching "sinners" because what they're doing isn't producing baptisms in six weeks.  That's such an easy difference to see that a blind man could tell you the color of the neon!  That's not unfair criticism.  It's just recognizing what their works reveal about what's in their heart–along with the delusions in their head.
      1. 

         Jim Hamstra

         24 July 2014 at 3:35 pm

         William,

         While I agree with much of what you wrote, I must point-out that Jesus used the word "fruits" rather than "works".  The point being that fruits are aproduct of what we are, rather than works which are what we do.  Jesus and Paul elsewhere clearly say that the "fruits" of a genuine Christian life are produced by God, not by us.

         Also I think sometimes God is more patient for fruit than are we.  God does not work in the same manner nor at the same rates in the hearts and lives of each individual.  And God gives different gifts to different people.  The gifts of true generosity are not to be denigrated.  Nor are the gifts of evangelists or teachers.  They are neither more nor less valuable than the gifts of helping which you rightly uphold.
         1. 

            William Noel

            25 July 2014 at 12:34 pm

            "Fruits" are the results of works; the working of God in us and the working of God through us.  Spiritual gifts are designed to make us functioning parts of the body of Christ who are interconnected and interdependent in ways that produce amazing works. 

            What makes me really sad is to see someone who is not even a believer in God being more charitable than those who profess faith in Jesus.
9. 

   Joe Erwin

   22 July 2014 at 2:43 pm

   The perch was not always so distant. The judgementalism began to wear very thin on me while I was a young church school teacher in a small community. Things like suspicion and rumors that I was going to movies because someone saw what they thought was my car parked near the movie theater. It was a car of the same make and color, but not the same model, as one I had previously owned. The car in question belonged to the librarian at the public library that was next to the theater. This petty gossip was actually reported to the school board.

   Also, I was criticized for going to dinner at the home of an elderly non-adventist woman to whom I was giving driving lessons. It was considered inappropriate that I, a 19-year-old adventist school teacher, should be behind closed doors in the home of a 79-year-old woman. This also was seriously gossiped about by a retired pastor and his wife, and was reported to the school board. I finished one very successful year of teaching and declined to be considered for another year. The school went under the next year. It was a great year, though, in many ways, for me and most of the students. There were wonderful people and some great children in the school. But then there were the rigid perfectionists in the church. There was no pleasing them–and they were very influential within the church and on the school board.

   On Mom's side of the family, the family names were: Preston, Robinson, Eldred, and Moon. All of these seem to be represented in the early adventist movement, so any information anyone may have would be appreciated.

   I think nearly anyone who is or ever has been affiliated with the church will recognize what I mentioned about "compassionate" versus "rigid" church members. Such characteristics are not unique to adventists, of course. Some groups have more inflexible people than others, and some groups foster and enable such attitudes more than do others. I'm sure we all feel more at home in some groups than others.     
   1. 

      Bugs-Larry Boshell

      22 July 2014 at 4:58 pm

      I had arrows aimed for me as a pastor and teacher, a time or two from the bishop (conference pres). Took my mental analysis seriously, but not the fiery darts.

       

      Like you, I had a family tradition I abandoned on my exodus. They were the German Gaede family, emigrants to the Russian Ukraine, several of ten brothers finally  immigrated to Kansas with wheat seed in hand. Several of them became SDA and ventured home to convert the rest. They paid a big price of jail time and other discomforts. Their seed (not wheat!) is widely spread all over this country, many of sprouts remain in the church.
   2. 

      Darrel Lindensmith

      22 July 2014 at 7:40 pm

      Yes, I do recognize, more than recognize what you discribe Joe.  As well as your story Larry. As a Pastor this is what makes me the most angry.  It seems impossible to undo the damage stupid gossip can do.  Also it is very difficult to help the rigid legalist.  May God have Mercy!!
10. 

    Elaine Nelson

    22 July 2014 at 3:57 pm

    Adventists are probably more rigid because there are so many "rules" that must be observed.  Most churches do not "check" on others as you experienced or are overly concerned about whether they are drinking coffee, occasionally a glass of wine or beer, or working on Sunday.  Those are only a few that can easily be observed, reported, and begin  accusations.  It would drive a sane person far away to live, especially as an employee, in such a restricted environment.  How many sincere persons have become disillusioned with such issues?
    1. 

       Bugs-Larry Boshell

       22 July 2014 at 4:12 pm

       Elaine, so well said and confirmed by my experience at the Methodists Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado, where I earned an MDIV degree. I was an SDA Chaplain, transferred from Bible teacher and pastor, and was struck with how religion functioned so differently for my classmates. It seemed to be a positive support to one's life, emphasis on faith, not obedience. I liked what I saw but it was too late for me. I even realized that had I been brought up in one of the many mainline denominations represented in the student body, I probably would have never left the ministry.
11. 

    earl calahan

    22 July 2014 at 10:09 pm

    Intellectually, Larry, you have been there, did that, and decided it wasn't for you. Yet the aspect of LOVE, is important to you. Good/evil, two sides of the coin. Good is better. According to Chris, a secular society without religion, could provide a safer more moral landscape (if i understand Chris, that is??) Needless to say, with a majority of citizens of societies world wide, belief in a god of some type or form, we will not experience the chance of a true global secular society. i believe that people generally desire to believe in a god, or gods, or supreme entity of some kind, for the enigmatic answer to who, what, & why???  Who are we?? What is the answer to what is our heritage?? Why do we exist, in seemingly a eternal existence of matter, that appears in its ethereal brilliance of beauty, magnificence, dynamonstrosity of ultimate power systems, spinning for billions of years, adding and deleting portions, in an endless process???? What part do we play in this fantastic all encompassing Universal event?????? We know, so we are, a very, very, very, almost insignificant, infinitisimal, part of a grand spatial happening, a reality of being. We know next to nothing of what's beyond our solar system, or even if there is other life forms in our Galaxy. Yet we have substance, intelligence of inquiry, a desire to know the answers to our enigmatic being. We know from observation there is much knowledge to be acquired, that currently is hidden from us. i submit for those who do not accept that a vast intelligence is in existence, of Universal reality, just because they are unable to prove it with their Earthly tools, is a fool. There is amonst the violence of space, as we view it, an order of massive intelligent operation, of creation, of obsolescence, of regeneration of matter from one Universe to another. Would think our scientific intellectuals would grasp the opportunity to get their re-education on the tools that make and control such mindbending, breathtaking, other world evolution that is in constant inflation expansion.
    Now back to the here and now. Being in the final years of my sojourn on planet Earth, i am an old tired body, eagerly awaiting my giving up the ghost. i am not fearful of dying. i am not fearful of the lake of fire (don't believe in it) i will be cremated when i die. i haven't accepted Jesus Christ, because of fear of the unknown. i can easily, eagerly, go to the dust of rest. Our elements are of the earth.
    But, LOOK UP, the secrets of the universe are awaiting discovery in our space compatible being.
    Our souls are from the foundation of the world, eternal. This Earthly life here and now are our eternal plan of continued existence, the final phase of our existence, prior to our transition to responsible Saints of Almighty God, to be utilized in responsibilities of the eternal expansion of the eternal UNIVERSAL CREATIONS OF OUR GOD. You, will be a part of this WISDOM of the ages.
    1. 

       Bugs-Larry Boshell

       22 July 2014 at 11:45 pm

       Earl, I agree that there is a yearning everywhere to know God. Also that we are very very very small in the universe.
        

       And I think you are saying that we know virtually nothing about it even though we think we know a lot. One small fact of verification is that approximately 94% of what is in space is not detectable. So there is room for amazing, hidden facts that could entirely change our outlook, even about purposefulness and even God. Totally agree.

        

       And I value your profession of hope and faith in Christ, your sense that our souls exist from the foundation of the world, and that there is an eternal plan transcending space and time. I participate with you in that hope. The pursuit of understanding is not retarded by a grip on hope. Paul summed it up well with his words of "faith, hope and charity." I view the God of Love embodied in those three words.
12. 

    Stephen Foster

    23 July 2014 at 10:43 am

    Clearly, we have had some serious aggregate trauma amongst some of this site’s participants. Perhaps this is really a support group/system.
     
    There is certainly a place for compassion. On the other hand for some in their 60s, 70s, 80s, and beyond, it may be time to let it go and move on for some of this.  
     
    But, that’s easy for me to say; and not exactly the hallmark of compassion.
    1. 

       Bugs-Larry Boshell

       23 July 2014 at 1:42 pm

       As an act of compassion I forgive you, keeping in focus that your apparently young, undevloped mind, hasn't yet arrived to a the high level of those you target!!! 🙂
13. 

    Darrel Lindensmith

    23 July 2014 at 2:05 pm

    Translation: ~~Pity you poor paupers of intelligence who presuppose purpose and defy the gods of meaninglessness; Blast you stupid fools who defy the great prophet!
    You who are slow to learn his lesson; your philosophy, your religion, all literature, all art, even your science is only desperate attempts to paint meaning on a meaningless cosmic canvas. We must "recognize untruth as a condition of life," he explained, and all attempts to portray truth, any truth, even this truth, are merely “fictions masking the will to power.”
     
    1. 

       Stephen Foster

       23 July 2014 at 2:47 pm

       Actually (Darrell?), I had reference here to the specific incidents of abuse, betrayal, and rumor mongering that some former Adventists have volunteered and detailed above on this thread. These incidents, along with other incidents shared elsewhere on other threads on atoday.org, represent the trauma to which I made reference.
        
       So, if your “translation” was intended for/toward/about me, based on you not knowing this (I really shouldn’t assume that it was), perhaps you might acknowledge such a misunderstanding.
        
       In fairness (and retrospect) I should have explained or specified this at the time.
        
       I have no comment on Bugs and Earl’s exchange; as I’m waiting for Larry to answer questions we 'S’s' asked him.
       1. 

          Bugs-Larry Boshell

          23 July 2014 at 4:09 pm

          S., (Foster). Wasn't aware I left questions unanswered except the rhetorical ones. Reload and refire!
          1. 

             Stephen Foster

             23 July 2014 at 10:10 pm

             By now you have hopefully taken the opportunity to go up (back) a little further in this thread to discover what I had asked you in response to your stated view of what Jesus did/represented:
              
             Are you now suggesting that you can get with Jesus, or relate to Him? Would it be accurate to say that He “modified” things to your satisfaction Larry?
              
             If so, we have the basis for some understanding at the Tower of Babel. As Steve Ferguson said, Jesus was/is God/Love. It would seem that it’s cool if He’s the One to which you relate.
              
             By the same token would it make sense to you not to limit Him; that is, that Jesus/God/Love cannot be limited (except by what love is or isn’t)?
             1. 

                Bugs-Larry Boshell

                24 July 2014 at 3:29 pm

                Q."… can get with Jesus, or relate to Him?"  A. No.

                 

                Q. "Would it be accurate to say that He “modified” things to your satisfaction Larry" A. No

                 

                Q. "If so, we have the basis for some understanding at the Tower of Babel. As Steve Ferguson said, Jesus was/is God/Love. It would seem that it’s cool if He’s the One to which you relate."  A. Ahhhhhh?

                 

                Q. By the same token would it make sense to you not to limit Him; that is, that Jesus/God/Love cannot be limited (except by what love is or isn’t)? A. Ahhhhhh?

                 

                Judge: "Mr. attorney, your are leading the witness, and he isn't appropriately responding, rephrase your question (s)."

                 

                My attempt to identify God as Love is the only way I can see to create a new (actually old, just ignored) dialogue about "God" after my deconstruction of the traditional discourse about God that I maintain to be meaningless because its source, ancient cosmology, is an invalid view of the universe.

                 

                The concept of the God of Love as experienced in human life is an attempt to avoid meaningless, useless language and associated shibboleths. So, I choose not to use traditional terms which are, in fact, mythical. As I stated earlier, I can't properly draw from the debris of my deconstruct to build a new structure.

                 

                God is a creation of the human mind. "Evidence" of his presence (immanence) is a human construct. His absence is far more profound than his presence in this context. Concept of Creator is an extension of a desire for meaning, for which there is no evidence, except for that which is mentally created as affirmation.

                 

                Is Christ's intervention in history (and Jehovah) properly represented by traditional Christian belief? I don't know, you don't know so the operative word becomes "belief." Belief means you choose your supporting evidence based on your criteria, rejecting contradictions, or what is deemed useless, to the support of your desired conclusion. In the end, you simply choose what you "like," and the term for that is faith.

                 

                I understand the function of myth in human life. If you consciously choose to "act as if," truth is represented in mythical discourse, no problem. Belief is a personal enterprise. As for me, I "like" the story of Christ in all its elements. I have proclaimed my "belief" in previous posts. (Jim H., there is a is a conundrum, worse, a contradiction!)  Is it "true" or even "truth?" Doesn't matter. Don't know. Do I like the "barnacles" plastered for two thousand years onto it? I know a barnacle when I see one. God as love isn't one of them.

                 

                I'm not seeking a "horse" to ride. I'm acquainted with most of the ancient and modern philosophers and theologians. Like them, we are the blind humans fondling the elephant. So I'm not knowingly borrowing from any of them. Experiencing God as Love is universally too simple for them all. There is nothing to parse, expand on, theologize about. Mind boggling expositions, ephemeral, endless meanderings into the etymological stratosphere are lifeless compared to the God of Love of experience.

                 

                Simplify, simplify, simplify.
14. 

    earl calahan

    24 July 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Even Campbell, was once quoted that that he believed that some myths are true, strictly because of the mathematical odds. All great men of the past recognized greatness. Mankind did not descend from garbage of the universe. There is a quality in man that defies his ancestry of barbarian heritage. Why "love", which billions globally express, in concern, grief, kindness, giving?? Observe the worldwide reaction to the two recent Malaysian aircraft losses. These are genuine expressions of loss, of intimate involvement of lives unknown. Of the commodity of LOVE. LOVE is not derived from barbarianism. Where did it originate. All things natural and supernatural are possible under the sun. There are no limits to which faith can attain, and a denial that faith in a supreme intelligence is faulty, is strictly at odds with odds. There is intelligence in all we observe in human activity and accomplishment. What is it's origin?? Intelligence didn't "just happen". What better reason for our existence than a God of LOVE, would you reccomend????
15. 

    Joe Erwin

    25 July 2014 at 12:51 am

    I suppose I am just a disagreeable cuss, in the sense that I tend not to agree with everything that anyone says/writes. Even so, there are some things I either agree with or at least respect as credible or plausible or just honest expressions of personal belief.

    Earl, I feel honored to sit in the same (virtual) space with you. You seem to be so thoughtful and compassionate and wise. That does not mean that I agree with you, necessarily, but I do respect you and feel with you a warmth of friendship. I do not require my friends to agree with me.

    Larry, I tend to agree with you that the concept of God is a human invention. While that does not mean to me that there is no God, it does mean to me that few people, if any, have an authentic concept of God. It seems to me that we cannot know or understand God. And yet,  a comprehensive knowledge is not essential to belief or acting as if God is real. There is no need at all to intellectualize God. Unless the simplest person's concept of God is sufficiently valid, no amount of study or prayer or revelation can be enough.

    It seems to me that the best course, regardless of how we got here, is to live our lives fully and well. Our life course can be guided by Love–by a commitment to treating all others with due consideration and respect and by behavior toward others as we would wish to be treated.   
16. 

    Stephen Foster

    25 July 2014 at 1:40 am

    Unlike Jim, I did not ask you a ‘trick’ question; or a leading one. (Well, maybe that hypothetical was perhaps somewhat presumptive.) My questions were based solely on your unsolicited statements about what Jesus represented/did, Larry.
     
    (The fact that you decided not to “properly” respond to some things is interesting. But it had nothing to do with anything other than your prerogative not to.)
     
    You were the guy who said “Christ modified everything” (after having said that “the concept of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was fine for that time”). You were the guy who said, “You can’t worship, build a theology (human implemented barnacles), remodel, anthropomorphize, conflict with science, or rationalize Christ’s revelation of the God of Love,” then said “if you don’t like Christ’s version of God of Love, I guess you will just have to stick with Superguy, the mentally graven image, the heavenly probation officer!” (All your words, man).
     
    So dude, you introduced Christ into this. (Then again, if you hadn’t I would’ve.) But now, when I ask you if you “can get with” (which in the urban vernacular means ‘relate to’) Jesus, or when I asked whether he “modified things” (your words) to your satisfaction; you nevertheless paradoxically answered “no” to both questions.
     
    Now you suggest that faith in Jesus is blind and/or based on confirmation bias; as if there was no such individual. Of course at this point, you must; but should reconcile these two contradictory positions.
     
    “Christ’s intervention in history” is the key. It certainly makes more sense “in all its elements,” including that He claimed to represent the God who loves in flesh; than the contradiction of citing it, arguing it, ‘liking it, yet not believing does.
     
    Of course it matters a great deal if its “’true’ or even ‘truth,’’’ Larry. If either of us thought it didn’t matter this conversation would never have ensued.
    1. 

       Bugs-Larry Boshell

       25 July 2014 at 4:12 am

       Stephen, I didn't respond because I thought my categorical statements answered everything! Christ modified the popular concept of Superguy God when he pronounced that God is Love ("who love not knows not God, for God is love"). God as Superguy got his discharge at the moment by the truth of a statement, not by the authority of the stator.  I may have missed something somewhere, but I know of no statement like that from anyone ever in history and I know of no religion that represents that view of God.

        

       I think you are trying to learn if I think Christ was God or not. No, I don't know. Or, he might be. I can send you one hundred books that legitimately call into question the notion of divinity. You can Fed Ex two hundred supporting it to me, including the Holy Bible, the Koran, the New World Bible and Douay Version. As I have already stated, in the end you choose the evidence, the point of view you "like" and reject the rest. From that point of view, believing is a choice you make because the evidence for either is convincing. I'm sure you toss your marker in the option of divinity. But what you "know" is an opinion, belief. If it isn't true, your sincere belief that is doesn't convert it. That is why I say it doesn't matter if he was or wasn't divine. Your commitment, the choices you make, the thoughts you have, the spiritual values you endorse and practice, all are based on your conclusion that He was divine. You "act is if," trusting that the final lottery will identify you a winner. You win by having a hopeful, orderly life, and you don't lose if you are wrong because you will never know. A win/win situation.

        

       The validity of the concept of God as Love is not affected by whether or not Jesus is divine.

        

       Now you suggest that faith in Jesus is blind and/or based on confirmation bias; as if there was no such individual. Of course at this point, you must; but should reconcile these two contradictory positions.

        

       I may have addressed your statement in the paragraph above, otherwise I don't know what the issue is. I'll just add that it makes no actual, practical difference if he lived or didn't. The idea of God intervening in history in some positive way is alive as a metaphor that ignores his life or lack of it. Adopting it has the same effect whether or not he did or didn't. The problem is with the "believer" who has anticipatory grief on the negative possibility. So, always think positive!.

        

       Of course it matters a great deal if its “’true’ or even ‘truth,’’’ Larry. If either of us thought it didn’t matter this conversation would never have ensued.

        

       You say "it matters a great deal." Why? There is an ego factor in belief where being wrong, or possibility of it, is not bearable. Basically it is the uneasy prospect of being swindled. One feels he is wise enough to sift through all the jetsam and flotsam and arrive at a concrete certainty that the evidence falls on the positive side to the degree he bets his life on it. My point is that certainty is impossible, you could be wrong, Christ might not have lived and might not be divine and the reports of his activities teachings may not even be accurate. Repeat. It doesn't matter. You focus on the meaning of his advertised life and teachings, apply your life accordingly, encourage others to adopt your outlook by your good influence and let death determine the "truth."

        

       Death is the stimulus behind belief. Religion ultimately is about death. All philosophical and religious discourse exists because of it. It is all hoopla. An antidote to death has never been determined. We don't even know why we are born only to die. All we really have is a sense that there has to be more, an undiscovered explanation. Religion is the human attempt to ferret it out. Myth and metaphor is its singular language. It falls short on corroboration. But it is long on hope, and that is all we can have.

        

       Christianity is not now, has never been, and is not capable of being hoax, the possibility of which Paul mistakenly lamented. It's underlying facts are not verifiable, but its positive effects are absolutely confirmed in the lives of millions of Christians. Me, too.
       1. 

          Steve Ferguson

          25 July 2014 at 1:16 pm

          'Christ modified the popular concept of Superguy God when he pronounced that God is Love ("who love not knows not God, for God is love").'

          I thought that was John, not Jesus?  And didn't Jesus say He was God?  That sounds like something the opposite of Superguy but Thisguy.  
           
          1. 

             Bugs-Larry Boshell

             25 July 2014 at 10:24 pm

             According to the sources we have, Jesus said many things, made many claims, told many stories, offered riddles. They mean what you want them to. Your guess at their meaning and validity as good as anyone else. You like the group-think idea of divinity being revealed via him so you enjoy the "evidence" in affirmation.  It is an untestable, unverifiable metaphor. And it is worth a life investment to countless people.

              

              There is a train of thought he got some or all of them from JB. It really doesn't matter who announced that God is Love. It is a concept that doesn't need imprimatur to be valid. Oh, but I know of no source crediting JB for this idea. Where is it?
       2. 

          Steve Ferguson

          25 July 2014 at 1:28 pm

          'The validity of the concept of God as Love is not affected by whether or not Jesus is divine.'

          Can Noguy (what I assume you believe in Larry instead of Superguy, to describe your transcendant version of deity) be love without on some level also being Superguy (or my preference Thisguy)?

          I think to keep talking about God as Love as some abstract concept is rather pointless.  God can only be Love if that translates on some level to the personal.  So God has to also be personal on some level (as Superguy or Thisguy).

          To qutote the Hitcher's Guide to the Galaxy, you might as well say the meaning of life is 42. That answer might be correct, who knows, but 42 what exactly?  To say the meaning of life is 42 is an abstract transcendant concept that needs personably immanence to even be logical.

          That's how I see it anyway.  If you somehow can get along with a distant, unknowable, unreachable, transcendant Deist blindwatching Noguy God, well you're a smater man than me.
       3. 

          Steve Ferguson

          25 July 2014 at 1:31 pm

          'I may have addressed your statement in the paragraph above, otherwise I don't know what the issue is. I'll just add that it makes no actual, practical difference if he lived or didn't. The idea of God intervening in history in some positive way is alive as a metaphor that ignores his life or lack of it.'

          That statement is virtually identical to Rudolf Bultmann's demytholizing existentialism.  He said we should believe Jesus rose from the dead because we believe it so.  That simply sounds like circular logic to me. 
          1. 

             Bugs-Larry Boshell

             25 July 2014 at 9:31 pm

             Finally, a theologian that agrees with me! Thought it would never happen! Too bad he's already croaked! Mabye we could have fixed this circular thing!
       4. 

          Steve Ferguson

          25 July 2014 at 1:38 pm

          'Religion is the human attempt to ferret it out. Myth and metaphor is its singular language. It falls short on corroboration. But it is long on hope, and that is all we can have.'

          Bugs I know exactly what you are getting at and I probably agree with half of it.  I personally see it as adopting the non-historical case for God and Christianity.  Not as a historical question (like was Jesus really born in Bethlehem in 4 BCE) but rather as a story, does it have the most truth, in terms of talking to the human condition.  I personally like that approach a lot – a hell of a lot.

          However, I do think on another level we do have to engage it as a historical issue as well.  We do need to search for the historical Jesus, who isn't just an existentialism story, but a real person who really did teach beside the Sea of Galilee, walk the streets of Jerusalem and get crufied by the Romans.  

          Otherwise, to paragraph Pannemburg, we overlook a core point of Christianity, which is Christ as the fulcrim point or crescendo of history.  It also undermines the future-historical hope of a real, physical and literal Second Coming, which is not just the escape of some etheral consciousness as a ghost out from this world, as the ancient Gnostics taught, but rather hope in the salvation of this world itself.  
       5. 

          Steve Ferguson

          25 July 2014 at 1:46 pm

          'It's underlying facts are not verifiable, but its positive effects are absolutely confirmed in the lives of millions of Christians. Me, too.'

          Totally agree, again in terms of the non-historical philsophical case for God and Christiantiy. As a story, Christianity seems to resonate with so many people, being the world's most popular religion.  It went from nowhere to a faith that conquored the ancient world's most powerful empire.

          On that level, it is true in a way as say Richard Dawkins floating teepot can't be.  Whilst Dawkins sees both a risen Jesus and a Flying Spagetti monster as equally unproveable, the former is obvious 'true' in terms of the massive human response in a way his Flying Spagetti monster isn't.

          This is the sort of existential direction much popular Christian theology is going nowadays, and has been going for some time with higher criticism.  I've studied it in depth and see its benefits.

          But again as I just said above, on some level Dawkins might be right if we don't engage historical questions, but putting Jesus the real living person but in the historical context.  Christianity can't just be a non-historical metaphor, a philosophy told in story form.  

          Even if we are to just take it as a legal fiction, we have to treat Christianity's claims as historical fact.  Otherwise, we undermine the mythical truth of it to begin with.  I know that is a paradox but that is how it seems to be.

          The ancient Gnostics tried to treat the Jesus' story as truth is myth.  And see how long they lasted – not long.  Now looked at the Christian denominations today, like the Anglicans and Lutherans, who are doing the same – they're dying too.  So they are underminning the myth by treating as a mere myth and not historical fact.  
          1. 

             Bugs-Larry Boshell

             25 July 2014 at 4:25 pm

             Suppose Jehu, a well digger in Nazareth, finds a cedar box  covered with bitumen containing a jar with a diary scroll written and signed by Peter with the authenticated sayings of Jesus. We'll call it the Omega Source, and it has none of the reported claims and sayings of Christ, but an entirely new collection, contradicting our current, other-sourced supply. Would you change suddenly and decide Christ's claims to being God to be invalid? Stop practicing Christianity? My guess is, no. Facts don't ultimately matter to belief once established. They are screened, sorted, analyzed, and carefully selected as a buttress to belief. It is the claim, not the veracity that is primary. The translated Gospels of Judas and Mary are example of the scrutiny and disdain challenges to orthodoxy receive.  Because one "likes" a point of view contradictions are viciously attacked, ignored, labeled gnostic (or worse), discounted or otherwise discredited. Omega source would likewise be microscopically scrutinized to minimize its threat to traditional doctrine.

              

             My point is that a murk of miasma surrounds all religions and their sources. Believers believe anyway. One cannot, I maintain, consciously  accept the "legal fiction" of a story and be a believer. There is evidence (not unchallenged) to support the historical Jesus.  Metaphor and myth, to the purposeful exclusion of conflicting information, feed on that positive aspect to provide meaning. A fictional story is verifiably false. Not applicable to Christ.

              

             Oh contraire! Gnostic thought wasn't a promotion of mysticism but of  the offering and acceptance of esoteric knowledge as the channel to salvation. Not the same thing. And Gnostic thought never died. It permeates in some form or another many religions, including Christianity.  The most notorious is  the promotion of poverty and sexual abstinence promoted by some Gnostic thought survives in a branch of Christianity.

              

             The decay of mainline churches can't be blamed on the deviations of Gnosticism. I see it more as either the loss of the ability to believe, or the lack of a need to believe. Existential answers are less in demand in prosperous times. And the questions traditionally answered inside church are weakened by knowledge of current cosmology.

              

             Like all believers, Steve, you believe because you want to. The facts you marshal for support are incomplete and debatable. You can have certainty in your heart, but not your mind. That is an inescapable dilemma of life. Myth and metaphor is the bridge between the two and the walkway over the chasm of meaninglessness.
             1. 

                Steve Ferguson

                26 July 2014 at 1:01 am

                'And Gnostic thought never died. It permeates in some form or another many religions, including Christianity.  The most notorious is  the promotion of poverty and sexual abstinence promoted by some Gnostic thought survives in a branch of Christianity.'

                You are right of course Bugs.  The proto-Catholic church that challenged and defeated Gnosticism in the end absorded many of its ideas.  You are right that its most lasting impact has actually been in Christian monasticism. 
       6. 

          Jim Hamstra

          25 July 2014 at 2:56 pm

          I think Steve's comments regarding existentialism are spot-on.  In my school days I did a bit of existentialist reading myself (though not to the level Steve has carried it).  At one level existentialism carries a lot of truth.  At another level it is more like a dying generation of European Christians grasping desperately for their final shreds of meaning.  Existentialism may help you retain your Christian faith but it will not help you gain your Christian faith.
          1. 

             Bugs-Larry Boshell

             25 July 2014 at 8:27 pm

             By wallowing in the obvious, albeit with esoteric language, Kierkegaard, Sartre, and their buddies, gave pessimism a bad name. Probably why they now are mostly a footnote of banal history. You are wrong on this statement: Existentialism may help you retain your Christian faith but it will not help you gain your Christian faith. Neither retain or gain, I think.

              

             Every theologian and philosopher has carved his initials in a historical tree with the goal of profundity and immortality. Bad move. History, like trees, moves on, initials fade and so do the wise guys. There are, I think, no "original" thoughts. Just new attempts to drive the language to vacant outer space (I know Jim, there ain't no such thing except in the minds of the uniformed and as a device for my proposition) where words of unfathomable obfuscation can roam without hope of comprehension. (See, I know a little about obfuscation)!

              

             My point, in an attempt (perhaps feeble) to address the subject of the essay at the beginning, is that the celestial probation officer, Superguy, is not the promoter of hate directed to LGBTIQ, but the reflector of it, poor sap. He is us. God as love isn't us and we can reflect It  (Finally we have a genderless god, NOW should be happy)!! A reflection has a source. There is no hate in the God of Love so there is no source for it there. Happy lives to LGBTIQ with It in charge!
             1. 

                Jim Hamstra

                25 July 2014 at 8:54 pm

                So much for the notion of "vacant outer space".  Is it possible that instead we are confronted with "vacant inner space" (ie between the ears 8-)?
             2. 

                Bugs-Larry Boshell

                25 July 2014 at 9:19 pm

                Funny! But how can you say such rubbish? Inner space is full of microbes and particles from space and other stuff, too. Ohhhhhhhhh, now I figured it out (thanks for the hint-(ie between the ears 8-). Jis casue it tuk me thre yrs to gradate ate th grad, dnt mene I are dum. Sides I lurn lot from bgsbundy cartons alredy.
       7. 

          Stephen Foster

          26 July 2014 at 5:32 am

          That was a very good answer Larry! (Now, that wasn’t so uncomfortable, was it?)

          Much of what you said makes sense. I actually agreed with much of it. Here’s where we differ, or most fundamentally differ: it “matters,” not because of the egos of the participants involved in such discussions, or because of whatever positive effects bear out in the lives of believers; but because the nature and essence of Jesus’ claims are inclusive of literally everything.
           
          You have stumbled into profound truth by categorizing my position as basically a "win-win." Jesus claimed to personally, intrinsically represent Truth…and that no one approaches God/Love except by way of Him; so that’s a ‘win.’ Another ‘win’ is that everything that opposes and/or disagrees with Truth is false; such that the knowledge of the Truth serves as the ultimate protection against being deluded. Yet both of these 'wins' are totally dependent on the fact that there was such a person in actual historical reality. (Also, on a subsidiary/subordinate dependent level, virtually everything said and recorded scripturally about Him must also be accurate; whether verifiable or not.)
           
          This brings to mind another related point; that ‘a preponderance of the evidence’ is more than enough for many/most/all who believe. You must argue that this is due to so much confirmation bias (or something); but in actuality it’s impossible and inconceivable that adult (former) Christians can be oblivious to the favor of Love, unaccompanied by the affection/love of other living creatures. It’s not even necessary to ask whether God has ever done anything for you (other than manifest His love to you through others); because it’s self-evident that He has.
           
          (Almost needless to say, there are numerous other ‘wins’ associated with this knowledge. Time and space do not permit listing and describing most, let alone all, of them.)
           
          But as I’ve said before, it’s not possible for a Bible-believer to argue against God as Love—and why even try? But another one of the ‘wins’ of my position is that it is so right that it includes/engulfs all other truths. What reality does the ‘Jesus loves me’ narrative exclude or fail to cover?
           
          Realities that your philosophy or religion necessarily fails to acknowledge (or address) certainly include those of evil, hatred, selfishness, and self-seeking. Christianity isn’t just a search for meaning; it represents an Answer for all reality. It wins on all fronts and times.
           
          Finally, you claim that Steve and other believers believe because they want to believe. I maintain that some/many/most/all disbelieve because want to disbelieve; but that in the end, believers are compelled to believe in/by Truth.
          1. 

             William Noel

             26 July 2014 at 11:00 pm

             The truth that is most convincing and creates the only lasting belief is God's power.  Encounter it and you are overwhelmed by it.  But if you're just talking about it when you haven't met it, all you're doing is beating the air with words. 
          2. 

             Bugs-Larry Boshell

             27 July 2014 at 2:27 pm

             Interpreting me to fit your agenda is exactly the same you do with Christ.  (Comparison between him and me ends there, you'll agree).

              

             "Facts don't ultimately matter to belief once established. They are screened, sorted, analyzed, and carefully selected as a buttress to belief. It is the claim, not the veracity that is primary."

              

             My statement, ignored on your part, is verified by your post.

              

             "Like all believers, Steve, you believe because you want to. The facts you marshal for support are incomplete and debatable. You can have certainty in your heart, but not your mind. That is an inescapable dilemma of life. Myth and metaphor is the bridge between the two and the walkway over the chasm of meaninglessness."

              

              Certainty in one's heart is noble as a source for faith. I respect your faith.
             1. 

                Bugs-Larry Boshell

                27 July 2014 at 4:11 pm

                "My statement, ignored on your part, is verified by your post." Should have read: My statement, the meaning of which is ignored on your part, is verified by your post.
17. 

    Gregory Matthews

    25 July 2014 at 5:52 pm

    William Noel wrote in part:
    "Third, you wrote "Nobody forces churches to perform a wedding for anyone the churches don’t want to."  That claim is simply false.  For example, in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachussetts the anti-discrimination statutes in those states declare that any member of the clergy who refuses to marry any same-sex couple is guilty of an act of discrimination and they do so at the risk of suffering civil and/or criminal penalties."

    Please document your statement and include documentation of your statement regarding three civil cases against Baptist clergy that will allow us to review the actual court filings and rulings.

    In short, what you describe would liked be found to be a violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution.  Under that provision, a clergyperson administering a sacrament to another person cannot be ordered by a civil court to perform it in any specific manner.   The Court cannot even enquire about it.  This is well established case law.

    Certainly, if a clergy person accepted the position of Justice of the Peace, that clergy person would be required to perform those functions in the manner prescribed by law.

    It should be noted that a recognized clergy person does not have to be ordained in order to be accorded the rights of a clergyperson under the 1st Amendment.  That  has been established by Federal courts that have held that to require ordinaiton amounts to discrimination against denominations that do not ordain their clergypersons.

    It was one of those rulings that opend the door for the SDA denomination to place females into the military chaplaincy, as has happened.

     
    1. 

       Bugs-Larry Boshell

       25 July 2014 at 8:33 pm

       There is a tyranny of the minority in vogue on several fronts in our culture. I'm interested to see just how far that will go.
    2. 

       William Noel

       26 July 2014 at 2:33 am

       Gregory,

       I prefer to let people do their own research.  If you want to know the details, just go to the state websites and search for their anti-discreimination statutes.  Those three states are part of a larger group of states that have adopted laws with variations on that theme where the primary intent is to penalize anyone who speaks-out or refuses to cooperate with the gender-variant community.

       You may get specific details about the three cases involvin ministers of the Southern Baptist denomination by checking the News section of their website.  That's where I got it.

       I was unaware of the ruling about ordination not being required to be recognized as clergy.  I'm really not surprised considering how varied the training requirements are from one denomination to another for deciding who is ordained.  Also, it is easy to get a certificate of ordination from a list of "churches" with curious names.  Some years back a friend of my as a joke got one for his brother, an Adventist pastor, from one of them.  I think it cost him $25 and the name was something like "Universal Church of Brotherhood and Truth."  No Masters of Divinity Degree required.
       1. 

          Gregory Matthews

          26 July 2014 at 11:40 pm

          I asked the question because I wanted to research it.  You mentioned what

          I understood to be specific cases that had involved clergy.  If you had responded to my question I would have been able to have read the legal rulings.  I regularly read and understand court rulings. 

          Without a citation from you I have no idea as to your point of reference and I cannot check it out.  Well, perhaps I misunderstood you.

          
          
           
       2. 

          Gregory Matthews

          26 July 2014 at 11:48 pm

          William Noel:

          Here is the deal:  I have had that statement made to me multiple times.  Each time I have asked the question that I asked you.  Never has anyone ever given me a citation.  I have always been told to look for it myself.

          Where is there documentation that I can read that will give me the background of alleged civil action against clergy for the reason you suggest?

           
18. 

    Steve Ferguson

    26 July 2014 at 1:12 am

    Bugs:' 'Facts don't ultimately matter to belief once established. They are screened, sorted, analyzed, and carefully selected as a buttress to belief. It is the claim, not the veracity that is primary.'

    Does that mean you think all religions are equally valid then?  Including those where people fly planes into skyscrapers, or the man gets multiple teenage wives, or where widows must throw themselves on the pyres of their deceased husbands, or where the poor, sick and outcast untouchable is deserving what they get for something bad done in a previous life?

    How then do we judge a religion then?  Is accident of birth enough, because that sounds like a pretty poor excuse.  And it also belies the fact that a huge part of humanity does change its religion over one's lifetime, so there is obvious a choice here.  So how do we choose, and why choose Jesus and not Richard Dawkins Flying Spagetti monsters. 
    1. 

       Bugs-Larry Boshell

       26 July 2014 at 4:26 pm

       Validity of a belief system is not the issue here. I'm discussing the evolution of individual belief. Introduction to a belief system has many possible avenues, often the one introduced at birth. The point is that once an ideology has been established and mentally accepted by a person he tends to mutate from a searcher to a defender. Factors, including ego, builds a rampart for protection from challenge. It's a new game with different rules.

        

       My statement "Facts don't ultimately matter to belief once established…" is illustrated easily by the commitment to Adventism in spite of flawed and erroneous doctrines. Mormonism is also an excellent example. Factual challenges are ignored by true believers. Who has seen the golden plates or the heavenly sanctuary?

        

        The hypothetical choice between Jesus and "Flying Spaghetti," gets a "yes" answer.

        

        The question you ask "are all religions are equally valid then?" Gets an "I don't know" answer.
19. 

    Steve Ferguson

    26 July 2014 at 1:19 am

    Bugs: 'The translated Gospels of Judas and Mary are example of the scrutiny and disdain challenges to orthodoxy receive.'

    The early Church had to grapple with this exact issue – it is not a new problem.  There was no NT Bible before the Gnostic Marcion of Sinope created his own heavily edited version, leading the 'proto-orthodox' to create the cannon we have today. It was a very difficult period of time insofar as there were no 'official' authorised scriptures of the NT, many different competing claims, and a tendency for people to 'invent' their own scriptures and attribute it to an Apostle. 

    So how did they do it – how did they choose what got into the NT cannon?  Did they simply exclude the parts they didn't 'like', as you seem to suggest. No, that is not how I understand it happening.

    Ironically, the NT cannon was very much dominated by the formulation of the principle of Apostolic Succession and Tradition – concepts that get a bad wrap today.  When confronted with a choice between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mary, the various Church leaders knew that say John came from actual John.  

    The major bishops (originally meaning head elder) had been appointed directly by the Apostles, or their Master bishop had been appointed by the Apostle directly in perpetual succession.  By contrast, there was no one to vouch for the Gospel of Mary, and the Gnostic leader promoting it hadn't been appointed by the Apostles or Apostles-in-succession.

    So there was a clear historical and evidenciary basis for the selection of the NT.  New discoveries do impact modern Christianity.  For example, a number of denominations did fairly recently alter their liturgies based on the finding of the Didache. 
20. 

    Ella M

    26 July 2014 at 1:44 am

    Ernesto:
    I wish I had time to read all the comments, but I don't. I did read your blog which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle here.
       I would like to thank you for honestly expressing how you feel, and you have a right to those feelings. I can only hope his message gets to those who have bullied anyone they think is different. I can't say I understand your particular issue, but many, maybe all, have issues that set us apart. For me it was ADD, but I didn't know it; I was told to just "cheer-up" or stop "being afraid" "you can't be a Christian if you are afraid, "pay attention."
        As in your case, it is particularly painful if one is labeled as a great sinner for just existing.
        Being different includes everything from mental illnesses, disabiliaties, and birth defects to acne. Today in evangelical churches the fad is to bully LGBTIQ (what does "Q" include?) persons as if they chose their identity as such.
        I'm on your side, Ernesto.
        Ask yourself the following question if it helps:  What percentage of church members caused you problems?  Was it 90%? 50%? 20%?  Or was it under ten people? Under five?  It can only take one or two to make us miserable and have  power over our lives.  But thank you for helping others.
21. 

    Ella M

    26 July 2014 at 2:03 am

    Who is Harold Thomas? Where do I find this offensive epistle?  (I don't have kids either! Am I part of his great sinners' group?)
22. 

    geosaxon

    26 July 2014 at 7:33 pm

    Good to hear from Larry Boshell.

    I think about the state of the Hebrew people in about 450 BCE. They had been taken captive, transported from their homeland, and had become an endangered tribe. The Old Testament was apparently put together about that time. A major reason for the effort, but not the only one, was to preserve the heritage and the identity of the tribe. The editors at that time had very good, but tribal reasons for making the prohibitions that were made in Leviticus and Exodus. The survival of the tribe depended very much upon continued procreation within their community. This reason was one (only?) reason why there were prohibitation against the lifestyles of what has been referred to as the LGBTIQ group. The general attitude of the captors about "Our God is better than your God because we won the war and made you all slaves" is a reason for the argument that Genesis 1 was written and appended to the Bible at about thime. The book "Who Wrote the Bible" discusses some of the feelings of helplessness and desertation displayed by many (most?) of the captives.

    Obviously anyone's position on these issues depends upon their own  particular world view. I am a qualified Thiest, in that I believe in God, that He created the Universe and everything in it, that God is Good, that He does not lie, that He desires a relationship with each of us, and that the Bible is  a collection of stories and experiences of Hebrews as told and edited by various persons who may have had an agenda, but I discount anything written there that conflicts with the previous premises which I wrote above.

    George Saxon
    1. 

       Bugs-Larry Boshell

       26 July 2014 at 10:37 pm

       When I recently saw your name I wondered if you are the George Saxon of Texas, classmate from Union College! Must be!
23. 

    Sturmy

    02 August 2014 at 9:30 am

    Not much to say here except to say a good article Ernesto Espinoza.
    We are such sad individuals. We all live on a spectrum, we are all damaged goods in need of a Saviour. Frankly I sometimes think God owes the world an apology for the church which is anything but the fragrance of Christ in the world. Accept of course an institution by name is not the true church. The true church are the waifs and strays and the persecuted and the dispossessed and the many troubled souls, and the tolerant and the kind. Bring on the Kingdom.

    I don't know who Thomas Harold is but His article is confused tosh, I would say more but I won't  spare the time to read it again to comment further.
    S
    1. 

       William Noel

       02 August 2014 at 1:10 pm

       Amen!!!

Comments are closed.