What does the Christian God want from us?

No need to read it, but you can take a cursory glance at it and decide for yourself if this is not exactly what you describe (first printed in 1996).

Conversations with God

My cousin is a devout follower of Neale Donald Walsch. We have had many 'conversations' about it, and he always ends up leaving the conversation to get back to me when I explain to him what the Bible says about 'X'.

Mind you, I am not putting you down for this belief in any way, shape, or form. I, like Chip, disagree with you whole-heartedly, but for different reasons. However, I certainly respect your views on it.

The question the my cousin has yet to answer is: How did the Bible prophets accurately explain the future? I am talking about historical fact, verified by outside sources apart from the Bible. His answer to me is, the god head interrupted the 'experience' to liven up the 'game'. But, if that is the case, then the god head is cheating. If the whole reason is to experience a form of existence apart from the omniscient, why would he contaminate it with reality? My cousin does not have an answer for that...

I truly am enjoying this thread though, thank you all!

I'll have to answer that with a firm "I don't know" at present. I recall pulling some pretty good stunts once upon a time, but damned if right now, the only way I can levitate my water glass is by having my hand do it.

Yeah, as I was noting, Hyman pointed out that there was indeed significant statistical variance from chance, but that in itself is not enough for a positive conclusion about what is going on.

It certainly adds to the drahma, anyway.

You're citing "Psychic Dectives" as proof?

I stand by my original assesment (i.e. selective memory) and cite bits from your link as evidence:



and

Yeah, when I went back to respond to it, it had gone. But since I'm god it was really all my fault, sorry.

Agreed! One of the more fascinating hypothesis I've heard, and certainly as valid as any other about a higher power. I thought it was a really cool concept.

waves a magic wand...

Isn't that the basics of Buddhism?

Can't leave that sort of stuff lying about, can we

As for your own posting, Ananda, fascinating. The second two are just interesting memory leaks, but the first smells significant and may be something I understand, but viewed from a different direction. Language so different from my own. I'll think on that one.

Swine. I didn't really want it left there. Kill it tomorrow please, Zuzu, when discussion dies down ? Go on - be a pal

As for Buddhism, maybe. I know little to nothing of it. My "no reading of significance" policy.

I like Krishna being equally willing to play your lover or your enemy in hinduism. That sneaked through

I think that supreme beings should be merciful.

Which of us is playing the role in this case ? You mean you'll erase it later? I kneel to thee in anticipatory gratitude oh Almighty ZuZu. (The name's good !)

Gee - that was almost magical - see - prayers are answered.......

Gnight all you lovely people. Its 1:33 am - I'm off to bed. Thanks for a chat about things I don't normally talk about. Good to remind oneself of the basics now and again, particularly when life is a bit fraught.

It's 11 o'clock. Do you know where your gods are?

~Ulrika~

Pooping.

Hmmm, dunno... it was the sort of creation as a result of a supreme being's disassociative disorder. I like the anti-hero angle. I'm not well versed enough in Buddhism to draw comparisons.

I couldn't really say either. I've read a number of stories about the life of the Buddha, but haven't delved that deeply into the tenets of it. Something about it doesn't seem to translate all that well, or maybe it's just that unlike religions where a literalist interpretation of the texts is pushed, Buddhism gets interpreted by its followers each in their own way.

-----

A corollary for you, Ellie, in case you get back to this in the morning. It was touched on above. If you think the first part is not for the timid, this part really can make people uncomfortable.

If we are eternal beings, and everything we experience as reality is something we create or agree to, then we are complicit in all the horrible things that happen to us.

An eternal being cannot be affected by anything unless he agrees to it. The horrors of this world, all the deaths, rapes, tragedies of every kind, none of them would happen to you unless you participate in them.

What does this mean for our modern culture of victimhood? What does it mean for believers of monotheistic religions that claim that God is responsible for everything? Accept this proposition and you have nowhere to hide. You've got no one else but yourself to blame, ultimately. Sure, on the scale of the day-to-day game, other people really are doing shit, but you could no longer claim to be powerless in the face of it. When you look out at the world and see all the atrocities being committed, all the suffering, you can't really just shrug anymore and say, "What can I do? I'm just a little fellow." Accept this and you realize the responsibility you face.

Is it any wonder people turn and run the other way?

I did a little refresher reading. To over-simplify, Buddhism is the practice of individuals seeking to attain enlightenment - realization of true self (or non-self, depending on your interpretation) and freedom from the endless cycle of birth, suffering, and death.

Here's a ponder for you that might be a bit more helpful than the usual one-hand-clapping drill:

Anything that you can point to as being a part of you is not you.

Ellie's (sadly now missing) philosophy is actually akin to the Vedic hymns, the most ancient part of Hinduism. In particular, Brahman. The idea that all existence flows from one, the universal consciousness.

-----

Btw, further down on that page is this term which is where my own name comes from:

The phrase that is seen to be the only possible (and still thoroughly inadequate) description of Brahman that humans, with limited minds and being, can entertain is the Sanskrit word Sacchidānanda, which is combined from sat-chit-ānanda, meaning "truth - knowledge - bliss".

Interestingly, if you reject any notion of fate, god, kharma, and the like, and draw your sense of ethics and morality sheerly from a sense of personal responsibility and empathy, you don't have anyone else to blame for your actions or the way your life turns out but yourself either.

Something I've never quite understood about Christianity is that it claims the moral high ground while believing someone else already atoned for their wrongs. Sorta "the buck stops over there!" How does it inspire ethical behavior to believe you have a get out of jail free card that remains good no matter what you do? Any Christians care to offer some perspective on that?

Oh, and Ananda... that's really cool about your name. I've always really liked it and didn't know it had a specific source.

I give a poke at it...

Christians have truly been given a 'get out jail free card'. But that also means that once we receive this, we must change and conform to something other than what this world teaches us. We must no longer be selfish. For we are to become like Christ. We are to put others before ourselves, others needs above our own. And yes, Christians ARE responsible for ALL of their actions, whether intentional or not.

Unfortunately Chip, Christians are just as human as anyone else. Not only that, but we do claim a 'moral high ground'. In doing so, we are scrutinized much more stringently than others (and rightly so). But, we are far from perfect (very very far). We have a vision (or should) of what we are to be, and that is Christ-like. If we can do that, then we do have a moral high ground to stand on. But, standing on that high ground means that we have that much further to fall (which we all do, sometimes publicly, but more often, privately). At that point, we must repent and ask for forgiveness of God and those we have offended. Too often, Christians are prideful and selfish and don't do this. Offending God or your brother out of selfishness is wrong, no matter the situation, and most certainly constitutes sin. Something all Christians should strive to never do.

I understand that you feel the Bible is so much non-sense, but if you do truly look for the answer to your question above, take a moment to read these few scriptures below to get some sense of what the Christian Bible has to say on the matter.

Romans 5:8-10 (AMP)
8 But God shows and clearly proves His [own] love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for us.
9 Therefore, since we are now justified ( acquitted, made righteous, and brought into right relationship with God) by Christ's blood, how much more [certain is it that] we shall be saved by Him from the indignation and wrath of God.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, it is much more [certain], now that we are reconciled, that we shall be saved (daily delivered from sin's dominion) through His [resurrection] life.

Romans 6:1-2 (AMP)
1 WHAT SHALL we say [to all this]? Are we to remain in sin in order that God's grace (favor and mercy) may multiply and overflow?
2 Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer?

Romans 6:5-6 (AMP)
5 For if we have become one with Him by sharing a death like His, we shall also be [one with Him in sharing] His resurrection [by a new life lived for God].
6 We know that our old (unrenewed) self was nailed to the cross with Him in order that [our] body [which is the instrument] of sin might be made ineffective and inactive for evil, that we might no longer be the slaves of sin.

1 John 4:7-8 (AMP)
7 Beloved, let us love one another , for love is (springs) from God; and he who loves [his fellowmen] is begotten (born) of God and is coming [progressively] to know and understand God [to perceive and recognize and get a better and clearer knowledge of Him].
8 He who does not love has not become acquainted with God [does not and never did know Him], for God is love.

Philippians 2:3-5 (AMP)
3 Do nothing from factional motives [through contentiousness, strife, selfishness, or for unworthy ends] or prompted by conceit and empty arrogance. Instead, in the true spirit of humility (lowliness of mind) let each regard the others as better than and superior to himself [thinking more highly of one another than you do of yourselves].
4 Let each of you esteem and look upon and be concerned for not [merely] his own interests, but also each for the interests of others.
5 Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus: [Let Him be your example in humility:]

Matthew 20:26-27 (AMP)
26 Not so shall it be among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant ,
27 And whoever desires to be first among you must be your slave —

...

and the message of salvation give by christains arent forced on people well at least its not suppoed to be but rather a choice, but people can make laws how they see fit God dose not need to be defended becuase if some one changes His word it dosent change God him self but instead that one is calling Him a liar.

No one in the christan faith is forced to join or stay and if they are can the really be doing Gods work, no becuase you are not forced to stop your habits nor my habits are forced to stop but we are still accountable for our actions its always been about choice. Even saved people can do evil things but then you have to say did they beleive it them self. No becuase salvation is a inward change inwhich you reject anything that might influence you such as mind altering drugs. Do so what you wish of you selves beccause no one will force to do something you dont want to do but no one is forced to take part in your actions either.

Matthew 7:16
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew 7:20
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Romans 6:21
What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?

Proverbs 1:31
Therefore shall they eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

In asking forgiveness for the kinds of Christian "sins" you outline, you are asking us to ignore an incredibly significant moral yardstick of evidence and measurement that Christ himself supposedly established.

The disconnect between one and the other leaves us with a single, binary choice: Either Christianity is mythic, literary, and virtual - which is to say, not "real" - or you, nearly every Christian who posts on these forums, and virtually everyone who claims to be a Christian, is not a Christian - and is, in fact, self-deluded.

Such is are the conundrums you get into when you claim a "special knowledge."

Why do people judge the teachings of Christ by the actions of some who claim to be followers of Christ?

If someone is a follower of Christ, he/she will try to follow Christ's example(which is non-judgemental except for Christ's anger with the money changers). To verify a person is actually trying to follow Christ, one can look at how the person emulates Christ. This is the fruit of the Spirit:

Galatians 5:22-23 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.



If the teachings of Christ seem correct, why not follow them and ignore the actions of those who claim to be Christians but don't act like Christ. If the teachings are wrong, don't follow them.

Thanks for the answers, Kurgan and Kevn. I can't say that it makes any more sense to me now, though. I think I will always have problems with Christianity and feel it's a morally flawed system.

I don't want anyone to take responsibility for my actions. I don't want forgiveness. I want not to need it in the first place. I don't need to be bribed or threatened to be a good person. I want to be good to my fellow human beings for their sake rather than mine. If good deeds are done only to avoid being tortured by god or to win a heavenly reward then none of it can be considered selfless. Behind all of it is a selfish motive. Compare that to the atheist. If he is good it is only to be good. If he is kind, it is only to be kind. If he is ethical, it is only because he believes he owes as much to others as they do to him. He expects no reward and fears nothing but his conscience. He sees everyone as his equal and bows to no one.

I can't help but feel that any system of morality that depends on a carrot and a stick is cheapened by it. I could never ask anyone to die for my wrongs, nor could I ever accept it if someone took it upon themselves to do it anyway. The whole concept is morally reprehensible to me. Say you come home from work one day and find your neighbor's son nailed to a tree in your front yard. Seeing your shock and horror, your neighbor explains that by killing his son he has given you immortality. What would you do? Personally, I'd call the cops, testify against him in court, and hope they locked him up for a very long time, even if I knew his claim was true. How could I worship a god that demonstrates less morality than I expect from myself?