“They must find it difficult… Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.” ~Gerald Massey
It’s about time I fess up. I’m not Christian, I don’t subscribe to any religion, and I’m not an atheist. I can’t be sure there is or is not a god and dogma upsets me for a variety of reasons. As some Buddhist said, “If you cling to an idea as the inalterable truth, then when the truth does come in person and knock at your door, you will not be able to open the door and accept it.”
As far as I can tell, no one is trying to convince me to see things their way. And I’m not trying to convince anyone to stop supporting what they support (even if it is an organization that covers up child molestation by their leaders). Ok, that dig aside, do what you want. Sure, I have religious friends. I also have friends who are into sports. I feel lucky that no one holds it against me that I’m not into their thing or forces me to talk about the stuff they like.
Although I was raised Catholic, I have always been agnostic. What I mean is that I don’t ever recall believing Jesus Christ was the son of god or the lord and savior in human form. Sure, I thought he said some nice things. But the virgin birth? Riiight. Good one, Mary. For selling that story you have won yourself the Best Actress of All Time Award. Your prize? Followers who praise you over 2000 years later. Bravo.
So, this is why I say I’m not a Christian. I just don’t buy details of the Jesus story that are at the crux of being Christian. And I’m unwilling to take a “leap of faith” to believe them. What’s the payoff for suspending my reason? I get eternal life? It doesn’t make sense that only believers go to heaven. It makes economic sense that religious leaders would tell you that though. If I believe, I get to be a part of a religious community? That’s a deterrent if ever there was one.
I’m completely content to take personal responsibility for my life. Furthermore, I believe I can be a good person without the threat of brimstone or the lure of eternal life. I can be fulfilled without prayer, sacramental blessings, acts of contrition, or the grace of god. I don’t even know what “the grace of god” means.
I’m not a philosophical, theological, or intellectual slouch. I can dig Buddha, Jesus, the Dalai Lama, Lao Tzu as much as Jung, Thoreau, Einstein, and Darwin. Ok, I’m especially into the existentialists and the Buddhists. Still, I’m not joining their clubs.
I studied world religions (Zeitgeist will give you an example of the courses I took). But that study only solidified my agnostic resolve. Religions are all the same. Sure there are differences. The devil’s in details, I guess. But at the bare bones, I can’t discern one from another. But I like the stories. I love that trickster character. The creation stories, meh. The Wandering Jew is cool. Lot? Yikes. Horrible. Some of the tales are better than others but none hold a candle to the Brother’s Grimm.
Being agnostic works for me. And I suspect most people settle in with what works for them because of their nature or nurture. It would be as natural for me to go to church and believe in the virgin birth as it would be for other people to abandon their community and question the tenets of their religion. I get that.
I don’t necessarily want people to be agnostic with me. But I tried to be religious and I tried to be spiritual, so I wouldn’t mind if people tried my thing. It’s easy. Say, “there’s no way to know what’s going to happen after death and the things in life that I can’t explain have explanations that are currently beyond my grasp.” When the big questions come to mind, try to develop explanations that don’t include a santa-like god. It’s fun and you get to do whatever you want on Sunday.
I don’t mean to sound as if I’m making light of something someone else believes. I’m all for respecting the faith of others. I’m an American, after all. The roots of religious tolerance run deep. So, say your prayers, turn in a circle three times, light a candle, and invite me to your Seder. I love the rituals and ceremonies of the faithful, especially when they involve food. However, if you want me to believe that splashing water on a child protects her from eternal hell, I’ll have to respectfully decline. I might be wrong. And I’m open to that possibility.
messiestobjects said,
January 24, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Formula for Christianity: The Bible is God’s literal truth, so all you have to do is believe the Bible, or you’re going to hell. We know that this is true, for the Bible tells us so.
julieluongo said,
January 24, 2009 at 7:07 pm
But god didn’t write the bible. It was written by people. Hence, it doesn’t follow that the bible is the word of god. (I asked this question often in Sunday school. My teacher thought I was brain damaged.)
messiestobjects said,
January 25, 2009 at 12:04 am
Oh but God DID write the Bible. He used human tools of course, but he wrote it through them. Divine Inspiration, it’s called. We know this, of course, because the Bible tells us so.
julieluongo said,
January 25, 2009 at 12:09 am
Maybe god used me as a tool to write this blog. Why not? Wait a sec…I think something is coming to me…yes…god says “hey.”
messiestobjects said,
January 25, 2009 at 12:13 am
No he didn’t, because I’m pretty sure the Bible doesn’t mention your blog anywhere. You can only be Divinely Inspired if you’ve been dead for like 2000 years. Divine Inspiration technology hasn’t been able to catch up since then.
julieluongo said,
January 25, 2009 at 12:18 am
Neale Donald Walsch begs to differ as does Joseph Smith.
messiestobjects said,
January 25, 2009 at 11:21 am
Of course they do. They’re false prophets. Anyone who claims to speak to god after the Bible was finished is a false prophet. God put that cap on Divine Inspiration technology. I know this because the Bible tells me so.
Gary said,
January 25, 2009 at 3:14 pm
You know, there are too many definitions of agnosticism and atheism.
I tend to think of agnostic as someone who says we CAN’T know if there’s a god or not. Not just not knowing. On wikipedia this is described as “strong agnosticism.” I like this definition because it’s different than atheism, which can contain agnosticism.
I consider myself an atheist, though I never say “there are no gods” – though that’s what every religious person says ALL atheists say (though when the vast majority of “strong atheists” say that that there is no god they’re talking about the god of the bible and the big three religions).
I think a lot of people claim agnosticism because atheism has this horrible stigma associated with the commies. And because religious people always claim that all atheists believe that there is no god – that way they can go “AH HA! You have an irrational belief as well!”
messiestobjects said,
January 26, 2009 at 10:41 am
Well Gary, you make very good, rational points but it doesn’t matter how logical you are, I will always tend to think of agnostics and atheists as varying degrees of the same thing; Hellbait! I know this because the Bible tells me so.
Christy said,
January 26, 2009 at 11:26 am
I’m shocked.
julieluongo said,
January 26, 2009 at 11:36 am
If I say “there’s no way of knowing” but also say “we might someday know and I’m open to that” what am I then? A venti agnostic with pagan rising?
Honestly, though, I do look to either side of me – at the faithful and the non-believers and I think that their certitude is misguided. Enviable, in a way, but unfounded. How are you all so sure one way or the other? I mean, you don’t really know if there is or is not a god. If it makes you feel better to believe or scoff at believers, then go ahead. But, you don’t really know the truth.
julieluongo said,
January 26, 2009 at 11:51 am
I know, Christy. It’s going to take some time for this new information to sink in. But eventually you’ll find a way to reconcile it with the Julie you know. You might feel better if you pray for me.
Gary said,
January 26, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Julie, what I was trying to say is you’re also an atheist, but you won’t say it because of the stigma. THE STIGMA!!
messiestobjects said,
January 26, 2009 at 5:06 pm
What Gary is trying to say is that Atheists don’t actually state unequivocally that there is no God, only that they don’t believe in religion or it’s Gods and that if any data came in from the Hubble Telescope proving God’s existence why then your average Atheist would be happy to re-evaluate. Of course this is a pack of nonsense because Atheists are Godless liars who want you to think that Atheism is cool and that all the kids are doing it, and they want you all to burn in hell along with them. I know this because the Bible tells me so.
julieluongo said,
January 26, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Borges describes it well … “Being an agnostic means all things are possible, even God, even the Holy Trinity. This world is so strange that anything may happen, or may not happen. Being an agnostic makes me live in a larger, a more fantastic kind of world, almost uncanny. It makes me more tolerant.”
If agnostics are atheists, then ok. I’m an atheist. But I like the finer point “agnostic” puts to my non-belief. If it’s good enough for Darwin, it’s good enough for me.
Joey O said,
January 27, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Hey Julie
Nice to “see” you on here and thank you for sharing your post!
Did you know that Darwin renounced his theory of evolution and acknowledged Jesus Christ as Savior at the end of his life? http://www.thaipope.org/books/edarwin.pdf
I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus is exactly who He says that He is.
He said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life and no man comes to the Father except by Me” and many other things like “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father” and many other claims that, if they were untrue, He would have been a very arrogant (and crazy) person.
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made by Him and for Him. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
It is a personal thing for me, I guess you have to experience it but all I can say is that He showed me so if you question Him as Creator, God and Savior…just ask Him and I just know that He will show you!
So good to know you Julie! Thanks for sharing and accepting our comments!
Joey O
julieluongo said,
January 27, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Oh, no, Joey O, thank you for sharing. I always want to pick the brains of Christians. So…that said…how do you know Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, the life…” and on and on. I mean, why believe anything reported about him knowing what you know about how information is corrupted over time? Even a game of whisper down the lane will show you this phenomenon. Plus, history is written by the victors. Just look at the “discovery” of America, a land full of people when Europeans got here. I mean, you’ve got to be suspicious of historical accounts. Especially ones that far off.
julieluongo said,
January 27, 2009 at 10:48 pm
And that Lady Hope story is generally considered false, so says wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope
Christy said,
January 28, 2009 at 12:10 am
Did you know Jesus recanted his theory that he was the son of god on his death bed?
Joey O said,
January 28, 2009 at 11:01 am
Dearest Julie,
I believe by faith and by a personal relationship that I have with Him aside from the fact of the numerous documents found in different places all saying basically the same things but I knew Him before I knew of the “validity”of the historical documents. Biblical prophecy has never been wrong foretelling His birth, things he was to suffer, death, resurrection and second coming (stay tuned!)
Even denying the historical person Jesus is a bit ridiculous, wouldn’t you say? We even measure time by His name, His name is a popular swear word, (how absurd that is), etc.
As far as whisper down the alley is concerned, I suppose that could be applied to Lady Hope, Columbus, Darwin or anything else, (how do I even know that it is you writing this blog, etc.) but my experience and observing the incredible Creation that we live in and are, the Word of God is exactly that. He made the whole Universe so a book is no big deal for Him.
If unbelievers are right, we are all okay, but if I’m right…woe to the unbeliever.
Love and friendship,
Joey O
julieluongo said,
January 28, 2009 at 11:52 am
My problems with the bible are so many. Take just a simple passage from Timothy that says “All those who are under the yoke of slavery must have unqualified respect for their masters, so that the name of God and our teaching is not brought into disrepute.”
I take the two hypothesis about the bible (1. written by god 2. written by man for social control) and ask myself which seems more likely in this scenario. Who is benefiting from the obedience of slaves to their masters? God? Not really. Men bent on controlling others? Yep.
Ok, so if there are enough of these example, which there are for me, then a literal interpretation of the bible is out. That puts everything on much squishier ground, which is where you are with how you “knew” Him before you knew anything about Him. I’m guessing that this knowing is a feeling you have, which is fair enough. But I ask then about the nature of feelings. How do they manifest in the body? It’s possible that they are from chemicals in the brain that I don’t have many of and some people have an abundance of. Some neurotheology experiments support this theory (such as the God Helmet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Gary said,
January 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I expect my sister to show up here any minute now.
Gary said,
January 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Woe to you O Earth And Sea!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2156666961970513622
Still awesome 27 years later! hahahaha
messiestobjects said,
January 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Or what about the one where two strange men come to Lot’s house in Sodom? All the locals bang on Lot’s door and say, “Hey Lot! Throw those two strange men out here so we can have hot gay rape with them!” Then Lot says, “Um, no. Take my daughters instead.” It would be shameful to give the crowd two strange men he just met to rape, but his own flesh and blood? They’re only girls, hell with ‘em. And you know what? God’s like, totally cool with that.
The Bible was a collection of scattered, unrelated writings until the CATHOLIC church decided, in 382 AD, which books were good, and which were apocryphal. So, millions of Christians are basing their faith based on what some ex-pharisees decided would work for them. It’s completely ridiculous. Also, if you really believe in Divine Inspiration, the Bible itself seems to admit that it has become corrupted. Somewhere in Revelations, there is a verse that says something along the lines of “He who adds to the words of this book will die a million horrible bloody deaths for all eternity, and he who takes away from the words of this book will wish his mother never kissed his father etc… etc.” It doesn’t say the Bible won’t be changed, it says that the guy that does is majorly screwed.
Anyway, Jesus doesn’t really call himself the son of God, you know. He calls himself the Son of Man. But this is all beside the point. The point is, the Biblical view of the Universe has been scientifically disproven in so many ways, so many times, and the Church is so slow to catch on, that when Christians try to use science to back their faith, it looks ridiculous. Just recently, the Church issued a formal apology to Galileo. 500 years from now, they’ll be saying oops, sorry, stem cell research was all good. Christians rarely look further than their own propagandist literature to back any claims that there’s some science out there that proves their faith. The Darwin thing is a perfect case in point. It takes about 5 seconds of internet research to find out that the claim that Darwin converted is completely bogus.
And you know what? Even if he had, so what? That’s not proof of anything. Loads of people convert on their death bed. Darwin was quite religious as a youth. It was through his love of God’s creation that he became a naturalist, wanting to find out about God’s creatures. The inescapable facts which nature present during a vigorous scientific study convinced this pious man that evolution was the tool which God used, and led him to realize that religion was a lie. But, if he faced death and decided to convert as insurance at the last moment, what of it? He did not do that, but if he did, all it would have proven is that he wasn’t a betting man, in the end. His life’s work is the only proof that matters.
Joey O said,
January 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Jesus said, “I AM.”
I don’t know if Darwin’s profession of faith is true or not but we will all find out, I can assure you of that. Anyone can observe and hypothesize about what God has done in His Creation but He (The Lord) still will get all of the credit one day. I don’t care if I hung around and watched someone build their house from the ground up, studied the plans, photographed every angle, etc., it means nothing unless the information was used to recognize the one who did the work.
And previous post, Jesus more than says He is the Son of God:
(JOHN 10:36 NKJ 36 “do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,’ because I said, `I am the Son of God’?)
If any of you doubt that, you’d better take that up with Him because one day, we will all be on our knees before him either sanctified or condemned, everyone of us,
no kidding!
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
Here lies the problem. We are are sinful by nature. Anyone who says differently is a liar (sorry, but it’s true.) God offers a plan of salvation for all of us who turn from our evil ways and believe. You don’t have to teach a child how to throw a tantrum, they already know how. Good morals and values need to be instilled. God is love and the whole book is filled with it. That and His Holy Spirit still alive and well on the Earth are the only things that is preventing total chaos today.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
As far as Gerald Massey’s statement, he is right on when seen from the perspective that the Truth is indeed a person and that person is Jesus Christ.
Best wishes!
Joey O said,
January 28, 2009 at 4:49 pm
(oops, typo) That and His Holy Spirit still alive and well on the Earth are the only things that are preventing total chaos today.
messiestobjects said,
January 28, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Descartes said “I think, therefore I am.”
Again, you’re using the Bible as your argument. The Bible was handed to you by a group of old men who wanted social control. Outside of that corrupted document, you don’t have a leg to stand on. That’s like me saying, I wrote this book, and everything in it is absolute truth. I know because God told me in a dream that this is true. If you don’t believe me, you’re going to hell.
The only things which your God gave to humanity to show for himself are the universe itself, and our hearts and minds. So far, science has done a %1000 better job of explaining these works to us than your religion. Your religion has helped to prolong the medieval darkness of humanity for centuries. I don’t think it’s a sin for us to know that the sun is a big ball of burning gas or that insanity is not in fact demon possession.
Also, I did some research, and it turns out you’re right, Jesus did refer to himself as the Son of God, 6 times. The original meanings of these translations are extremely debatable, but whatever. I don’t care enough to argue that point because it doesn’t matter to me. If I’m ever convinced that the Bible is anything more than propaganda written by ex-pharisees, and perpetuated by the Catholic church (i.e. ex-pharisees), then I’ll consider it.
As a good example of how little veracity you should give anything the Bible says, the original Hebrew word for Sin can equally be translated as ‘mistake’, and repentance as ‘reflection’.
The word sin derives from Old English synn, recorded in use as early as the 9th century. The same root appears in several other Germanic languages, e.g. Old Norse synd, or German Sünde. There is presumably a Germanic root *sun(d)jō (literally “it is true”).
But in the biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to error, to miss the mark. It does not mean to do evil.
The Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) is usually translated as sin in the New Testament. In Classical Greek, it means “to miss the mark” or “to miss the target” which was also used in Old English archery.[4] In Koine Greek, which was spoken in the time of the New Testament.
It seems that some fun wordplay by old Catholic scholars can pretty easily completely change the meaning of Biblical text without breaking a sweat.
Also, the reason Moses didn’t want his followers to eat pork was because there was no refrigeration in the desert in whatever BC. Eat pork, get trichinosis and die. Also also also also. It doesn’t matter what I say though, I know this. The Bible is in your heart and no amount of logic can shake it, good for you and your steadfastness.
But if you can stop quoting scripture and give me a real argument besides feelings and anecdotal evidence, at least I could believe that you had an actual reason for what you believe.
messiestobjects said,
January 28, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Oh, you also don’t have to teach a child how to love it’s mother, so clearly we are born in love as well. You do, however, have to teach a child how to interpret the Bible your way.
Gary said,
January 28, 2009 at 6:05 pm
This is funny
messiestobjects said,
January 28, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I know. And pointless. I can’t help myself, it’s a psychosis.
Joey O said,
January 28, 2009 at 10:35 pm
If it is pointless, I doubt that you would invest the time and if it is pointless to you then maybe you shouldn’t.
The bottom line here is this…You either believe Jesus is who He says He is, or you don’t. That’s up to you.
Joey O said,
January 28, 2009 at 11:54 pm
As far as Descartes thoughts…they hardly compare to Jesus statement,
“I AM” …period…nothing follows, just “I Am.” No one else has ever made that claim (with any validity) and the quote you shared “I think, therefore I am” is just a paraphrased version of “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” Proverbs 23:7 which came long before Descartes so you can credit the bible with that as well.
Jesus said, “Unless you become like little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Intellect…that is a big problem in the world and goes hand in hand with pride (which comes before a fall, of course.)
There is nothing wrong with science observing that the sun is a big burning ball of gas…God made science (and it is really awesome) and every other thing that exists but the idea that a monkey evolved into a person and had an original thought and created things like lasers and microchips is absurd. They are still sucking on bananas and they always will be (but gosh aren’t they cute!) The theory of random evolution is absolutely ridiculous and more and more “intelligent” scientists are realizing the inaccuracies of carbon dating, etc. and are turning to the bible for answers on how it all came to be.
I would encourage you to check out “Year of Darwin – A Creation Perspective” at http://www.answersingenesis.org/ along with many other interesting topics.
As far as the sin issue goes, you can call it whatever you want to; Murder, adultery, theft, sexual immorality, lying, hatred, pride, etc. and I really don’t know what your point about the pork was.
It’s interesting though that you use the word Pharisee so much. If you really do your homework you will find that Jesus calls them a brood of vipers (snakes) so I doubt very highly that any so called Pharisees that you speak of would want to make themselves look anymore foolish than they already have by creating this book as you say. Contrary to what you believe regarding the reason the book was created, Jesus was also vehemently against corrupt and organized religion and that is also contained in the texts.
Jesus said, “I did not come to bring peace on Earth, but a sword.”
What that means is, His knew that His teachings would cause division because people are not wanting to hear that that they have to turn, repent (actually means “change your mind.”)
Salvation is a free gift that He offers to all who believe and cannot be earned by “good works” (NOT by a religion or organized church) so make sure you do you homework regarding these facts as well. I grew up in a church that didn’t teach the bible and the message of salvation. Sure they had a bible on the podium etc. but all that they offered was a “works based,” “pay your way,” “guilt laying” religion which has NOTHING to do with Jesus and the very easy to understand message contained in the bible.
Oh sure, there are plenty of people/denominations who want to bend the Word to suit their own desires, fill their pockets or to not chase their congregations away, etc. but It’s really all about a personal relationship with The True and Living God and nobody can have that for you, that is something that you will need to experience for yourself.
It is like me trying to explain what something tastes like or sounds like to me. It’s personal man but all I can say is that it is good…real good and I don’t need to throw out a bunch of random supposedly accurate “historical” points to share my faith and I could share Greek and Hebrew translation with you until the cows come home. It is what it is and as you have the right to express your personal point of view, I’ve shared some of mine.
Jesus also said, “No man comes to me unless my Father draws him and I will raise him up on the last day.” When healing a blind person, a bystander said, “For whose sin is this man born blind, his or his parents?” and Jesus said, “Neither, It is so my Father could be glorified at this time” and then he healed the man. (Another example of Jesus referring to himself as the Son of God)….I hate to have to tell you, but it’s a lot more than six times…with all respect.
Thank YOU Julie for opening this dialogue. I still want to reply to your thoughts as well dear but I’ve got a full day of Web design tomorrow and then a concert to perform in the evening so I’m off to bed!
Thanks again and I LOVE your Website!
It is so great to be in touch with you! Thanks again for sharing!
Sincerely,
Joey
messiestobjects said,
January 29, 2009 at 1:20 am
Nope. 6 times. There are other references in the Bible to him being the son of God, but only 6 made by him directly.
* Matthew 26:63-64
* Mark 14:61-62 (equivalent expression)
* Luke 22:70
* John 5:25
* John 10:36
* John 11:4
My point about the pork is that the Bible is full of things which are interpreted to mean different things in this day and age than they were originally intended. Jews don’t eat pork out of religious obligation because of a law that Moses made in the desert before refrigeration.
I agree that Jesus was against organized religion… so why are you religious? Why is there a Church? Jesus came to put and end to organized religion, he considered it a yoke on man. My thing about the Pharisees is that they said, oh crap, this Christianity thing is catching on. We better own it. So they changed out their Pharisee robes for Pope robes and the popemobile, hacked and sliced some apocryphal desert prophet writings together and glommed them onto the Jewish Torah, called them the old and new testaments, and became the Catholic Church. Then Martin Luther happened, and the Church has been reinventing itself in a thousand different forms ever since. But everything you’ve ever learned about the Bible, all of your scripture quoting, all of the Jesus rhetoric that you use, is not original. You’ve said nothing I haven’t heard from a hundred other Christians, because you’re all using the same source material. The Pharisee’s Bible.
I know I’ll never convince you, because logic does not appeal to you, and you will never convince me, because anecdotal tales of feel-good Faith do not appeal to me. You say Intellect is a problem, but you know, according to you, God made us that way. I do not believe the Bible because it is external, handed down from one old fraud to another over many many generations. If God exists, then in reality the only thing he gave me with which to know him by is my mind and my senses, my intellect. If I choose to use them over blind faith, then I’ll spit in his eye on judgment day if he wants to send me to hell for guessing wrong.
SO I think we have to agree to disagree. You make a good point though, you should be talking to Julie, not me. I butted in and I really shouldn’t have… It’s a character defect of mine when it comes to this stuff. I just want to say that I don’t intend to be a jerk; I completely respect your right to your beliefs and I don’t mean to offend on a personal level. I have a knee-jerk reaction to religious debate that gets away from me sometimes. I’m going to bow out of this conversation at this point, but should you wish to continue, I’m not unwilling. Click on my handle and come visit me at my own blog. Otherwise, thanks for debating… one of my favorite pastimes!
Gary said,
January 29, 2009 at 8:42 am
Oh my lord jesus christ make it stop.
Joey O said,
January 29, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Eluding, directly; potato, patato; it’s principle that matters.
As far as the Church is concerned, He absolutely established it with Himself as the Head and we are the body. It’s not about a building. I do not worship organized religion though loving people where they are is important to me.
Regarding Catholicism, I went to Catholic school/church for more than 10 years, had priests as friends (not like the reports one hears about today) but I do not attend or believe in the man made aspects of their doctrine.
Christ is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation;
for in Christ all things were created, in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or authorities—
all things were created through Christ and for Christ.
Christ is before all things,
and in Christ all things hold together.
Christ is the head of the body, the church;
Christ is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,
that in everything Christ might be preeminent.
For in Christ all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
and through Christ all things are reconciled to God,
whether on earth or in heaven,
making peace by the blood of Christ’s cross.
Colossians 1:15-20
As far as interjecting my own opinion, “It is no longer I that lives but Christ that lives in me.” He has a lot more important things to share.
Heaven or Hell? Rejecting Christ is basically saying, “I don’t want to spend eternity with You Jesus,” but I believe that the opposite is a much better choice.
julieluongo said,
January 29, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I’m still not understanding why anyone would believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
Rejecting your intellect (using it to retrofit science to bible stories) is basically taking for granted one of the most useful tools we have. If it’s true that there is a god that cares about you, then this seems to be a huge affront to this gift. Using your mind to understand the world seems like the best thing you can do in this life.
Isn’t it possible that the bible is a man-made bunch of stories and the infinitely complex world is the actual “book” god made. I mean, it’s certainly more fitting of the idea of a creator to make things that follow set rules that can be understood by thinking people rather than a book of stories that could be corrupted and misunderstood. The god of the bible is contradictory and mean whereas the god of the universe is dispassionate and clever.
messiestobjects said,
January 29, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Beautifully put!
Joey O said,
January 29, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Hello Dear,
When I referred to intellect being a problem, I meant that intellect can be contrary to faith as faith is the evidence of things unseen, that’s all
Joey
Gary said,
January 29, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Julie you’re such a nice and reasonable person. You can’t think about God like that. He’s capricious. He’s a jealous God. He gets really pissed when his creation doesn’t behave. How can you attribute any logical attributes to him? Attributes that you think would make sense for him to have. It makes much more sense to just believe all the nonsense, because according to the nonsense God acts like an imperfect human being. You don’t expect your friends to act sensible at all times do you? Well I hope not. Just accept that God is like an abusive parent that you can never leave, and you’ll get along with him just fine. It makes sense to me. God said to not eat from the tree of knowledge, ie. don’t think think too much, don’t try to figure out how stuff works. Just accept that God won’t make sense. You’ll thank me later. Oh and God’s not liberal either. All those liberal churches and christians that think they know what God is all about are going straight to hell. Just read some Chick tracts. It’s the only stuff that makes any sense.
messiestobjects said,
January 29, 2009 at 7:21 pm
faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key
n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
So yes, Faith is the exact opposite of using your brains.
julieluongo said,
January 29, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Thanks, Gary. And since I am reasonable, I guess I’ll admit that I’ve been giving your atheist argument some thought and you’re right. I suppose I am an atheist. And I still want to call myself agnostic … because of the stigma. The stigma!
Gary said,
January 30, 2009 at 11:46 am
It’s cool. I’ll just keep calling myself an atheist, since everyone already thinks I’m a jerk.
Jennifer said,
February 3, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Sometimes when you try to pick a Christian brain, you don’t have a lot to work with. Sad, but true. I’ve often found non believers to be more willing to engage in intelligent discussion and debate, while true believers really just want to convince you to adopt their way of thinking. Inevitably, the conversation ends with, “I can’t convince you, you can’t convince me.” (If you’re lucky)
I always thought agnostics didn’t necessarily believe in the existance of god, but weren’t ruling it out, and atheists were wholly against god, denying his/her/their existance. Or maybe they’re just the people that watch a lot of football.
Gary said,
February 3, 2009 at 5:13 pm
There are basically two kinds of atheists. Type one doesn’t believe that there are any Gods (especially the God of the big three). Type two believes that there aren’t any Gods (especially the God of the big three). If that’s a hard distinction to understand, think of it this way. Religious person says to type one person, “Jesus is Lord.” Type one person answers “I don’t believe it. Show me some compelling evidence other than your book you’ve got there and the fact that tons of other people think it’s true.” Religious person says to type two person, “Jesus is Lord.” Type two person answers “Jesus and your lord don’t exist and have never existed and I can prove it with logic.”
Like I said earlier, religious types like to lump all atheists into the second type, because then they can say that all atheists also have a belief that they can’t prove with any evidence (faith). The first type is the skeptic’s position, which I think is wise because you don’t know or have a belief about the subject. The second type is harder to defend, but many people have spent a lot of time showing how the God of the big three is filled with so many logical contradictions that it’s existence must be impossible. I personally think the fewer beliefs you can have about anything the better, so I’m a type one person.
Btw – All Christians are atheists for every God and Goddess that ever existed in human culture, except for one.
julieluongo said,
February 3, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I think if it this way – there are believers in god/s. People who are certain. And they are of any faith with all sorts of names. And then there are people who are not certain about god and they fall under the atheist umbrella. Under this umbrella are agnostics, theological noncognitivists, secular humanists, antireligionists… It’s a bunch of semantics.
When I say I was thinking about it and I may have to go from agnostic to atheist it’s because while I say that anything is possible, I don’t really believe that. I find it highly unlikely that Jesus is the son of god and that there are a bunch of rules he wants us to follow or he’ll send us to hell. Ruling this out sort-of edges me out of the agnostic club.
Gary said,
February 3, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I win! 1 to nuthin’!
Rachel (the cousin) said,
February 6, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Jules… fantastic blog and comment string goin’ here – wow! Make it easy on yourself…. pull away from the agnostic vs. atheist debate and go the route I did years ago – when someone asks what ‘denomination’ I am or (if they are 10 years old) what ‘religion’ I am – I always smile and say, “I am a secular humanist”! Works every time. They don’t know what to say, they smile and hurry off. Problem solved!
Rachel (the cousin) said,
February 6, 2009 at 6:05 pm
one more note: “Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.”
(sounds like your 80 year old fellow in Alaska, doesn’t it.)
julieluongo said,
February 7, 2009 at 9:38 am
Good idea. I hadn’t thought of this as an answer to the religion question although I have told people who asked if I’m a feminist that I’m a humanist…
Gary said,
February 7, 2009 at 10:42 am
Oh my god – “secular humanist?” Why not just say you’re a satanist and get it over with!
Rachel (the cousin) said,
February 12, 2009 at 10:15 pm
LoL! right, “Secular humanism … focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives,” has Lucifer written ALLLLLL over it , doesn’t it?
julieluongo said,
February 13, 2009 at 12:54 am
Since we’re still on the subject, I’m not sure Dick Proenneke fits in the secular humanist mold. Granted, I don’t have enough information to go on … but I think someone who opts to live alone in the woods isn’t so concerned about seeking truth or meaning or fulfillment through interaction with people or study of human nature, which seems to be the “humanism” part of the philospohy. Sure, he himself is human, and certainly he was interested in seeing how he would fare in the woods alone. But I’m not sure that counts. Again, I don’t know much about Proenneke’s choice or philosophy … although, he is a naturalist, which is a fairly specific philosophy, I suppose.
Gary said,
February 13, 2009 at 1:05 pm
According to many Christians the human world is tainted with sin – so secular humanism is akin to satanism, because the only way to get fixed up if through Jesus. Rejecting God and focusing on Man is a big no no.
All’s I was trying to say was that to many christians “secular humanism” is a dirty word. Much like “liberal” or “commie”
julieluongo said,
February 13, 2009 at 1:08 pm
There are no liberal commie christians?
Rachel (the cousin) said,
February 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm
What you say is true, Gary… and the thought that I might scare someone who (not always, but frequently) behaves in a less-”Christian” way than I do….(read: half my in-laws) makes me smile
Gary said,
February 13, 2009 at 5:05 pm
commie christians seems like an oxymoron – since commies = atheists
liberal christians – sure, those are the ones that don’t take the old testament all that seriously. They’re the nice ones. They’re the ones Jack Chick says are going to hell. He’s right.
Dan said,
March 29, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“I can dig Buddha, Jesus, the Dalai Lama, Lao Tzu as much as Jung, Thoreau, Einstein, and Darwin. Ok, I’m especially into the existentialists and the Buddhists.”
Is it possible that knowing their names and a few sound bites or writings from each is not quite enough basis to judge?
julieluongo said,
March 29, 2009 at 4:32 pm
It’s possible. I like Mark Twain and Herman Melville, too. Mostly just their sound-bite work.
Gary said,
March 29, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I wonder. How many years of intensive study would it take to gain a sufficient amount of knowledge in all of humanity’s religion’s an philosophical thought, in order to be enough to make judgments for yourself? Most people choose the things they believe in with little or no thought (indoctrination from birth by family and society). I’d say taking a college course in comparative religion ought to be enough to make certain decisions for yourself.
julieluongo said,
March 29, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I find that people who are insecure about their knowledge often project this doubt onto others. Interestingly enough, I saw this a lot in grad school. All of the scholars of minutiae and lifetime academics and professors secretly wondering how they ever got tenure accusing each other of not knowing enough. They were terrified of actual smart, curious people. Not that I’m one of them. I’m a sound-bite gatherer, Cliff’s Notes reader, YouTube watcher, books on tape listener.