Mighty God

[coemgen]

silja, I didn't mean to say you were an atheist, I was just refering to them in general. Thanks for the question. This dialogue is fun and important.

Have a great weekend in the country.

 

[coemgen]

and what about the opposite? the devout who have become atheists? those who have embraced atheism and wrapped themselves up in secular humanism and become much better, kinder, more compassionate people?

also, is your story missing a line? when did God reveal himself to John? further, doesn't someone who's having marital problems and drug abuse issues strike you as someone who's seeking to fufill that "hole" we've spoken about -- and don't just as many people fill that "hole" with other things that aren't drugs, with volunteerism, love, hard work, etc. i don't think it's an either/or proposition.

I know you're gone now, but I wanted to get back to you.

I have heard of people leaving their faith and finding happiness, but I have to question their faith. In many of these stories I've heard, the person either was taught horrible lies about the faith or they didn't experience a relationship with God, just empty religion.

Also, my whole point about John's encounter with God wasn't to simply reveal that he's a nice person now. He has a relationship with God now. That's the change. I did leave some lines out, too. After saying that, he felt a calmness come over him that brought him to tears. He then Christ. Another important part of the story, was that he also tried to fill the "God-shaped hole" with other religions first. He tried all kinds of stuff. In the end, a relationship with Christ gave him what he was looking for — and more.

You're right, people do fill the God-shaped hole with good, positive things too. The relationship is still missing though. Does that negate what they're doing? Of course not. However, Christ tells us in the Bible that what we do for the poor, or those in need in whatever way, we do them to him. Buying a homeless person dinner, sharing a conversation with them and helping them find a place to live is an incredible act of kindness. However, to do it AND know that you're serving our mighty God at the same time, adds another deminsion to it.

 

[BorderGirl]

Isn't having a relationship with your family and loved ones more important than have one with God? [/QUOTE

It is interlaced:

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. In the procreation and education of children it reflects the Father's work of creation.

The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.

 

[BorderGirl]

The fact is that we're wired to have a relationship with God. Many of us, even those of us striving to have a relationship with God, put other things in that God-shaped hole. It's never as fulfilling though. Trust me.

Yes.
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself.

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence.

In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being.

"Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice." Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, "an upright heart", as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life.

Tell that to Bonobos!

 

[JCR]

This thread is turning into a sermon on the mountnet. We are ONE in our humanity and that ought to be enough.
Bordergirl, with all due respect, just because humans have been seeking some sort of divinity to explain one's existence doesn't mean He /She/It actually exists.


"name a god we all agree"--Michael Stipe

To A_Wanderer: fuck yeah!

 

[BVS]

Yes.
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself.

Isn't this a matter of faith and not fact?

 

[BorderGirl]

This thread is turning into a sermon on the mountnet. We are ONE in our humanity and that ought to be enough.
Bordergirl, with all due respect, just because humans have been seeking some sort of divinity to explain one's existence doesn't mean He /She/It actually exists.

Humans have always attempted to make sense of our own existance. Our humanity is what binds us to one another, and in this collective state we have always searched for higher meaning. Beginning with the worshiping of sun, the moon, etc.

In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.

Humans have the vocation of "subduing" the earth as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator "who loves everything that exists", to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.

 

[BorderGirl]

the spirit is not the soul.. the spirit is the life force which leaves your body when you die.. and the bible doesn't teach the soul is immortal it states the soul that sins dies.. the soul is actually you the person, in the bible even animals are souls

But always in the bible when it talks about souls it is referring to the living person when we die we go back to the dust didn't God say to Adam and eve dust you are and dust you will return.. he never once said their souls would live on

More on this:

The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.

The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit.

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

Every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. This distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.

 

[A_Wanderer]

it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul,

Some call that respiration and metabolism, and it is in a good many other animals. It may be wrapped up in beautiful verbiage but at the end of the day claims for the existence of human souls have been greatly exaggerated and in the absence of evidence the speculations on the nature of a soul must be restricted to the theological and not the physical.

 

[BorderGirl]

Some call that respiration and metabolism, and it is in a good many other animals. It may be wrapped up in beautiful verbiage but at the end of the day claims for the existence of human souls have been greatly exaggerated and in the absence of evidence the speculations on the nature of a soul must be restricted to the theological and not the physical.

Maybe, but 'something' makes our human hearts 'sing'.
Even before revealing himself to man in words of truth, God reveals himself to him through the universal language of creation, the work of his Word, of his wisdom: the order and harmony of the cosmos - which both the child and the scientist discover - "from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator," "for the author of beauty created them."

 

[coemgen]

Isn't this a matter of faith and not fact?

The Bible tells us it's fact.

 

[coemgen]

This thread is turning into a sermon on the mountnet. We are ONE in our humanity and that ought to be enough.
Bordergirl, with all due respect, just because humans have been seeking some sort of divinity to explain one's existence doesn't mean He /She/It actually exists.


"name a god we all agree"--Michael Stipe

To A_Wanderer: fuck yeah!

Unfortunately, the fact that we're one in our humanity isn't enough.

As far as Stipe's statment, although I have a tremendous respect for the man and his work, it's not that easy. We can't just follow whatever path feels good or mix faiths together and make up our own faith. Truth isn't in fashion.

 

[BVS]

The Bible tells us it's fact.

So then it is faith?

 

[JCR]

Unfortunately, the fact that we're one in our humanity isn't enough.

As far as Stipe's statment, although I have a tremendous respect for the man and his work, it's not that easy. We can't just follow whatever path feels good or mix faiths together and make up our own faith. Truth isn't in fashion.

Why isn't the fact that we are one in our humanity not enough?
When Stipe sang "name a god we all agree" he was attempting to point out that it is impossible for everyone to agree on who/what he/she/it is. For example God and Allah are said to be the one in the same, but the words in their respective books reveal differing natures. Even the God of the old testament is different from the new testament. If God is unchanging, all-knowing, all-powerful ect. how do you account for these variations? And who says we can't mix faiths together? Mormons have mixed Christian notions with their own and ole Joe Smith elaborated on the Christian faith and gave them a supposed record of christian history in north america. Luther did a similar thing. I could cite more examples but I hope you get my point without having to do so. You are absolutely correct in your statement that truth isnt in fashion, religion has been trying to put a stake in the heart of truth since and even before Galileo. What do you think the Dark Ages were about? You, and bordergirl are assuming that the Bible is the word of one supreme being, when in fact it is the writings of men (and later revised and edited by monks) who claimed inspiration from "God" (I might add that some of these men were quite mad...have you read Leviticus? He's one Divine asshole in that section of "scripture."And Allah is one intolerant bastard in the Koran.)
Joan Didion said it best when she wrote in the title essay of "The White Album": "We tell ourselves stories in order to live."
Now, I 'm not bashing you or bordergirl on your right to your own faiths, but stop speaking as if you have the cornerstone on capital 't' truth.
"All we need is love, dunt-dunt-dunt-dunt-da-da"

p.s. bless the beasts and the bonobos

 

[BorderGirl]

Our Humanity is enough. Our salvation comes not from trying to be like gods, but from trying to be more completely what we were created to be – human beings.

 

[dazzlingamy]

The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself

I'd like to state that this is your BELIEF, it is not fact and does not ring true to everyone, including me. I do not have a wish to know "God" (quotations as I don't believe there even is one) and I don't feel "it" calling me.

I wasn't going to answer in this thread, as obviously I can't have a discussion about something I don't believe in AT ALL, but I am interested in others opinions. But when atheists are mentioned, being one, I feel someone should speak up for the team.

I don't like the thought processes that

1. Atheists are "missing" something in their life but not acknowledging God. Now there are plenty of people in this world including religious people who don't acknowledge your actual God, are these people missing something as well, or is it just the heathen atheists?

2. Atheists are more suceptable to weaknesses as we don't have anything to guide us, or because we don't believe in God then we don't have any morals or values because all morals and values come from the bible and religion.

Both of these arguments are not based on anything but incredulous from religious persons that we do not go along with blind faith (and I call it so, as there is nothing factual or "solid" to back up your claims)
Also, I feel that I can trust my own judgement, and make my way through my life on this earth, without having to have something higher to guide me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

One is not born with inherent morality or immorality, but through philosophy we may moderate our actions.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes.
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself.

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence.

In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being.

"Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice." Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, "an upright heart", as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.

oh, good, it's settled then. what a complex and nuanced understanding of human history you have! i'm glad it all fits so well!

for all the whining we hear from some Christians about how their beliefs are disrespected on FYM, i hope we can keep this thread in mind -- it amazes me when people present articles of faith as irrefutable fact and feel perfectly free to sermonize without any shred of evidence beyond self-serving anedcotes and a few maxims gleaned from scripture and if some people speak up that, well, it's not like that for everyone, then there must be something wrong with the person asking the question because if we all had "real" faith or were "real" Christians we wouldn't be asking such questions. such is the stuff of fundamentalism -- when other's don't have legitimate disagreements, but the disagreements they have are functions of their own personal malfunctions.

i've asked a series of heavily existential questions, but we don't seem to be willing to step outside our comfortable little faith boxes. it would be great if we could have a good discussion about ontology without falling back on various tenets of faith that even the most devout must understand aren't shared by everyone.

more people aren't Christian than are. how breathtakingly arrogant to assume that there's simply something wrong with the rest of the population of the planet, and then turn around and use your little how-to manual (The Bible) to justify yourself to yourself.

 

[JCR]

oh, good, it's settled then. what a complex and nuanced understanding of human history you have! i'm glad it all fits so well!

for all the whining we hear from some Christians about how their beliefs are disrespected on FYM, i hope we can keep this thread in mind -- it amazes me when people present articles of faith as irrefutable fact and feel perfectly free to sermonize without any shred of evidence beyond self-serving anedcotes and a few maxims gleaned from scripture and if some people speak up that, well, it's not like that for everyone, then there must be something wrong with the person asking the question because if we all had "real" faith or were "real" Christians we wouldn't be asking such questions. such is the stuff of fundamentalism -- when other's don't have legitimate disagreements, but the disagreements they have are functions of their own personal malfunctions.

i've asked a series of heavily existential questions, but we don't seem to be willing to step outside our comfortable little faith boxes. it would be great if we could have a good discussion about ontology without falling back on various tenets of faith that even the most devout must understand aren't shared by everyone.

more people aren't Christian than are. how breathtakingly arrogant to assume that there's simply something wrong with the rest of the population of the planet, and then turn around and use your little how-to manual (The Bible) to justify yourself to yourself.

DITTO

 

[JCR]

Our Humanity is enough. Our salvation comes not from trying to be like gods, but from trying to be more completely what we were created to be – human beings.

You didn't answer the questions.

Who's trying to be like gods here?

No offense intended, but could you speak in something other than religious platitudes? You remind me of the preacher on that Sheperd's Church show.

Salvation? I never understood the relious persons' need or desire or penchant for being saved. Saved from what?

Me thinks you need to get out of Texas grrrl.

 

[coemgen]

I'm jumping back in.

JCR, "saved" is a term that kind of makes me whince too, but it's actually an acurate statement. We all sin. You, me, Bono and, as much as Republicans don't want to hear it, George Bush.
Sin, to define more, can be seen as crimes against God. God is perfect, holy and pure -- i.e. the total opposite of us. We are selfish, flawed beings. His ways are right, our ways are too often wrong. We rebel against his very nature. The Bible (yes, I'm quoting the Bible! Take cover!) tells us the wages of sin is death. This refers to a spiritual death as well. So by our very nature, we go against God.
To have our crimes erased, or forgiven, something has to die in our place, for the wages of sin is death. It used to be people would sacrifice a lamb to "atone" for their sins. The lambs even had to be spotless, or "perfect."
That was B.C. Then came Christ.
Now in the A.D., Christ is considered our spotless lamb. He, being both fully God and fully human, lived a "spotless life" and died on the cross for all of humanity's sins. He could do this because he was God. For the same reason, he rose from the dead. (It would be so cool to be God for a day.) That's the genius of it. God came down here, into enemy territory, and beat death. He did this for all of us, too.
So here's the deal now, with God paying the penalty of death, we don't have to pay the price. This DOES NOT mean we have free reign to sin, as some people may think. However, when we do sin, and man do us Christians like to sin, we can humbly and sincerely ask for forgivness, and receive it with confidence if we do it remembering that Christ died for that very reason.

To sum it up, God created us and gave us free will. What fun would it be if we didn't have free will? We, being morally weak, decided to go the wrong way, and in respecting free will, God gave us the right to chose whether we want to make it right. He gave us the option of making a U-turn. It's not something we can make right, but something that has been made right through Christ. It's not our doing. That's called Grace. This is the Grace that Bono sings about in the song of the same name, and the Grace we hear about in "Amazing Grace."
God wanted a relationship with us, so he died for it to happen. We just have to want it too.

Sorry this is so long, if you've actually read all of this, you get five bonus points and I'll send you a gift certificate to Applebee's.

 

[anitram]

We all sin.

Why is this constantly thrown out when most of the planet doesn't even have a concept of the Christian idea of sin? I mean, really, it must grate on everyone's last nerve to constantly be reading this if they have a faith or a belief which it isn't part of.

And why is it that only Christians behave in this way? Why is it that we don't see dozens of posts on this forum starting authoritatively with "We will all be reincarnated" as if it's a statement of fact. Over and over and over again.

 

[deep]

Originally posted by coemgen
We all sin.

this is not an universal truth

it is your choice to believe it

it is more correct to say

"I believe, we all sin."


a universal truth?

"We all shit."

 

[coemgen]

anitram and deep, JCR asked about salvation and the need to be saved. Since it's a question directed toward a Christian concept, I, as a Christian, explained it.

In no way was my response meant to offend. I appologize if that's the case. However, since I believe it to be true, I'm going to treat it as fact. I would hope all of us would do that with our beliefs Otherwise, why believe it?

 

[deep]

coemgen,

i mentioned this before to others that post

"we are all sinners", as if it is a given.

so please don't think I am only picking on you.

there are many things I believe

I don't think I state them as facts,
perhaps I do, and then I should be called on it

I don't believe people are born sinners

but if someone wants to state
that he believes that he was born a sinner

there is no reason why I would challange his right to that belief

and the right to let that belief inform what actions and choices he makes for himself.

 

[coemgen]

deep, I see what you're saying. Thanks for sharing your feelings on this. Believe me, even I hate it when people get all preachy and think they know what they're talking about. I can easily admit I don't know everything. I have no problem saying that. However, in coming to this place called Free Your Mind, where we all share our perspectives and debate them, in a friendly manner, until we're blue in the face, I don't expect everyone to be required to always include the phrase "I believe that . . ." before they share their perspective. Isn't that a given here anyway?

 

[80sU2isBest]

coemgen,

i mentioned this before to others that post

"we are all sinners", as if it is a given.

so please don't think I am only picking on you.

there are many things I believe

I don't think I state them as facts,
perhaps I do, and then I should be called on it

I don't believe people are born sinners

but if someone wants to state
that he believes that he was born a sinner

there is no reason why I would challange his right to that belief

and the right to let that belief inform what actions and choices he makes for himself.

This is what I believe about sin.

I believe that people are born with the sin nature, which is the propulsion (the bent, the driving) to sin. However, I do not believe that this is equal to "being born a sinner". I do not believe that people are born sinners. If you have never sinned, I believe you are not a sinner. What can babies do that is "sin"? Babies don't sin. I believe that the moment you commit a sin, you become a "sinner". However, I do not believe that you are held spirtually responsible for your sin if you do not know what sin is/if you do not know what right and wrong are.

 

[80sU2isBest]

and man do us Christians like to sin

I agree with almost everything you said, but this is one with which I don't agree.

I don't think that statement can be made as if it were true for all Christians. I think many people don't like to sin; that includes Christians and nonChristians alike.

 

[coemgen]

I didn't mean "enjoy sinning." I meant, we still sin. That's it. I was trying to insert some hummor. Forgive me if it didn't work. My ultimate point was that even though we're Christians, and we strive to not sin, we sin.