Should I Keep Trying to Understand and Save Christianity?

[Kemosloby]

Yes, unfortunately, many Christians are taught this, but the Scriptures teach otherwise, as posted. In fact, that statement by Jesus at John 5:28-29, mentions that the dead will be resurrected -- from where? -- from their "memorial tombs"!

Families will be reunited again, but right now, the dead are still in the ground, they are RIP'ing, as they say,. The Resurrection comes later, when the Lord's Prayer is fulfilled, "They Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth."

I don't know about families being reunited. Back in the old testament, or somewhere in the bible. I remember it saying something to the effect that a person has many mothers, brothers etc in heaven. So if everybody is like friends and family you don't need to be so limited by a biological family.

 

[dfnj]

I don't know about families being reunited. Back in the old testament, or somewhere in the bible. I remember it saying something to the effect that a person has many mothers, brothers etc in heaven. So if everybody is like friends and family you don't need to be so limited by a biological family.

I think this is what the experience of eternal bliss will be like, Whatever it is to feel being reunited with family, whatever it means to be with your friends and family, this times a million is what you experience being in the presence of God in Heaven. What else could eternal heavenly bliss possibly mean?

I just think being in the presence of God will be so overwhelming and complete, I'm not sure someonew would any longer experience conscious self or time. When you are enveloped in God's love, why would you ever want to think about anything else?

 

[dfnj]

People often go to church, sit, listen, donate, leave and forget. I hate these things. One person in a thousand spends time working with the homeless or visits rest homes or prisons or orphanages.

Many religions teach people to be selfless. I think for many people this is unhealthy. We need to maintain a healthy balance between selfishness and selflessness. If you do not attend to your own needs you will not have the capacity to take care of others. When you approach selflessness with capacity to be selfless for others then it will be source of joy and happiness. But if your strain yourself or it is beyond your capacity then being selfless for others may not turn out so well (especially for you).

Also if everybody listened to one person (me) that would not be healthy for any concerned I think. Every time a persuasive religious leader pops up I think it does not really change much. It tends to justify their tendency to search for people to tell them things that they want to hear.

There has been a centuries debate going on in the hearts of men about whether men want fellowship or if men want leadership. Some people think fellowship is the answer where people of equal authority come together in community. Some people think leadership is the answer where a strong leader speaks from a position of authority and rest of the people obey and follow the rules.

I know some people do not like talking about human psychology when it comes to religion but I read this fascinated treaty on the Metamorphic effect of power. Most studies of psychology concentrate on the worker, consumer, citizen, television viewer, etc. This study was done on people in positions of power. And how the Metamorphic effect of power changes people in positions of leadership. The study kind of proves the old maxim from Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But it is more than just corruption. The Metamorphic effect causes contempt for the person the leader has authority over. Here's how it works. Every time the leader believes, whether true or not, they have successfully influenced someone else, something changes in the mind of the leader. They begin a gradual process of losing respect for the people they have leadership over. They begin to see the people not as equals, but as lesser human beings. The process continues until the subjects are seen as not being human at all but sub-humans. The leader then sees subordinates not as people but as worthless ants that can step on or exploited without any moral consequence. The only way to avoid the Metamorphic effect of power is to be aware of it. And even then it just may be a flaw in human nature when it comes to people in positions of authority.

The battle between egalitarianism and authoritarianism has been going on for a long time. At least fellowship is still hanging around because there's always a segment of the population that refuses to submit to someone else's authority no matter what. They believe absolute authority comes from within and if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.

There is also a contradiction in my effort. I'm someone who believes in a very Biblical approach to Christianity, something that does not involve a personal afterlife. I think Christianity is supposed to be a community that grimly accepts personal death in order to contribute to life for all. It is a life of labor and selflessness, but you know what I am not actually living that way. I'm just observing what I think the Bible says about it. In that case I really do not have a personal stake in it. There's not much that I contribute at the moment. How would I ever get other people to commit to it?

People in a leader-group setting want to be touched, moved, and inspired. We have a cluster nerves above our heart called the vagus nerves. When we are inspired our vagus nerves get in a bunch. It brings people to tears. It makes them feel deeply connected to someone or something. This experience is like heroin for many people. They just can't get enough of it. If you can tell stories or create a situation where people get their vagus nerves in a bunch you will have more people in your flock than you will be able to collect tithes from. You can then get your addicts to do your bidding as you wish. Try not to hurt anyone.

 

[Kemosloby]

I think this is what the experience of eternal bliss will be like, Whatever it is to feel being reunited with family, whatever it means to be with your friends and family, this times a million is what you experience being in the presence of God in Heaven. What else could eternal heavenly bliss possibly mean?

I just think being in the presence of God will be so overwhelming and complete, I'm not sure someonew would any longer experience conscious self or time. When you are enveloped in God's love, why would you ever want to think about anything else?

Probably not all that or why would some of the angels have become "fallen angels". ?

 

[savagewind]

That's your interpretation

No kidding?

 

[savagewind]

How we act, sometimes, is more important than our teaching.

We should all thank God for that!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Many religions teach people to be selfless. I think for many people this is unhealthy. We need to maintain a healthy balance between selfishness and selflessness. If you do not attend to your own needs you will not have the capacity to take care of others. When you approach selflessness with capacity to be selfless for others then it will be source of joy and happiness. But if your strain yourself or it is beyond your capacity then being selfless for others may not turn out so well (especially for you).

There could be more than one way of denying the self. The individual healthy balance you describe is based on individual practice, but it is not a Bible based, communal, practice and so might not apply. If Christianity as described were an individual practice then its selflessness would be too much I guess. It would be and is too much for an individual to sustain I think, but Christianity in the NT suggests regular meeting, fellowship and various group exercises designed to strengthen the united. Maybe it is a different plan, a different theory; and we are talking about Christianity with a different practice than that you seem familiar with.

There has been a centuries debate going on in the hearts of men about whether men want fellowship or if men want leadership. Some people think fellowship is the answer where people of equal authority come together in community. Some people think leadership is the answer where a strong leader speaks from a position of authority and rest of the people obey and follow the rules.

I know some people do not like talking about human psychology when it comes to religion but I read this fascinated treaty on the Metamorphic effect of power. Most studies of psychology concentrate on the worker, consumer, citizen, television viewer, etc. This study was done on people in positions of power. And how the Metamorphic effect of power changes people in positions of leadership. The study kind of proves the old maxim from Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But it is more than just corruption. The Metamorphic effect causes contempt for the person the leader has authority over. Here's how it works. Every time the leader believes, whether true or not, they have successfully influenced someone else, something changes in the mind of the leader. They begin a gradual process of losing respect for the people they have leadership over. They begin to see the people not as equals, but as lesser human beings. The process continues until the subjects are seen as not being human at all but sub-humans. The leader then sees subordinates not as people but as worthless ants that can step on or exploited without any moral consequence. The only way to avoid the Metamorphic effect of power is to be aware of it. And even then it just may be a flaw in human nature when it comes to people in positions of authority.

The battle between egalitarianism and authoritarianism has been going on for a long time. At least fellowship is still hanging around because there's always a segment of the population that refuses to submit to someone else's authority no matter what. They believe absolute authority comes from within and if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.

The arrangement of authority in churches is a subject of much disagreement and a source of a lot of trouble, but the NT writers seem aware that there is such a problem as you describe. They write about it. The word 'church' has connotations of a replacement for government -- a way of doing away with power struggles someday; and this has contributed to the appearance of Democracy in the West. Its been key. In the church political power is treated like the sand in an oyster. Wherever there are churches democracy can follow and that is not something I would want to undermine -- the discussion of the problem of power. No, not at all. I wouldn't touch that -- couldn't probably.

People in a leader-group setting want to be touched, moved, and inspired. We have a cluster nerves above our heart called the vagus nerves. When we are inspired our vagus nerves get in a bunch. It brings people to tears. It makes them feel deeply connected to someone or something. This experience is like heroin for many people. They just can't get enough of it. If you can tell stories or create a situation where people get their vagus nerves in a bunch you will have more people in your flock than you will be able to collect tithes from. You can then get your addicts to do your bidding as you wish. Try not to hurt anyone.

This part of church can be done away with, hopefully. This is where I'd like community to replace the official leader dynamic, but its true that in any community natural leaders arise. They naturally begin to assume power. I have seen it and know it, so what is the counter to that? Well there is not a single, one time action to counter it. Its an ongoing thing. The NT makes a suggestion of having elders (meaning older people) in charge, probably because they know the Jewish laws, have life experience and good children, know how things ought to be. This is a good starting place I think, a good re-set point for the current difficulties with churches enchanted with star power.

 

[ChristineM]

If you have been following the forums long, you may have noticed that I'm whiny about Christianity but am still a Christian. There are a lot of practices that I don't like in Christianity today. I'm concerned about these practices damaging my relatives and which anger me. Specifically: the modern concept they call 'Worship', the Church Industry of Franchised Churches, the fake Bible seminaries that church out 'Ministers', and above all the practice of teaching children that death is not real. People often go to church, sit, listen, donate, leave and forget. I hate these things. One person in a thousand spends time working with the homeless or visits rest homes or prisons or orphanages.

At the same time, all of the people involved from the ministers to the church members to the organist who's just payed to be there -- they all have brains and all contribute good things to the world. They matter, and I have seen the damage that this kind of life can do to them. At the same time their views of church are integrated with their lives, and you can't just go changing people's lives. They really believe that their loved ones that have died are safe somewhere up in another dimension or in another place or that they will be brought back from death. This is a huge comfort for many. Taking it away is like taking candy away.

Also if everybody listened to one person (me) that would not be healthy for any concerned I think. Every time a persuasive religious leader pops up I think it does not really change much. It tends to justify their tendency to search for people to tell them things that they want to hear.

There is also a contradiction in my effort. I'm someone who believes in a very Biblical approach to Christianity, something that does not involve a personal afterlife. I think Christianity is supposed to be a community that grimly accepts personal death in order to contribute to life for all. It is a life of labor and selflessness, but you know what I am not actually living that way. I'm just observing what I think the Bible says about it. In that case I really do not have a personal stake in it. There's not much that I contribute at the moment. How would I ever get other people to commit to it?

I respect what you say here , to an extent it equals some of my views on hypocrisy in religion among a goodly number of adherents. Also the charitable side, as an atheist (ex christian for 30+ years) i often am berated by those who stereotype atheism based on what they have been told by "preachers" rather than actually finding out for themselves.

Looking at some of the replies from "christians" on this thread it seems a Christian too can be beset by the same unchristian behaviour.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I respect what you say here , to an extent it equals some of my views on hypocrisy in religion among a goodly number of adherents. Also the charitable side, as an atheist (ex christian for 30+ years) i often am berated by those who stereotype atheism based on what they have been told by "preachers" rather than actually finding out for themselves.

Looking at some of the replies from "christians" on this thread it seems a Christian too can be beset by the same unchristian behaviour.

I don't think anybody has been particularly mean to me. Everybody is being honest and polite. I can understand if there is distrust of my motives. I am a fundamentalist down to my bones and a great hot head, so its all just puppy nips to me.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think anybody has been particularly mean to me. Everybody is being honest and polite. I can understand if there is distrust of my motives. I am a fundamentalist down to my bones and a great hot head, so its all just puppy nips to me.

Mean? Depends how you look at questioning your faith.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Mean? Depends how you look at questioning your faith.

I'm excited, because this is one of my longest threads. 5 pages! Check it out.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

yes animals have souls, as do plants. its called the infinite intelligence, or panpsychism.

this intelligence is not necessarily received/conveyed in all forms by the same method.

but this information is contained in all things. science gathers information, or intelligence from all things by understanding of the form; especially in simpler life forms.

https://phys.org/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

I see what you tried to reply to... but you dodged the main question in my reply. WHY care about the soul? Why should I care what happens to my spirit if it is not "me"? If it contains no part of my personality, and that (along with memory, etc.) dies with the body, then what stake do I have in the fate of my "soul?"

 

[ChristineM]

I'm excited, because this is one of my longest threads. 5 pages! Check it out.

Wonderful.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here's a conjecture about what I think happens to us when we die. This is somewhat based on my own personal experience but not so dramatic as near-death experience. People who have near-death experiences talk about a white light. I think what happens when we die, as our brain shuts down and the electrical signals fade, we have a God experience. When we face the light we look into the face of God. We are so enamored and awed by God's infinite beauty all time stops. We are no longer capable of having conscious thoughts, we are at peace, and we experience eternal heavenly bliss. Although it may only last a few seconds, like car-crash time when everything slows down, our experience looking into the face of God lasts an eternity. Experiencing God's infinite beauty is the greatest possible experience anyone can have. It is the absolute height of what a human being can experience as bliss.

Some people, for whatever reason, turn away from looking to the face of God. Each of us is our own greatest critic. Many people think they are not worthy to look into the face of God. So people turn away from God during this critical moment. When then happens is the brain has a free-form delusion where the conscious self has omnipotent powers. The brain becomes its own reality. Imagination and reality become the same word because the brain is no longer connected to the outside world. At this point, Using omnipotent powers the conscious self works out every guilt, every regret, every short-coming is worked out until the person rids themselves of all their self-loathing. At this point, the person then turns back and looks into the face of God. Except this time the person doesn't look away and experiences eternal heavenly bliss like everyone else. Everyone gets peace. Our omnipotent God neatly collects every soul and spirit back to the source from whence they came.

Of course, it's just conjecture and I'm sure your Christian dogma is more appealing. Maybe someone could explain to me what eternal heavenly bliss would be like? Is there a reason to walk around and talk to other people in Heaven? Or, are people in Heaven too busy experiencing bliss to think about anything else?



Death is a lot like sex. None of us invented sex. Sex is just something that is part of what it means to be a human being. What if the same thing is true about death. None us invented death. But more importantly, none of us owns what it means to die. What I mean by this is if you take away your own Ego delusion, everything that you think that is unique to yourself, our brains, our characters, the way we think, the way we love, the way we fear, the way we laugh, is exactly the same in EVERY human being. We did not invent and we do not own what it means to be a human being.

So in this sense, as long as the human race continues to live and thrive, the very things you hold most dear about who you are as a person, are not going to die with you. When you realize this and accept it, then you realize you do not really die because you are not really alive to begin with. Everyone lives on in everyone else. When your Ego delusion dies and you are born again into a much wider experience of what it means to be a human being.

Since we are all the same person, then maybe you won't be so selfish next time when it comes to sharing with your fellow human being. Because when you share, you are really giving something back to yourself. And helping other people live enthusiastic lives makes this place a lot more fun to live in.

I'm not sure what to say other than that, in every single sentence of what you wrote I continued to ask myself "when is this person going to respond to what I actually wrote?" I just do not understand where a single word of your reply comes from. Did you read the posts of mine that you quoted? It doesn't seem like it. I'm not just trying to be a jerk here... help me to understand.

A couple of key points of confusion I had:

...I'm sure your Christian dogma is more appealing

My what? Did anything I wrote read like it was coming from a Christian? How? Let's just set the record straight and I'll tell you that Christian dogma is not at all appealing to me. Maybe replace the word "appealing" with "appalling" and you're closer to the mark.

None of us invented sex. None us invented death.

And... what? How does this relate to my guess that Christians fear that "death is a definitive end?" This was particularly perplexing. You went on to basically accuse me of being "selfish... when it comes to sharing with your fellow human being", and implied that my ego was out of control and tainting my understanding of death, or something equally annoying. And you somehow got all of this from these words: "That death is a definitive end." - taken out of context, and while that does happen to be my personal belief on the matter, I was talking about fear that others have that this may be the case whether they try and believe something else or not. Again... just confused as hell here.

maybe you won't be so selfish next time when it comes to sharing with your fellow human being

"Next time." So you know there will be a "next time", do you? Not sure how you have come to know such things. Care to enlighten?

There was plenty of other stuff that had me scratching my head, but those are the highlights. So help me out... what is going on here?

 

[Brickjectivity]

People are going to have to figure things out for themselves. Granted I do not understand the Christian "need" to convert others. Perhaps that view is more....integral to your approach to religion, I do not know.

The concept of conversion to Christianity is something that changes over time, and there are different levels of understanding. There's an educated class, and there is an uneducated class. One writer in the NT says that some people have the gift to understand mysteries but not others, so there have always been levels of understanding. What is probably not good is the new assumption that everyone will have the same level of understanding, the same words on all subjects. The way to conquer 'Satan' is through peace, but people today sometimes think its through talk, through doctrines and shooting at anything that moves, making laws about sex and so forth. I note Jesus called Peter, 'Satan' at one point, but Jesus never called him a Satanist. It was a simple rebuke that Peter was concerned about the wrong thing: Jesus' life instead of Jesus' mission.

But that said people are going to interpret things differently that's just how people work. This happens with art and it most definitely happens with religion. Just because two people read the same scripture is no guarantee that they will have the same conclusion at the end.
Live and let live is usually a much healthier and less stressful way to live. Constantly lamenting your brother's approach can distract from your own.
I'm sympathetic to Christianity but not wholly Christian. I do not begrudge my brothers and sisters in Christ for their opinions and practices. You do you, as they say.

Yes people do interpret things differently. We are like stained glass windows, and with respect to our understanding light shines through us not from us, With respect to our actions it shines from us directly when we do good work. Getting the two concepts of light confused can get things in a tangle. Knowledge is considered imperfect by the NT authors. That is the modified light. The pure bright light is action.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Wonderful.

Yeah I'm milking this thing for all its worth! I'm going for 6.

 

[dfnj]

I'm not sure what to say other than that, in every single sentence of what you wrote I continued to ask myself "when is this person going to respond to what I actually wrote?" I just do not understand where a single word of your reply comes from. Did you read the posts of mine that you quoted? It doesn't seem like it. I'm not just trying to be a jerk here... help me to understand.

I don't think you are being a jerk. You may be taking what I said too personally. I was responding mostly to the topic of your response. It's tricky to respond to what you are responding to because I can't see my comments before yours. but I will try.

This sentence you wrote is the one that got me thinking:

"That death is a definitive end. I know this is almost tantamount to the old Christian sling that "non-believers secretly believe in God and reject Him in order to continue on in their wicked ways"

It wasn't like I was disagreeing with you. I was just adding commentary to what you were saying.

A couple of key points of confusion I had:
My what? Did anything I wrote read like it was coming from a Christian? How? Let's just set the record straight and I'll tell you that Christian dogma is not at all appealing to me. Maybe replace the word "appealing" with "appalling" and you're closer to the mark.

I really did not mean you personally here. I was giving a pretty radical idea about what happens when you die that was not in line with conventional dogma. Again, it was my commentary not really specifically directed at you. It probably would be "appalling" to people who idol worship the words of the Bible (not you).

And... what? How does this relate to my guess that Christians fear that "death is a definitive end?" This was particularly perplexing. You went on to basically accuse me of being "selfish... when it comes to sharing with your fellow human being", and implied that my ego was out of control and tainting my understanding of death, or something equally annoying. And you somehow got all of this from these words: "That death is a definitive end." - taken out of context, and while that does happen to be my personal belief on the matter, I was talking about fear that others have that this may be the case whether they try and believe something else or not. Again... just confused as hell here.

The "definitive end" idea of death was a great line I thought you wrote. It got me thinking. Again, I wasn't really implying your "ego". It was more like the way people use the word "you" to mean any person in general. You really took my post personally. I will have to be more careful next time I start spouting off ideas based on some trigger thought. I still think your "definitive end" line was powerful to think about.

"Next time." So you know there will be a "next time", do you? Not sure how you have come to know such things. Care to enlighten?

I have a egalitarian streak to my way of thinking. People in general are pretty selfish and self-serving. Again, my mistake in not putting some words in my posts so you understood I was not talking about you specifically but just some people.

There was plenty of other stuff that had me scratching my head, but those are the highlights. So help me out... what is going on here?

Half the time I learn by making mistakes. The other half of the time I just get lucky. Sorry, I made it sound like you were the most horrible person to ever live. My bad. You are only the second most horrible person to have ever lived. I have you beat!

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah I'm milking this thing for all its worth! I'm going for 6.

If you want any help, I'm here.

That's another post closer.. ;-)

 

[dfnj]

There could be more than one way of denying the self. The individual healthy balance you describe is based on individual practice, but it is not a Bible based, communal, practice and so might not apply. If Christianity as described were an individual practice then its selflessness would be too much I guess. It would be and is too much for an individual to sustain I think, but Christianity in the NT suggests regular meeting, fellowship and various group exercises designed to strengthen the united. Maybe it is a different plan, a different theory; and we are talking about Christianity with a different practice than that you seem familiar with.

The arrangement of authority in churches is a subject of much disagreement and a source of a lot of trouble, but the NT writers seem aware that there is such a problem as you describe. They write about it. The word 'church' has connotations of a replacement for government -- a way of doing away with power struggles someday; and this has contributed to the appearance of Democracy in the West. Its been key. In the church political power is treated like the sand in an oyster. Wherever there are churches democracy can follow and that is not something I would want to undermine -- the discussion of the problem of power. No, not at all. I wouldn't touch that -- couldn't probably.

This part of church can be done away with, hopefully. This is where I'd like community to replace the official leader dynamic, but its true that in any community natural leaders arise. They naturally begin to assume power. I have seen it and know it, so what is the counter to that? Well there is not a single, one time action to counter it. Its an ongoing thing. The NT makes a suggestion of having elders (meaning older people) in charge, probably because they know the Jewish laws, have life experience and good children, know how things ought to be. This is a good starting place I think, a good re-set point for the current difficulties with churches enchanted with star power.

I really liked your response to what I posted. Thanks for listening and reading what I said respectfully. Very nice!

 

[Fool]

I see what you tried to reply to... but you dodged the main question in my reply. WHY care about the soul? Why should I care what happens to my spirit if it is not "me"? If it contains no part of my personality, and that (along with memory, etc.) dies with the body, then what stake do I have in the fate of my "soul?"

the memory doesn't die, that information is associated with a form. the form collapses, the information doesn't. the information is the mind. the form is the body, a soul, that the mind took residence in for this terrestrial journey, experience. a person is a soul, a living terrestrial being. a mind is not necessarily a humanoid, or even a planetary entity.

if that consciousness becomes aware that the form is temporal, then it doesn't become attached to the form anymore than a driver is attached to a vehicle.

and yes, some drivers become attached to their vehicles. yet there are literally billions of vehicles to be occupied; if they become fixated on traveling vs a single vehicle.

the mind is eternal. the vehicle isn't. mind is the first cause.

ruwach also means mind in hebrew. nephesh means soul; which is a third density, chemical body that incorporates a consciousness.

The Naassene Psalm