So I got a text from my ex recommending "The Harbinger" by Jonathan Cahn. Turns out it's one of those doom and gloom God's judgment books. I don't know why I'd even bother with it, because I just don't believe that way anymore. But it did get me to thinking about beliefs.

Some people say beliefs are a contract you have with reality. That may be true, but what I know from my trip through Mormonism is that you're free to believe anything. If God doesn't care if you believe in Mormonism, she really doesn't care what you believe. So, you're free to believe anything. Beliefs can and should be functional. They should get your heart and mind to work together.

I won't say Mormonism was always bad. Back in the 19th century, when we were abusing slaves, shooting cannons at each other and burning down infrastructure, even bad religion could be good. But the bar has been raised. That belief system, even if you can believe it, simply isn't worth it. The costs are astronomical.

I'm so done with doom and gloom and Jesus has something for your ass. I'm in a whole other reality. What's freedom for, if you don't free your own mind? I get to believe anything that's believable. That covers a lot of ground.

Love is the only thing worth believing in. Everything else is window dressing. Anything that's not pure unconditional love is part of the collective delusion we're working our way out of. I really think we'll make it. This whole thing is turning around because nothing can stop the power of love. The love of power is history. It just doesn't know it yet.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Love is the only thing worth believing in.
> Everything else is window dressing. Anything
> that's not pure unconditional love is part of the
> collective delusion we're working our way out of.
> I really think we'll make it. This whole thing is
> turning around because nothing can stop the power
> of love. The love of power is history. It just
> doesn't know it yet.

Ironically, this was Jesus' whole message during his short time on the earth. It's people that followed who distorted his message by wanting power over others enough to form their various religions that were spun off from his school of thought.

Organized religion is what messed with Christ's edict of pure love and caring for those less fortunate than ourselves. That is what became/has become overly controlling into people's lives and a monopoly of blind faith and reason on unwitting subjects.

Edict: an official order or proclamation issued by a person in authority.

There were all sorts of conditions on that "love," or roast for all eternity.

Nice attempt to hijack a post about non-belief. I'm just pointing it out because believers enjoy a persecution complex, and this board is no exception.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall codify all manner of beliefs, and call it "unconditional love."

For once, Amyjo, please admit that the Jesus in your head is unrecognizable from the gods of any of the "good books" written about gods. The Jesus in your head is your own invention, your personal god, and to get anyone else to buy into the concept of thst Jesus, you must write down your "rules" for that god, thereby codifying "the nature" of a brand new god. (You just did it, in the post to which I'm responding.)

You write of a god who supposedly impregnated his own teenage daughter to give birth to himself. Poor Mary, right? A god who could think of no other method to get himself to the planet he created, other than using a lowly female human child. Did she consent, was she even asked, was she old enough to choose to be the child, wife and mother of the same god?

And that would be the nature of Jesus, the son, husband and father of Mary.

"Pure love" is the claim of many a pervert.

He was either a god, or he was not. One must choose, whether one wants to or not. And once he's a god, there will be conditions, no matter whom writes them down. Compulsory "love" and devotion and rules.

You are about to share yours. Let the personal attacks commence.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ironically, this was Jesus' whole message during
> his short time on the earth...

> Organized religion is what messed with Christ's
> edict of pure love...

Jesus says otherwise:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matthew 10:35-36

Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22

...but then...

Ye fools and blind. Matthew 23:17, 19
Ye fools. Luke 11:40
O fools, and slow of heart to believe. Luke 24:25

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words ... It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Matthew 10:14-15

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-42

So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:49-50

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51-53

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Revelation 19:11



You have to skip, ignore, or deny an awful lot of what Jesus supposedly said to claim he was all about "pure love."

I agree with Amyjo on this one. The things hie brought up are in there too.

Postulates: if Jesus is God, and He says God is Love, and all the above statements quoted by Hie are His Word---then how love is defined has to include them. hmmmmm

That is certainly a very big deal. What I'm thinking, and won't be able to say well, is that one thinks about things from within a framework. The worldview is a filter through which one sees and defines everything, how we sort ideas.

How one asks questions about what is true, what does love look and act like, is affected by whether one asks those kinds of questions from within the framework of "Jesus is Lord" or not.

Just as a beginning of food for thought, look at Genesis 1:26-28 and think about what that means, what it still means. The God-is-sovereign doctrine does not mesh with this.

And to be clear, Mary was asked, and she did consent.Luke 1:38

Postulates: if Jesus is God, and He says God is Love, and all the above statements quoted by Hie are His Word---then how love is defined has to include them. hmmmmm

COMMENT: Nonsense. "Love" is defined by human beings adopting a language. It means what human beings say it means, as reflected in dictionary definitions. If you allow a context to change the definitions; i.e. making them something different than what human beings have defined them to be, then the words lose their meaning. Hie's quotes demonstrate an inconsistency that is not resolved by arbitrarily changing the definition of "love" in order to accommodate Biblical hate speech.
____________________________________________

That is certainly a very big deal. What I'm thinking, and won't be able to say well, is that one thinks about things from within a framework. The worldview is a filter through which one sees and defines everything, how we sort ideas.

COMMENT: I agree that one views the world through a "framework" that can be called one's worldview. I also agree that one's worldview might be viewed as a "filter" through which one "sees" or interprets one's personal experiences. However, it is not true that one's worldview "defines" everything. *That* cannot be true, because definitions are NOT personal, they are cultural, or societal, and they facilitate communication. If worldviews were allowed their own definitions by deviating from common, everyday words in a language, such worldviews would become incoherent and thus ineffective to guide beliefs and actions.
__________________________________________

How one asks questions about what is true, what does love look and act like, is affected by whether one asks those kinds of questions from within the framework of "Jesus is Lord" or not.

COMMENT: No! Questions are framed within a common language. "True" is a word that intends to link language with reality. You can say "Jesus is Lord" as a truth claim, but you cannot take that assumption and use it to redefine words in a language; for example by making "hate" speech actually mean "love."
_________________________________________

Just as a beginning of food for thought, look at Genesis 1:26-28 and think about what that means, what it still means. The God-is-sovereign doctrine does not mesh with this.

COMMENT: I am not sure your point here, but if there is a problem with God creating man in his own image, *that* is a religious problem in reconciling the word "image" with God's sovereignty. The word "image" was chosen by the translator, and the theist must provide an explanation within that definition. You can argue that that is not a good choice of words, or not a good translation, but you cannot change the meaning of the word in order to accommodate your theology. (Note, this is what Mormons do all the time to accommodate the BofM.)
______________________________________

And to be clear, Mary was asked, and she did consent. Luke 1:38

COMMENT: Right; And Sarah Kimball gave her consent to Joseph Smith.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can say "Jesus is
> Lord" as a truth claim, but you cannot take that
> assumption and use it to redefine words in a
> language; for example by making "hate" speech
> actually mean "love."

I agree.
If you want personally to make unconditional love your goal in life, I salute you and admire you. I also consider you a better person than bible Jesus...per above. :)

Justifying hate (in either speech or action) because "god/jesus said so" isn't just a current problem, it's one that's centuries old.

> And to be clear, Mary was asked, and she did
> consent. Luke 1:38
>
> COMMENT: Right; And Sarah Kimball gave her consent
> to Joseph Smith.

If you actually read Luke Chapter 1, she's never asked. The "angel" TELLS her what's going to happen (this "shall" occur, that "shall" happen). Mary acquiesces, but is never asked. And yes, pretty much like with Sarah Kimball.

Thanks, Henry.

Good thoughts, Hie.

I am very tolerant with religious beliefs that are adopted to help establish one's personal moral worldview, or whatever; even if there is little or no evidence in support of the factual claims associated with such beliefs. But I have no tolerance when such beliefs either harm others, or necessitate the manipulation language in an attempt to avoid inconsistency, or otherwise explain away facts. Such efforts invariably create incoherence, as we constantly find in Mormon and Christian apologetics.

Christians should realize that the internal inconsistencies between the language of the Bible, on the one hand, and preferred interpretations and doctrines, on the other hand; coupled with the apologetic incoherence that follows attempts to reconcile them, point to the conclusion that the Christianity of the Bible, whether institutionalized or not, is just false.

As a matter of logic, if a system of thought, e.g. Christianity, includes a single false premise, or a single logical inconsistency, that system is false. Now, you can remove the false premise(s), and all statements creating inconsistencies, and see if there remains a system of thought that is both coherent and preserves the motivation for the system, i.e. religious faith. But, if you have to resort to the manipulation of language to salvage your faith, your belief system is probably just false.

I know I am "preaching to the choir" on this one, but offer it for the benefit of those reading this thread who think that they can salvage a coherent religious worldview simply by manipulating language, whether it be Biblical language or the language of science.

Yes, you are demonstrating what I said, Henry Bemis: one's worldview, the filter---makes all the difference.

Language does not provide common meaning to any word; I get what you are saying that humans have to agree on what a word means for it to mean anything.

I'll bet that on a given day in the same town you'd get different definitions of what love means from a 15-year-old boy spending time with a very beautiful girl, or from a 19-year old girl whose high school boyfriend is leaving for parts unknown with no plans for a future together, or a mother walking the floor in the middle of the night with a sick baby in her arms or a man playing dominoes with his father and the mother who has dementia now, but will still laugh together with her husband of 60 years and her son.

Are there absolute definitions of what Love is? I think so---but as you say, definitions depend on agreement of the parties conversing.

I was writing from a standpoint inside a specific worldview. Not fairly, in the sense that I don't have a way to provide commonality between that one and yours or others here.

Your comments on language and what it is, and mine about worldview match, I think---and kind of like you don't mix metaphors, you don't successfully mix worldviews. I hoped to provide a glimpse into another worldview---not convince anyone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2017 06:36PM by relievedtolearn.

Brother Kolob has quoted passages from the New Testament to show that Jesus was actually not all about love. I think that these are more understandable if seen from the following context, articulated by Bart Ehrman, that I recently posted in another thread:

"Jewish apocalypticists were dualists. That is to say, they maintained that there were two fundamental components to all of reality: the forces of good and the forces of evil. The forces of good were headed by God himself, the forces of evil by his superhuman enemy, sometimes called Satan, or Beelzebub, or the Devil. On the side of God were the good angels; on the side of the Devil were the demons. On the side of God were righteousness and life; on the side of the Devil were sin and death. These were actual forces, cosmic powers to which human beings could be subject and with which they had to be aligned. No one was in neutral territory. People stood either with God or with Satan, they were in the light or in darkness, they were in the truth or in error." (Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, page 121.)

It would appear that Jesus made harsh statements regarding those who sided with "darkness," as well as predicting a horrible fate for them when faced with the wrath and judgment of God. And those who sided with darkness could well be members of one's own family, parents, etc. On the other hand, his statements to his followers about the necessity of radically loving one another, etc. I think can be understood from the context that those people were on the side of "light" and would be part of the Kingdom of God that was soon to come. Jesus is portrayed as wanting them to fully prepare for the coming Kingdom by living its values as completely as possible in the here and now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2017 05:47PM by commongentile.

That does clarify the context.

It doesn't, however, justify the claim that Jesus' entire message was about love. Since it clearly wasn't.

Nor was it about unconditional love -- as you pointed out, the Jesus quotes (in the context you mentioned) reserve the nasty stuff, and no love at all, for those considered "evil." No unconditional love for them. Love (from 'god' or community) was clearly stated to be dependent on behavior/belief.

Thanks for the context reminder.

edited to add:
After writing that, I remembered a conversation I had with a work colleague a few years ago, who was an evangelical and constantly trying to "save" me from my atheism:

"Jesus loves you unconditionally," he told me, "where else are you going to find that?"

"No, he doesn't," I replied, then listed some of the bible verses I mentioned above, finishing with, "...so he wants to punish me in a fiery hell for eternity if I don't believe. That's not unconditional love!"

His reply: "Sure it is! All you have to do is believe in him, confess your sins, and accept him as your savior, and you get his unconditional love!"

All I could do was stand there...:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2017 06:05PM by ificouldhietokolob.

When one read's about Jesus in the NT, does he/she see Jesus organizing a church or religion, or way of life?

Arguing over what “Jesus said”.... :D :D

Nothing found in the Bible is a quote. It’s all dialogue, similar to a Stephen King novel. Except the novel is more interesting.

What would Jesus do? Or Gandalf, or Yoda, or Dumbledore? Maybe these archetypes arise in literature because we need them. The idea is for life to imitate art. That's why the art of myth is important. It's just that in the modern age, we can no longer pretend the stories actually happened. The history that's gotten us to this point has been horrendous. The time and place for Mormonism has come and gone. Please leave now.

To me, Christ is an archetype handed down from the Sumerians. An idea the world needed, and still needs. But an idea, not a cult's sock puppet. The message is the same. Stop worshipping the Christ and start being the Christ. There may be a transcendent reason the myths came about.

I am tired of that doom and gloom after death stuff too. Most of my life was hell do they really think i care about an extended hell after-life? Jesus couldn't even heal me or help me when asked sincerely in this life so why would i fear anything by a "God" with no healing abilities.