PaulS

I tried to suspend Divine Will for some pretty childish and adverse comments made both in posts and direct messages, but it seems I have deleted their account by mistake.  Sorry - it was just meant to be a suspension for 1 week.

20 minutes ago, Divine_will said:

In the end there is only one way to understand the bible. Unless you take verses out of context, then you can make it fit everything you want. Putting stuff into a blender and adding water to the wine doesn't create a nice meal. If you can't cook then maybe you should refrain from the kitchen. Gods word is free anyway. No need to prepare it yourself

You're not the first type of Christian to say there is only one way to understand the bible, but i think you might be suprised to know that understanding the bible has been nothing BUT change throughout the times. Like this thread's initial posts tried to point out - God's people (Israelites) did not initially believe in an eternal hell - that is in fact a later development which was introduced by Greek thought around about the time that Daniel was written.

Context is EXACTLY the point that "bible-believing Christians" themselves most overlook.  This forum's not here to tell them how to believe these things, but rather this forum provides an opportunity for them to explore and understand their own Holy Book, better.

2 hours ago, tariki said:

I appreciate that there will be some who will continue to believe and insist that the God they worship turns His face away from those who - in their own time worn phrase - have not "accepted Jesus as their own personal Savior". Yet all I am saying here is that in Christianity, just how Christ is "accepted" can take infinite forms according to the almost infinite number of individual human beings.

Interestingly, even in the book of Mathew, Jesus is saying those who fed him when he was was hungry, those who gave him water when he thirsted,  those who welcomed him when he was a stranger, those who clothed him when he was naked,  those who took care of him when he was sick, and those who visited him when he was in prison - that is what Jesus expected of followers.  Nothing about 'accepting' Jesus' nature or mission.  In fact Christ was quoted as saying "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me."

I think that is what any God would be more interested in rather than 'right' belief.

44 minutes ago, Divine_will said:

You donnot belief in the bible. You just want to be part of a group. Everyone sins, but you love your sin so much without any conviction of the spirit that you even want to rewrite the bible

I love you @tariki.  Thanks for participating here and being prepared to discuss Progressive Christianity!

1 hour ago, Divine_will said:

It does matter what you belief because you run a Christian website. That is why. You are an atheist that is clear and you are polluting the faith.

That you hold such a grudge to Christianity is kinda sad. You probably got a bad childhood or something or els you would not go above and beyond infiltrating the faith with false doctrines.

All this time and money you put into this facade could have been invested in a good hobby or something useful. But no, instead of that you decide to cry over your childhood and pay money to invision community as revenge on your Christian parents.

But let me tell you: these people you are trying to lead astray are not Christians. Most of them, like 99% will not stay in the faith. The faith always had these lukewarm folks. You are basically just giving them a platform for a short time they identify as Christian. They are of no use because they did not come to faith with a repenting heart but instead had a urge to become part of a group. Continuing their sin is for most of them more important than turning for it, because they donnot have a repenting heart. So they want to twist and even rewrite the bible if possible. I tell you, they are not Christians and you are wasting your time on them hoping to lead them astray. 

There is no such thing as progressive Christianity. It's just the same lukewarm folk the faith had 2000 years ago. But nowadays atheists give them a church and online platforms hoping to lead them astray. You cannot lead them astray as they are not Christians. They already let themselves astray. You get it now? Their time in the faith has always been very short, a few years max.

 

It sounds like you have made your mind up without even being curious as to why others could hold different beliefs to you, or why I might choose to run a website like this when I am not what you would typically call a Christian.

I hold no 'grudge' against Christianity whatsoever, but you don't seem interested in understanding that.  You seem to think you understand me (you don't), but that's okay.  

From your post it would seem this website has nothing to offer you.  If you do wish to stay and participate, you are welcome.  But if you are simply going to post demeaning messages about other people's beliefs and choices, you will get banned. I would hide your post above in response to Tariki, but I think it's convenient to leave there to demonstrate how certain Christians are threatened by different points of view.  But future posts like the above from you will be deleted. Either participate here in good faith, as you signed up to, or go away.

Peace and goodwill.

Paul

9 hours ago, Divine_will said:

I wonder how you see the bible. You said '+150 000 years leading up to the beginning of biblical stories'. What do you actually believe? Are you an atheist? 

 

It's interesting how you feel you need to know what I believe (as if you could sum it up in a couple of words) to accurately understand how I 'see' the bible.  What answer would you like?  A simple one, like "I'm an atheist" which perhaps then helps you pidgeon-hole immediately what such a view could mean to how I see the bible, or are you genuinely interested in the various ways I see the bible, which include that I see it as:

• A book comprising of a collection of wide and varied writings that started to come together as the so-=called 'Bible' around the 3rd or 4th century CE,
• These varied writings came from a wide array of sources over a period of some 800 years (starting around 500BCE), drawn from a variety of social and cultural contexts, often impacted by the times they lived
• Many of the writings were myths and stories that people who couldn't possible have a better understanding of how the world worked, used these as a way of explaining their existence and experiences
• There's some beautiful poetry and inspiration to be drawn from some parts of the bible, and indeed some parts of it people use to guide their life choices (choices that some might regard as either good or bad choices)
• The various writings evolved and developed over that 800 years with a primal view of God as a violent, jealous, retributive God, to one of love, peace and all that stuff in the CE.
• A book that has been misused by later Christians to promote the idea of an eternal hell of torture, when no such place is ever mentioned in the Old Testament, and Jesus never promoted such either.  Hell simply wasn't a notion in Judaism.

I could go on, but I'm uncertain whether you are genuinely interested. If you are, I'm more than happy to have an ongoing discussion with you.

But back to my original question and the substance of this thread, what do you think God had in mind when humans roamed the earth for some +150,000 years as homo sapiens, prior to the existence of the bible?  Do you think God thought for all that time that people didn't need such a book, but that it only became an issue some 2,500 yrs ago?

P.S. I would currently label myself as an agnostic atheist, but that could be subject to change in the future, just as it has been in the past.

8 minutes ago, Divine_will said:

I signed in and the first thing I saw is a bunch of warnings. What is going on Paul? You either a believer or not. However you seem neither hot or cold. Just pick one.  

I didn't hurt anyones feeling because no one is active here.

The warnings were for not abiding by the Forum Guidelines concerning the quality of your posts and how you address other contributor's opinions.  You are welcome, even encouraged, to participate here, but please abide by the guidelines that you committed to, when you signed up to this Forum. It's not about 'feelings' it's about integrity and adhering to what you agreed to adhere to when you signed up as a member here.

Would you care to actually discuss the proposition of this thread and provide your answer as to what you think God had in mind for the large majority of human existence - that is the humans that lived during the +150,000 years leading up to the beginning of biblical stories even being captured?

8 minutes ago, tariki said:

Ha ha.......😋     

Still fighting the good fight!

 

All the best Paul.

Thanks Derek

It's a hapless cause I know, but I can't help myself!

On 12/8/2023 at 4:06 AM, Divine_will said:

But your opinion is of no value, you think and think your way around the scriptures but you are not prepared that they will catch up with you. You are off course not a Christian, but into new age. The spirits gave you a thought to start this website and you just blindly obey that thought. In the end it's not much of your own ideas and inspiration that you have put into this website, but something that came from the spirit world you have opened yourself up to in the first place. Or did you not?

I didn't mean to scare you off, Divine Will.  Did you wish to discuss the matter, or did you just want to post your say and then leave?

3 hours ago, Divine_will said:

But your opinion is of no value, you think and think your way around the scriptures but you are not prepared that they will catch up with you. You are off course not a Christian, but into new age. The spirits gave you a thought to start this website and you just blindly obey that thought. In the end it's not much of your own ideas and inspiration that you have put into this website, but something that came from the spirit world you have opened yourself up to in the first place. Or did you not?

We all have opinions, even you.  How YOU see Christianity, scripture, 'spirits', etc is all just your opinion and understanding.  Accusing others of not being Christian, YOUR type of Christian, is just an opinion.   Hell as a place of eternal punishment simply doesn't exist in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament it is NOT a teaching of Jesus and only developed in later decades following Jesus death.

This Forum is a safe place for people to discuss their views, opinions, and understandings.  If you wish to participate in a discussion here, then your are most welcome, but you must do so in good faith and without putting down others.  If you cannot abide by the Forum Guidelines then you will b banned from participating here, and wouldn't that be a waste. 

Welcome Thijs, I hope you enjoy the forum.

Cheers

Paul

On 11/15/2023 at 9:59 AM, Buckeyeinwv said:

Does the salvation that came to the house of Zacchaeus represent a change of heart away from selfish ambitions as opposed to the salvation from Hell that is preached in fundamental churches? 

Personally, I think much of what Jesus is reported as saying was hijacked by later-developing Christianity.  I do think that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet preaching the end of the world (in those times, not some distant future) and whilst he didn't preach an eternal brimfire Hell, he did expect those who did not follow God to be destroyed when God came to rule the earth.

21 hours ago, romansh said:

If you argued there is no intrinsic "me" then I might agree with 'you'. I don't influence my influences, but my influences are influenced. I am not claiming anything "matters". Saying something matters is like saying a stop light is red. Useful up to a point but philosophically "inaccurate". 

Like Carl Sagan said "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself," I might quibble over the word "know", but I agree with the sentiment.

 

I guess I was only responding to you asking if anything 'mattered':

On 5/18/2023 at 10:13 PM, romansh said:

Interestingly, whether we think we have free will or not affects the interpretation of how the universe ticks. Does this matter? 

Does anything matter?

What I am saying is that if there is no free will, then our choices or the choices of others do not matter, as we have no influence over them.  We might think we can change somebody's mind through artful debate, but with no free will then we cannot.  So why should what you or I think or do, matter?

25 minutes ago, romansh said:

Do you believe in cause and effect? Many people and events have influenced me. These influences have shaped me. In turn, I am a shaping cause for other bits of the unfolding. 

Yes, but if there is no free will then 'you' have no influence over any of those influences.  'You' may still be shaped by them, but none of those influences 'matter' because none of them, yours included, are in your control (if there is no free will). 

9 hours ago, romansh said:

I don't think this follows. The universe unfolding and all that.

The universe may be unfolding, but as for us and our 'decision', surely if we don't have free will then there is no point being concerned about the decisions we or others make.  Nobody can influence them.

Just thought I'd share a version of philosophy that I have currently warmed to.  I have come to understand that life is perhaps meaningless in the sense that there is no deity or 'source' that has any thoughts or plans for us.  There is no afterlife, so really, what is the point of living a life, other than the three score years and ten that we get to experience existence.  I'm not bothered by there being no afterlife - to me I imagine death will be much like before I was born - i.e. I have no knowledge of it and won't realize I am dead like I didn't realize that I hadn't been born yet - so I don't fear it and can appreciate that this is what has happened to billions of individuals before me.

A lot of people seemed to think this point of view was quite dark and miserable, although I must say, that is not how I feel about it. Some people would go to that old chestnut that if there was no afterlife or 'source' that mattered, then we would live selfish lives of raping and pillaging, but I must say that that has never crossed my mind.  I see living a selfish and harmful lifestyle as detrimental to living a purposeful and happy life during this period of existence.  Like the Golden Rule expressed in the Hindu faith some 2000 BCE - “One should always treat others as they wish to be treated".  That makes sense if we don't want to live a life of always looking over our shoulder and living in angst and worry.

So I did a little bit of reading and found 'Optimistic Nihilism' very much met how I am feeling about life currently.

To borrow a definition I found on the web: "Optimistic nihilism views the belief that there is no underlying meaning to life from a perspective of hope. It’s not that we’re doomed to live in a meaningless universe--it’s that we get the chance to experience ourselves and the universe we share. The optimistic nihilist looks at a world lacking meaning and purpose and sees the opportunity to create their own".

The belief that life has no inherent meaning or purpose can free us from the constraints of societal expectations and allow us to create our own meaning and purpose.

For example, if you embrace the optimistic views of nihilism, you may find that the freedom and uncertainty that comes with the philosophy allows you to explore new ways of living and thinking for yourself.

You will think of life as an experiment in progress and explore different lifestyles, hobbies, and careers to find what brings you the most fulfilment and satisfaction.

Has anybody else ever given optimistic nihilism a second thought?

Cheers

Paul

11 hours ago, JMIchael said:

 

Perhaps you could elaborate JMichael, and put forward some constructive discussion points supporting your point of view?  Surely it has to be more useful than just insulting somebody you disagree with?

Also, how about you tell us a bit about yourself (and if you like, put it in your profile) by posting in the "Introduce Yourself" section of the Forum.   All new guest members that wish to participate here are expected to introduce themselves first and share a bit about themselves and perhaps why they are here. Just like moving to a new community or entering someone else's house, it's customary and just plain good etiquette and helps contribute to 'breaking the ice'. Thanks for your cooperation.

59 minutes ago, tariki said:

Yes, thanks, you make a good point. Words can be very powerful and suggestive. Maybe "healing" will fade from my mind!

Maybe you'll be healed from using the term healing!

10 hours ago, tariki said:

Maybe I was unclear, but I was contrasting two ways of understanding Christianity, one that sees the end result as the final restoration of all things, and one where the end result is an eternal division between the lost and the saved. I was saying that those who look to the former would be more likely to begin to mirror and reflect back a life of healing.

As I have said, I actually subscribe to neither one nor the other. 

Thanks for explaining.  I agree with you that the former may be more inclined to mirror and reflect back a life of healing (not, that I like that word, as I'll explain).  Then again, one of the key messages of Jesus WAS that certain people would (and should) be denied the Kingdom of Heaven, so I do wonder if that element still sits there for most Christians, even if it is just as an 'acceptance' of that's how restoration will be and how they trust that it must be 'okay' because that's God's plan.

10 hours ago, tariki said:

Just to add, pure acceptance is, paradoxically, the catalyst of genuine transformation (healing) and therefore I see us as on the same page. ("Transformation" would be on-going).

I guess for me, the term 'healing' implies that something is not as it should be - it needs to be 'fixed'.  Maybe I just prefer 'pure acceptance' and 'tools' to deal with that which we don't like, rather than the term healing.  For me any 'transformation' is that to a creature that knows how to use various tools to manage life.

Maybe this is a minor distraction from your post, but I don't understand how you say "I am a non-theist, and have little interest (or belief) in transcendent Beings, creators, any fall of humankind, and therefore of any restoration", but then say that "It really goes without saying that if, in our mind/hearts, we have faith in the eventual restoration of "all things", every last one of us, then our own lives will begin to mirror, to reflect, the Reality of Healing that we trust is in us and around us."

It would seem to me that any belief in some form of 'restoration' holds a misdirected hope that there is something 'wrong' with our existence.  Certainly I get why we might want to reduce our suffering (i.e. it feels better), but to think suffering is anything different in existence to say happiness, holds a false hope that somehow things "should be different".  

I think I can understand a 'Reality of Healing' not as something that sits separate to us that can be reached if only we open ourselves to it, but rather I think a better approach might be to recognise that there is no 'restoration' to go back to, and indeed no restoration required, and no 'Reality of Healing' to be reached, but rather we can however live a more pleasurable or meaningful existence for now and generations to come if we simply practised more mindfulness and cared more about each other.

11 hours ago, romansh said:

Yesterday I was in Adelaide seeing a friend I had not seen in thirty years. Today walking the streets of Fremantle with a friend I last saw sixteen years ago.

It really is a small world!  Sorry I'm out here bobbing around in the ocean!

Looks like you're having fun with your Blooks, Derek.  Nice! A publishing career on the horizon?

Welcome to the forum rdclmn72,

I hope you enjoy participating here, and find the treasure trove of previous discussions useful.

Cheers

Paul

I think another aspect of 'free will' is the purely physical chemical reactions of our brains.  Can we as humans control how much dopamine our brain emits for instance?  If dopamine is influencing what we find pleasurable, but we can't control how much our brain produces or when it produces it, how much control do we actually have over 'our' own decisions?

Nice!