Okay, okay, so, yes, I probably need to disclaim my usage of scripture, since, as a *former believer, I no longer believe scripture is of a "Divine" origin. The bible isn't and never was "inspired" by any "Perfect" or "Divine" beings, and the fact that said book is chock-full of contradictions, scientific blunders, and overall crummy advice, is all the evidence that any person conducting an **objective evaluation of the Christian faith needs to know this. And sure, one could argue that parts of scripture could be inspired by God, and others, not, but that's not what the Bible claims, plus, a perfect being inspiring anything less than perfection is utterly nonsensical.
*former believer.
For anyone skeptical of the term "former believer", please take note of the following:
Former: 1. [attributive] Having previously been a particular thing
(ref: Oxford Dictionary)
Example: Jimmy previously believed that Santa Claus had a referent in reality. Jimmy no longer believes that Santa Claus has a referent in reality.
Applied to the topic at hand: Boomslang was previously a Christian who previously believed that the Bible was the inspired word of God. Boomslang is no longer a Christian, and by extension, Boomslang no longer believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
**objective evaluation
Objective. adj 1. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
(ref: Oxford Dictionary)
Example: When examining the truth claims surrounding the ancient Egyptian gods, historians tried their best to be objective and impartial, and thus, they were prepared to accept the findings even if they hated those findings.
Applied to the topic at hand: When examining the truth claims surrounding God, Jesus, and the Bible, Boomslang tried to be objective and impartial, and thus, was prepared to accept the findings even if he hated those findings.
Note, my apologies if it seems like I'm being extremely meticulous with my wording and sardonic in demeanor, but it's for a good reason. Please bear with this former believer :)
Okay, since it is Christians, not atheists, not agnostics, not people of other religious faiths, who are bound by the writings/teachings of "Christ", then the words of their "Christ" apply to them.
In other words, my directing a Christian to their own teachings doesn't require that I, too, believe in their Christ or their Christ's book. I know it might seem like a really unnecessary thing to have to point out, but unfortunately, people have tried this sort of "Gotcha!" argument before, haven't they? Yes, they have. But I digress.
Here in Matthew 15:8, Christians..i.e.. "these people" are being rebuked by Jesus for only paying lip service to his teachings instead of living said teachings. Did you catch that? Jesus is disappointed when self-professed Christians honor his teachings with their eyes 'n ears, but not with their mouths and keyboards.
For instance, say, like when Christians judge others. Since when do we put credence in a lecture on sin when the lecturer herself is a sinner?
We've heard it before: "Jesus HAS THIS under His control!". They say this, but then they proceed to claim to know what's best for other people, or more outrageous, they claim to know the personal experiences of other people better than the people themselves? What's up with that bull ca-ca?
Oh, and if only God can know a person's heart, then why do some Christians pretend like they, too, can know another person's heart, whether that person is a current believer, or former believer, or whatever? And speaking of knowing what Christians cannot possibly know, why, oh why, for those Christians who are quick to give mini-sermons on "free will" do they often times in the next breath say things like, "Once saved, always saved!"?? What? once I accept Jesus into my heart I can't change my mind and conclude that "He" was never there to begin with? So much for that "free will" malarkey.
And if a believer who struggles with his or her faith ultimately loses that faith, isn't God, who is presumably sovereign, knows what's best, and has a Plan, the one IN CONTROL?!? If so, why not give it a rest and just let him be in control already? Why do self-professed Christians who believe in a God that decides everything, read....EVERYTHING, regardless of the will of man, spend their time writing blog posts that second-guess this God? Especially given verses like, "Blessed be God who hath blessed us in Christ, according as He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world".
If God elected who he wanted to elect from the onset, then his mind is already made up and he cannot change it. Meanwhile, you'll find some denominations of Christianity, such as Lutherans and Calvinists, happy to talk at length about what you need to do or avoid to make the cut. Um, no. Stop it. Just stop it.
So, the long and short of it is, maybe there are some people who aren't "true Christians" either in their hearts, or their minds. These things I point out, these pesky attributes and tenets, and so forth, this isn't stuff I'm pulling out of my hindquarters. No, these are things that are confirmed by the Christian book and by the Christian's own words---by their own blog posts.
And yes, taking one's own advice is always a good move, but this isn't just about taking one's own advice; it's about taking the advice of an individual that you claim to love, worship, revere, follow.
4 comments:
Again, this makes me think of the Sheep and Goats passage. Those who didn't know they were doing the will of God were doing it, just by being decent human beings.
(Not belief, not faith, not rituals)
And those who had the lip service were cast into outer darkness.
THAT is something to think about.
If there is a God and someday judgment is made, who do you think would make it?
Self-righteous people who blather on about how deluded and self-deceived others are (And as you so rightly pointed out, unless such a person was god himself would have no idea of such things.)
OR
those who tried their best to make the world a better place?
If there is a God and someday judgment is made, who do you think would make it? ~ Alice
Guys like me (and gals like you) "get" the rhetorical question and point. I don't want to speak for you, though. For me? It boils down to understanding the difference between that which affirms human life and that which is detrimental to it. It requires knowing that real love can't exist where there is fear. Being asked to love someone you fear is nothing short of emotional abuse. It's counterproductive and it's just plain idiotic. Any philosophy that requires you to love an individual who wouldn't think twice to torture you with fire if you don't meet that individual's demands, should be denounced.
But to actually answer your question, I think that since my idea of a "God" is one that doesn't use fear or threats to have its desires fulfilled; and since my idea of a "God" is one that puts compassion and love before rules, rituals, and subservience, I would have to say that the latter people would make it....i.e.. those who tried their best to make the world a better place.
Of course, I totally admit that I'm projecting as "God" here, because after all, that is what every single believer does, too. This explains, perfectly, why you have decent, well-spoken, compassionate-minded believers like, say, KC Bob, who focus on the life-affirming aspects of his faith, and then on the other end of the spectrum, why you have pugnacious, self-righteous, judgmental zealots like Susan Zyp who focus on the vengeful, divisive, hateful aspects of her faith.
So in your opinion, would one's projection of God be in essence a projection of one's self? It seem simple, but are those who focus on the angry God those who find more in common with that in themselves?
So in your opinion, would one's projection of God be in essence a projection of one's self?
That's pretty much what I'm saying, yes. Though, there is a distinction to be made here in that, yes, while it is my opinion that we project as God, it is actually a fact that every believer relies on revelation in the absence of an actual god, the being from whom we could (presumably) be getting firsthand, objective answers instead of having to subjectively interpret 2000 yr old scriptures.
"It seem simple, but are those who focus on the angry God those who find more in common with that in themselves?"
Let's face it, in the Bible we can find a god who exhibits every human emotion under the sun, even the petty ones that we're admonished to avoid, like "jealousy". One minute God is preaching lovey-dovey verses, and a chapter later he's a raging, vengeful lunatic preaching hellfire and damnation.
Given this fact, a wide range of people can all look at the same book, but focus on that which aligns with their own personality, which also shapes how each believer feels how they think God should be. E.g. a certain someone might feel very incensed and offended that someone she once had fellowship with fell away from the faith(her faith). That is unthinkable, so she is literally forced to focus on the verses that talk about how anyone who loses their faith did that faith wrong. It couldn't possibly be that the faith failed them.
Post a Comment