An Atheist in the Pulpit

Neo-ortha said :"How can you love God if you question....." 

No problem - Jesus did not reject his disciples for doing so, and neither did he reject Thomas for doubting. It's all about where you heart is - do you question in order to pull down or build up?

Neo-ortha said: "I pray that the material and administrative body of United Church of Canada, a member of the one holy catholic church, will again align with faith " 

And in what way do you believe that it is not "aligned with faith"?

I quite like this; it certainly represents my situation.

on the other hand, what I find myself struggling with is the idea of committment.  Are you a failure/sellout/liar, etc if you can't commit to a philosophy in it its whole...I am haunted by the phrase "cafeteria Christianity" where you pick and chose the best bits and leave the liver and onions to others.  At what point are we all "actors" going through the motions, in the midst of the ambiguity of life?

Every Christian cherry picks (along with every theist).

The fundies just aren't honest about it like you are.

Hi Neo-orthodoxian:

If the above definition of God is interpreted to mean that God is the oneness of being, the totality of being in an inseparable state of synthesis, then there is no supernatural God standing outside of creation. Then the universe is self-creative, self-generative, and self-godly. Then every one of us is an inseparable part of the totality which is God.

The inseparable and self creative totality, a.k.a. God, would then be all there is. In this kind of unitheism, there is no separate supernatural God. Because it does not believe in a separate supernatural God, unitheism is sometimes regarded as atheism by those who believe the separate supernatural God to be the only possible definition of God.

That's why there sometimes are atheists in the pulpit. I am one of them.

So, I think, was Jesus.

I and the Father are one. 

-Jesus

Is Christ ... Light in a code that is acceptable to those that see love as a blind Saac ... no way out? One must get beyond the self as anthropocentric ...

Some balance of black and white required ... loven light in an alien form ... feeling another's Pæn ... Caesar's Dae ... impose your own desire on the whole world! Is this a mortal god's empiric (sense of equality)? A great deal of light is lost when love breaks out blindly. 

 Is God pure Love and stupid, or as the other side of theis empiric suggests ... some philosophy required; the love of wisdom and knowledge. So many would like to can the intelligence bit ... before metals ... perhaps put it in the bloody bag for digestion ... conceptional process after the primal observation? When the "O" thing becomes a "C" or a "Q" in other dialex! The first cutting of the word is cruel to some ... having to think about their initial desires ... emotives!

Did Jesus, EIsous, Isaiah, or Isis hate blindness? The metaphor goes on for the paradigm doesn't get it!

Dear Arminus, I indeed respect the way you have responded. I would love to discuss this further. (see below)

Dear Mr. or Mrs witch,

                It is interesting that Jesus Christ the king of kings makes you want to roll on the floor laughing your ass off. Jesus Christ makes me want to get to my knees and praise him. But that I guess that is a personal thing. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. (if you do respond to this post I suppose you will say “no Jesus doesn’t make me laugh, you do”. But this is a wild guess and I will not put words in your mouth)  If you had read my post, you may have responded in a more constructive fashion. There are no versions of Christianity, there is the Gospel, faith in Jesus Christ, and the great commandment. Truth has to be objective, not subjective. But again that is what the Bible says and it does take a leap of faith into the ubsurd to believe it. Call me stupid.

Dear Blackbelt,

                Would you care to articulate how I am all over the map? Let’s see. In my previous post, I am discussing my thoughts on Atheist Christians juxtaposing that to how atheism is antithetical to faith. I then discuss that faith is the unifying theme of the New Testament(which is the best document Christians have in terms of learning about the life of Christ).  I continue by discussing how faith is irrational, absurd and even stupid. Similarly, I appeal to scripture, so as to argue my point and I briefly talk about the authority of said scriptures. Again, to bestow authority on the scripture, one must have faith. Finally I talk about the benefits of the Church and that without Christ (ei: faith in Him); it is just a humanistic social club. Hope that clears it up for you.

Dear Spirit Bear,

                Are talking about doubting in the existence of God period? The examples you mention speak of the disciples doubting that Jesus was divine. Although I touch upon Jesus’ divinity in my previous post and in the text following this, it was not the main focus of what I was saying. Do you remeber the story about the woman who touches Jesus' cloak or the Centurion who has great faith and no doubt? He uses them as examples of the benefits of faith. I would however agree that everyone has doubts, including myself. That is the nature of being a sinful person. If I rely wholly on my rational faculties in discussing Christianity, the only thing that will remain is doubt. Peter, when he walked on water with Jesus was relying on his rational faculties when he began to think about his experience. Imagine yourself in his shoes, he was thinking “this can’t be possible, this is crazy, I’m dreaming, this is a ghost, etc etc.” and then he started to sink. He was doubting something the could not possibly be ‘possible’. Humans walking on water! We all know that the laws of science tell us this is impossible (unless of course it’s frozen, but you know what I mean). Along side the fact that this parable is about the church, it is also about believing in the absurdity of Christ Jesus.  As somebody who has a degree in religious studies, all I can rationally do is doubt the scriptures, doubt Jesus, and doubt God. That leads me to nowhere. To have faith is to believe, and to believe is to trust in something you cannot understand. So I guess I would agree with you, and maybe my initial statement was a little awry. Do I doubt my faith, yes, but only in the classroom. Do I doubt with my heart? No. So I think we would agree.

                Responding to my comment about the United Church, would require an essay in itself. I grew up in the United Church, and it is partially responsible for teaching me God’s truth. I am currently a member of the Anglican Network of Canada, but once a month I worship at a United Church in which the minister preaches the Gospel and nothing but. My main criticism of the United Church would be that in many respects it has become synonymous (at least in my experience) with Unitarian Universalism. Not just Unitarian in the Christian sense, but a church without the Gospel. A minister of a church I used to attend would Sunday after Sunday preach on the Simpsons(there is nothing wrong with the Simpsons at all, it’s a brilliant show, but the lesson would come from the show and not from the gospel), Winnie the Pooh, The New Democratic Party and Pagan religions specifically wiccan and earth centered religion. The sermons were empty and upsetting. But I cannot paint with a broad brush, and I know from experience as well, that there are many faithful Christians and pastors in the United Church of Canada. Similarly, there are many good people seeking God in the United Church, but it is clear that they are looking elsewhere, because after the Presbyterian Church of Canada and Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church in a state of fast decline.

Peace to you,

Re:Arminus

                Personally, I understand the Bible to cover every single circumstance a human will ever be confronted with.(I think I have stolen that from the Gideon society). I also believe it shows us quite clearly a way to heaven (what ever heaven may be).  I truly believe, and I stand by 2000 years of theological tradition when I say that through reading the bible, certain essential doctrines are clear. The great motto: in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity, probably articulates this better than I can. Once again, I am appealing to scripture, so one must believe in it's authority. Jesus does say quite a few things as matter of fact. He is not a propagandist. This is evident when He warns us that he is here to bring “fire” and division among the world, among the family etc. It is sayings like this which loudly speak of the fact that Jesus didn’t come to give us warm fuzzy feelings about our Egos, materialistic lives, and persistent immorality. Nor did he urge us to trust in our reason. He says in black and white that one should literally hate their life. (Luke l4:25) Surely he does often speak in parable, which I will agree can be interpreted in different ways.

                 I disagree with your interpretation that “the Lord is one” means that God is the oneness of being. I understand, respect and see where you are coming from, but I believe that is very dangerous. Again I will return to some very core ideas central to reality on earth as described in the bible. Note* If my appeal to scripture isn’t authoritative enough, than I have no leg to stand on, because I really do not know anything about the utter glory of God’s being other than what I have personally experienced and what the Bible tells us. (and I’m sure that is but a miniscule representation of what He really is.) I believe your appeal to panenthiesm (correct me if this is the wrong term, or is unithiesm a better word?) demotes God, and is contrary to the scriptures. Before I continue, I will say that certain bible passages can be interpreted in a panenthiestic way, but as I have previously said, the Bible must be taken in its entirety. Returning to my statement about demoting God, in Deuteronomy, God is described as “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all his Ways are Just; A God of Faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is he” (32:3-4). God, by descriptions all over the Bible is perfect in everyway. Period. Just off the top of my head, in Psalms 5 it asserts that “Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with thee”. God is perfect, without Sin, and all good. In the quote you have provided in which Jesus says “I and the father are one” clearly reveals His deity. Now, if you believe anybody can be a Christ, and everybody is “one with God”, than I can accept this argument.(In rhetorical terms)

                But the Bible is clear that humans are sinners. The Adam and Eve story sets the stage, the rest of the prophets continue to assert this, Jesus himself reveals this to us, and finally Paul makes this claim over and over again. Moreover, you and I have most certainly experienced sin. I see it all over the world in War, in politics, in familial relations etc etc. The one thing I am convinced of beyond all doubt is that human beings are not perfect, ei: sinners. There is not one who is righteous, not even one. Jesus however, did not sin. Hebrews 4:15 reads: "For we have as high priest, not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin". Thus, since Jesus is without sin he is not just any man. This makes the “one with God” passage clearly point to Jesus’ unique divinity.

                Returning to the danger of panenthiesm or monism (or unitheism - these terms are all related anyway). I know I am a sinner, and there are certain sins I struggle with. To say that I am one with God, is to say that God is also a sinner, God also makes mistakes, and God is not perfect and all knowing. Again I do not claim to understand the nature of God beyond the fact that I AM NOT GOD. Jesus tells us that he and God are one and that the only way to God is through him. Taken together this tells us Jesus is divine, and he gives us an opportunity to enter into a relationship; a relationship in which he is our advocate. (1 John 2:1) Great!! These are clear statements. Taken on faith (as per my previous post about the leap of faith into the stupidity of the Cross), is the crux of Christianity. It is not our prerogative to understand the mechanism of Grace. Grace makes no sense, it’s not ‘fair’, and it’s completely irrational. Karma is the most rational thing ever. Place karma next to grace and I can do nothing but praise Jesus Christ. So to take the undeniable biblical theme of faith in combination with the great commandment (Love God and Love others), the bible gives us no choice but to believe in God. I can’t love God unless I believe in him. I am not even close to perfect, thus I can not be God.

As per God being a big old man in the sky, I would agree that this is completely obsolete and nothing but a mere human projection. However the dualism of God and creation is clearly evident through the scriptures and through the sinfulness of mankind. Sure, I believe that God dwells within me, around me, in nature, etc. but that does not mean, nature, myself, the rock, and the entire world of fellows sinners are synonymous with God.

Your thoughts Armanus? I’d love to continue this discussion.

Hi Neo-orthodoxian:

I respect your view, but I don't share it. Actually, I don't have any hard core beliefs.

If reality is in a unitive state of synthesis—as I believe it to be—then it is beyond analytical comprehension. The the unity which is the basic state of being can only be experienced, and the experience of IT results not only in rapture but in all those unitive feelings like unitive awareness, consciousness, conscience, and, most of all, unitive love.

This is experiential rather than doctrinal spirituality, also known as mysticism. My kind of spirtuality. It is not to be talked about but to be experienced. The experience of IT is, I think, Jesus' "kingdom."

Surely I am not against mysticism, and I appreciate your response. I also cannot make any one beleive and similarly I do not beleive I know it all. I have also had experiences with the united feelings you are talking about. In high school I was involved in alot of meditation and I have used some psychadelic drugs aswell. Personally, my experiences - rather than enlighten me - brought me more and more into sin. Then I had the ah-hah moment, that we are all sinners. What is your thought about sin? And I agree, beleif is just that beleif, articulating it with words never does it any justice. But would you entertain the idea that the synthesis you are talking about is not actually synthesis but just an experience or repesentation of synthesis? I do beleive there is a certain unity of people, and created things. I think we are united in that we are all sinners, we are all created and we all yearn for truth. I also beleive that God (whatever God is) has woven us all together and is in us and around us. But again, not synonomous with us. I also beleive (and to comment on your above statement) that beleif is dead if it is just a bunch of words. That is not to say that faith rests on works, but that works rest on faith.

Peace to you brother,

"We spend our lives impersonating who we think others want us to be," he says. "And we end up as living impostors. So, when someone comes to me and tells me they're losing their faith, I congratulate them. You're starting to embrace your own thinking self—the essential, immutable, immortal self— as opposed to the accidental criminal you have been made to think you are."

So, is he trying to say that people who delibaretly find to God are not embracing their own thinking self, but instead give it up?

Hi  Neo orthadox -----(Stupidity of The Cross)---When I first read this ,I started putting my armour on. But the Holy Spirit  made me read it two more times, and your right . It is Gods will that we must say ok I will think your way.Welcome to Wodercafe . I hope to read more of what you have to say .  God Bless--airclean33

Hi Neo-orthodoxian:

What I think about sin?

I think sins are mistakes, and making mistakes is an essential aspect of the learning process. As soon as a mistake is recognised and corrected, it becomes a valuable learning experience. That's how we learn, and that's how sin is transformed into virtue.

As far as our relationship with God as the self-cretive totality is concerned, a fitting analogy might be the relationship between the human body and a human cell. Although the cell is an inseparable part of the body, the body is greater than any of its cells or the sum of its cells.

Likewise, God as the self-creative totality of being is unfathomably greater than any of its parts or the sum of its parts. However, all parts are inseparably united into a greater whole.

As a theology, this is known as unitheism or holotheism. Gnosticism, pantheism and panentheism are similar.

As I said before, these various forms of unitheism are sometimes regarded as atheism by Christian fundamentalists who regard the seperate supernatural God as the only valid form of God. Hence "atheists in the pulpit."

Normal
0

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Arminius,

So I am wondering if you believe in Human Perfection. To be honest I have never seen such a thing. I however believe that Jesus is perfect.? But he is not just any man.

I appreciate the analogy about the body. Can I propose another illustration, by building on yours? Your description makes perfect sense. However, if too many cells become cancerous, the whole body will eventually succumb to death. Sure, in some cases the whole body may be saved from death by cancer, either by amputation or harsh invasive chemicals or procedures, but the prognosis usually isn’t very good. Think of the cancer as sin. First, one cell becomes cancerous (Adam) and soon the Cancer will spread through the body (everybody else) and consume it all.

I appreciate your explanation of sin as a series of mistakes; I however would define sin separation from God. Just humor me in this. Would you not agree that some people (I would assert, all people) make the same mistakes over and over and never learn from them? One example would be a drug addict. Surely the drug addict knows his or her actions are wrong, and that a life without drugs is better than one with drugs. (alright I know it can be argued that these people have genetic problems and I appreciate that these people may be physically addicted). But the error (or sin) which is in the case of the substance abuser, he may not be able to liberate himself from the sin. The point is, I do not believe people can always overcome their mistakes. I would say history proves this fact in that it repeats itself, mistakes and all.

Also suppose if a person did not know they were making a mistake in the first place? Then they would not know how to, if they need to, and why they should correct the mistake. This is ignorance, and I would assert the human creature is a creature of ignorance because of his desire to ignore God and listen to himself. This is why God’s moral laws have been given to us; precisely to humble us and show us how sinful we really are. By listening to ones self, one may be able to convince him or her self that an act or error (or sin as the bible would describe it) is justifiable. In conclusion, the end product is a body(as per your example) in which all its cells are malignant, and thus a dying reality.

I cannot accept that God is dying.  I’m not sure you believe in the progress thesis. Which is loosely based on the assertion that everything (meta-collectively) is always in a state of upward progress. I personally do believe in one variation of the progress thesis however, this progress is the sheer will of God. The current state of the world makes it evident to me that any realized progress cannot be undertaken by creatures who are flawed to the very core of being.

Cheers,

Hi Neo-orthodoxian:

I don't strongly disagree with you; I just don't have any doctrinal beliefs. I feel united with God, and try to think and act as godly as I can.

If we immerse ourselves in cosmic unity, and think and act directly from the unitive experience, then we can't go too wrong.

Upward process? A Levantine ob-session with the head in the clouds! This sounds like a mortal perspective as against one from the soul (mind, psyche) then did Light dan'ç across the water like an unknown WORD?

Some stirring required in the medium we call a'm'n ... a balance of Dark and White word to feed the GUI grais manna ... the haze or foggy area following an outbreak of pure passion when something is created. This is all in the state of the soul entity, which many religions would exclude although determined to have yours, mine and everyone elses under their control. Does that sound like the devil? Such is probably required to keep the populations (eM, paradigm) soul alive. Have you ever lost it for an instant? ID's a sigh'n on the winds ...

But then who cares about social stuff in a mostly anti social realm ... despite what they say. Here in NB we are working on an election ... and I have never heard such lies about the past, present and the projected future that we are tapping into for all it's got. Is that deflating in the Simsonian caption ... letting the Aries out of Hommoe Eire (shape of the soul)? One simply must know the words to get the slightest tickle (ichthï) of the passing intellect. Then one must get by the dialexis points. WORD's a mystical medium ... always on the move carrying Light ... Black Water fever? The shadow could kill in the p'st of thinking ... could this still be a probable incident in the dark? Perhaps the end of the anima ... knowing where heis at and looking for a way out. Isn't that just like the devil Gnawing away at your heis'art with achieving animus'n situation ... rather impossible image (aD ream)?

Now the bible says love your self and the neighbour ... and love your mind, body and soul; is there something to be extracted and equated here? Still the church presses spirits, emotions and deny what saves the soul ... should ID be taken out and exercised, fed, watered, healed and educated ... from the house that provides covenent and shelter? Is there some mythical connection between word and soul ... as the mind of love and intelligence is outlawed under a Roman loupe (wilde dog Maw) of rationale? The easy escape is to deny it exists ... then there's Descarte who questioned how I know I exist ... the spirit of awareness ... countering the spirit of emotions! Is an imbalance on either side or even in the midst enough to label a man fool, or crazy? Says so in the bible so how does one filter that one through ... the sans, that's what without, in a stir of metaphors ... pure myth that one has to believe in ... or one is in a double state of black ness ... darkened by both extremes of fixation ... when it wasn't broken ... just altering .. moving the sects about! Attempting to conjugate (gather'n) them?

IOt we truly knew where non-Christian order came from ... would we be shocked, Paen'd, weal'd ... O'Zeus on the mountain, or Isis on the pool moving north ... chilling anihilism ... creeping up on us because we don't know much ... and don't wish to. Lets go back over that concept of perfectionsism again ... after the lovein ... do we become pure only when in clearer space of th'aught (Theo) ... and where's that aether ... in the imaginary dimension? Perhaps we should walk it more ... like Wordsworth in outing. The aboriginaes say there is something sacred in the space of a word. Is that difficult to extract in fluted form?

Hoo Duh Thunk it was like a rock in a pool? Laid ais in the midst ... that's ET! Eire hei point of the quantum phlogiston, aether ...

Yah have to noch o'nit to get a response ... justice, judgement and decision making rests ... do it yourself or suffer the consequences ... a mortal thought? Is there a' moor 'n tuit ... a place ta pud enta? It's enough to make a'm'n retreat to heis cups ... like a grael ... a place of sacred waters for an ignorant garden in the dark?

Waterbuoy,

Thank you for your reply. But it makes no sense, and you speak in jibberish. Sorry, but it's just incoherent rambling

Peace to you,

I know irony meters have been completely played out, but there is no alternative in this case.  I thoroughly researched all the potential replies, and an exploding irony meter was the only one that fit.

Chansen,

I was referring to the fact mr. waterbuoy's post is not possible to understand period.

"Then one must get by the dialexis points. WORD's a mystical medium ... always on the move carrying Light ... Black Water fever? " Whaattt???

"could this still be a probable incident in the dark? Perhaps the end of the anima ... knowing where heis at and looking for a way out. Isn't that just like the devil Gnawing away at your heis'art with achieving animus'n situation ... rather impossible image (aD ream)?"

Right!

Also, what is with all the ellipses?  This indicates to me that his train of thought is constantly in flux and he not able to finish an idea.

"Yah have to noch o'nit to get a response ... justice, judgement and decision making rests ... do it yourself or suffer the consequences ... a mortal thought? Is there a' moor 'n tuit ... a place ta pud enta? It's enough to make a'm'n retreat to heis cups ... like a grael ... a place of sacred waters for an ignorant garden in the dark? "

Let us try to understand. Yah have to noch o'nit to get a response. (This makes absolutely no sense) ...(ellipsis indicating a trailing off). Justice judgment and decision making rests... (ok). do it yourself or suffer the consequences (do what my self?) Is there a'moor'ntui... a place ta pud enta? (English please?) It's enough to make a'm'n retreat to heis cups...like a grael...aplace of sacred waters for an ignorant garden in the dark"??????

It's like listening to a schizophrenic having an episode. No disrespect to people with mental illness. But this is literally gibberish.

Orthodox Christian concepts may be foreign to you Chansen, and thus you do not understand, but mr. waterbouy’s post is written in a weird variation of poetic nonsense. What is with the apostraphe's: th'aught, Paen'd, weal'd, heis'art. (oh and wait, these are not words). Maybe he is using pagan concepts that are foreign to me. So be it, it is nonsense.

What is Ironic is your avatar chansen. If Abrahamic religion is toxic, what are you doing on the United Church of Canada's website? Last I checked The United Church of Canada is a Christian church. Christian being abrahamic.

For now I will "a'm'n retreat to heis cups". Oh wait that doesn't make sense. I better see a physician for my "black water fever"

I was invited here, and I stay for the existential joy of rolling a ball of reason up a hill, and watching others roll it back down again.  It's complicated.

In case you are confusing me with a member of the UCC, I'm not.  I have been known to impersonate a card-carrying Baptist on occasion, but mostly, I'm just one of the local atheists.

Chansen,

Fair enough. So I guess, as an Atheist with an avatar that is designed to offend, would that make you an intentional antagonist?

At least I don't feel compelled to type out War and Peace with every post.

The avatar is a pretty good summary of my position on religion.  I think the holding of completely arbitrary and unsubstantiated beliefs about a god and how he wants us to think and behave are doing more to hold us back than propel us forward.

The Holy spirit compels me to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If that requires me to post treatises on this website, so be it.

Looks like you do a convincing enough job to get Jae to vote for you chansen. 

As-salaamu alaikum, Ramadan mubarak

-Omni

Is that a symbol of the Greek "Chi" or the Hebrew alephe ... it makes a difference for one is the spirit of the beginning and the other the spirit of the end ... one and the same as Alpha and Omega ... an emptied cup? Let your emotions go ... you might learn something of wisdom! Das Duh word in condensation ... just smear on  the page to trip up weid a'm'ns.

Isn't it a blast if you know the depths of the meaning of word (just a BUSS, KISS) ... it gets the authorities going in a dither ... Ænæd for a BIG Bang to blow your mind away? A good Phoqah up in heaven will give it a rest ... then one has to know the meaning of Phoqah in archaic Hebrew ... immersion in the word? Mani wouldn'tt go there for fear of the Brutish persecution from Roman type ... so the understanding went underground (Catacoomb) the superficial must dig for it in all that fecund Bull or URs ... pêðrè reciprocated?

Hi- Witch--I can see why you may relate to mr  James Mc Allister.  I Believe a minster He or She is called by God into the Minstry. I do not think this means you losse your right to say no and if you have lossed your Belief in the  christian way , you should step down . I think this would be  very honest. airclean33

Neo-ortha: I asked you "And in what way do you believe that it is not "aligned with faith"?"  There is nothing in your response that I would call an answer to this question.  If drawing lessons from  (and commentary on) contemporary culture is not "aligned with faith", then your faith has nothing to do with the world we live in.

Re your comment that doubt is the nature of the sinful person, still implies that the act of doubting is in itself a "sinful act".  I would contend that it is failing to doubt is what is sinful. If we do not question our actions and our presumptions (which you apparently are loathe to do, judging from your simplistic take on scripture) we run the risk of doing great evil. Failure to doubt means failure to accept the possiblity that you might be wrong about something, and that is pride, which (if you recall) is traditionally one of the 7 cardinal sins.  We always need to apply Christ's "Law of Love" to our actions and positions.  Sometimes we are not able to do so out of ignorance. But as we become more informed (and wiser), I would hope that we also become more loving. And love (according to Paul) does not insist on its own way.

Spiritbear ...

Become informed you say to Neo-ortho ... that smacks of intelligence, even philosophy, and the orthox states that nothing can change ... that's evil they say ... evolutionary heh!

Then i tend to agree with you, but don't tell anyone they think I'm crazy (I Corinthians 14:23 again). Another Rev. told me that the verse about man following God (emotions) alone being a fool is just a loose nous (ESS-Q'd eh), a free soul, unstuck from the emotions?