How we see reality pervasively shapes our sense of the way we should live. Jesus exemplifies faith to me by the transformation he brought, not through religious doctrine but by emphasizing practices rather than beliefs. But I see Jesus as a role model who was centered in God. God was a definite reality to Jesus. Wisdom teachers fall into two primary categories. The first are teachers of "conventional" wisdom, which can cover everything from etiquette to family roles to discipline. Often this kind of wisdom says those whose lives turn out badly have themselves to blame. While there is value and truth in conventional wisdom, there is a second kind of wisdom, one that challenges the ta...

How we see reality pervasively shapes our sense of the way we should live. Jesus exemplifies faith to me by the transformation he brought, not through religious doctrine but by emphasizing practices rather than beliefs. But I see Jesus as a role model who was centered in God. God was a definite reality to Jesus. Wisdom teachers fall into two primary categories. The first are teachers of "conventional" wisdom, which can cover everything from etiquette to family roles to discipline. Often this kind of wisdom says those whose lives turn out badly have themselves to blame. While there is value and truth in conventional wisdom, there is a second kind of wisdom, one that challenges the take-for -granted cultural consensus of conventional wisdom. We find it in the teachings of Jesus, along with other great wisdom teachers. It is beyond all our concepts and yet known in experience. Jesus taught a counter wisdom because of his experience of God. Because of that experience, he saw things differently.

Jesus exemplifies faith to me by the transformation he brought, not through religious doctrine but by emphasizing practices rather than beliefs.

This would make perfect sense in that he never wrote any doctrine, but left a legacy instead based on how he lived. And so the "Book of Jesus" as a living document as opposed to a written one could serve perfectly as an example of that "counter wisdom".

Jesus taught a counter wisdom because of his experience of God. Because of that experience, he saw things differently.

Strangely, it would seem that all who claim to be Christian would share this easy-to-understand attribute of living one's life as a testament to how J...

Jesus exemplifies faith to me by the transformation he brought, not through religious doctrine but by emphasizing practices rather than beliefs.

This would make perfect sense in that he never wrote any doctrine, but left a legacy instead based on how he lived. And so the "Book of Jesus" as a living document as opposed to a written one could serve perfectly as an example of that "counter wisdom".

Jesus taught a counter wisdom because of his experience of God. Because of that experience, he saw things differently.

Strangely, it would seem that all who claim to be Christian would share this easy-to-understand attribute of living one's life as a testament to how Jesus lived his.

Seems to be a no brainer.

But the written word (of the bible, koran, etc) seems to outrank any life Jesus could possibly have lived.

The "what would Jesus do" fad wants to capture that notion, but the person who tacks it on their car is often the same person that votes to kill or hate his neighbor.

Why is religion so saturated with hate, from the gay next door to the terrorist across the globe? It doesn't seem to me that these are the things that Jesus would do.

Why is that message so lost?

Because the real Jesus, the flesh and blood living man, the socialist, the political revolutionary, the guy who favored the least, last, and lost, has been tethered to a pole and crucified again. I know many people who are on a spiritual path, but think of Christianity as the last place to look to find something of value, and probably because the greatest obstacle to Christian evangelism in our time is Christian evangelists. Why is that message so lost? Human nature and conventional thinking, along with following the "law", something Jesus did not do. The message is still there for those who want to find it, Aces. One of my favorite biblical quotes is this:

The kingdom of heaven i...

Because the real Jesus, the flesh and blood living man, the socialist, the political revolutionary, the guy who favored the least, last, and lost, has been tethered to a pole and crucified again. I know many people who are on a spiritual path, but think of Christianity as the last place to look to find something of value, and probably because the greatest obstacle to Christian evangelism in our time is Christian evangelists. Why is that message so lost? Human nature and conventional thinking, along with following the "law", something Jesus did not do. The message is still there for those who want to find it, Aces. One of my favorite biblical quotes is this:

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which
a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that
he has and buys that field
Matthew 13:44

Why is that message so lost? Human nature and conventional thinking, along with following the "law", something Jesus did not do. The message is still there for those who want to find it, Aces.

Kindness and mutual respect for one another certainly predates Jesus. What, exactly then, sets the "Jesus life" apart from any other?

You mentioned before, that it was his experience of God that made him see things differently. In what way does this differ from the Muslim experience, or the Hindu experience, or any other were God is concerned?

I mean, other than mutual kindness and respect, what does God bring to the table? How is Jesus different than Krishna, or Buddha?

There is no...

Why is that message so lost? Human nature and conventional thinking, along with following the "law", something Jesus did not do. The message is still there for those who want to find it, Aces.

Kindness and mutual respect for one another certainly predates Jesus. What, exactly then, sets the "Jesus life" apart from any other?

You mentioned before, that it was his experience of God that made him see things differently. In what way does this differ from the Muslim experience, or the Hindu experience, or any other were God is concerned?

I mean, other than mutual kindness and respect, what does God bring to the table? How is Jesus different than Krishna, or Buddha?

There is no additional knowledge; no additional kindness; no additional morals... So what specifically is God bringing to the table ( which caused Jesus to see things differently )?

I don't wish to make this an argument "against" any god or Jesus, but an argument FOR kindness and mutual respect towards each other. And that is a purely secular endeavor.

Could the message of kindness and respect be lost in the sauce of pious branding?

Could the message of kindness and respect be lost in the sauce of pious branding?

YES!

I'll focus on the historical Jesus and his relationship to God. What was it? The story of his life begins with an experience with God, and God continued to be the central reality of his life. At the heart of his ethical vision was the imitation of God --Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate. How did God become so central to Jesus? Much is explained by his Jewish heritage. He grew up in a Jewish world saturated with God, whose sacred scripture and practices mediated a life centered in God. But there is an additional and crucial reason: For Jesus, God was not simply an art...

Could the message of kindness and respect be lost in the sauce of pious branding?

YES!

I'll focus on the historical Jesus and his relationship to God. What was it? The story of his life begins with an experience with God, and God continued to be the central reality of his life. At the heart of his ethical vision was the imitation of God --Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate. How did God become so central to Jesus? Much is explained by his Jewish heritage. He grew up in a Jewish world saturated with God, whose sacred scripture and practices mediated a life centered in God. But there is an additional and crucial reason: For Jesus, God was not simply an article of belief, but an experienced reality. He was someone who experienced God vividly and whose way of seeing and life were changed as a result of that. The notion that God can be experienced is foreign to many, and atheists, of course, deny that such experiences are possible, agnostics are skeptical, and even some Christians in our time find the claim strange. This is probably because the most common Western concept of "God", which is shared by some Christians as well as atheists and agnostics, refers to a personlike being separate from the universe. It's called supernatural theism, and for many people it is the only concept of God that they know. God is not here and thus cannot be experienced, except in moments of supernatural intervention; thus he can only be believed in; not known.

I mean, other than mutual kindness and respect, what does God bring to
the table? How is Jesus different than Krishna, or Buddha?

The religions of the world are filled with experiences of God. These experiences have a overwhelming sense of knowing that leads to a conviction about reality itself. Again, there is an overwhelming sense of having experienced something real; the utimate real. I take it seriously that they happen Aces, and the most important figures

some of whom you have already mentioned are spoken of as people who have had them.

So what specifically is God bringing to the table

People who encountered Jesus sometimes experienced a spiritual presence in him that evoked awe, amazment and astonishment. That Jesus experienced God intimately is suggested by his use of the word abba which is an Aramaic word used by children to address their father, much like papa. Its a word that is relational and intimate. So, again, what does God bring to the table, specifically through the example of Jesus? Ordinary and conventional ways of seeing are a kind of blindness. There is a path, a narrow way, that led beyond th...

some of whom you have already mentioned are spoken of as people who have had them.

So what specifically is God bringing to the table

People who encountered Jesus sometimes experienced a spiritual presence in him that evoked awe, amazment and astonishment. That Jesus experienced God intimately is suggested by his use of the word abba which is an Aramaic word used by children to address their father, much like papa. Its a word that is relational and intimate. So, again, what does God bring to the table, specifically through the example of Jesus? Ordinary and conventional ways of seeing are a kind of blindness. There is a path, a narrow way, that led beyond the broad way of convention. It is specifically the passion and character of God, his will, yearning, and desire for us that runs throughout Jesus's message as a teacher, healer, prophet, and movement initiator.

So, again, what does God bring to the table, specifically through the example of Jesus?

It is specifically the passion and character of God, his will, yearning, and desire for us that runs throughout Jesus's message as a teacher, healer, prophet, and movement initiator.

So God brings to the table (through Jesus)... his passion and character, his will, yearning, and desire for us?

I'm not sure I understand.

Somehow I thought it would be something from which we could all benefit, like knowledge or a way to communicate with god directly, or... you know, something that has a direct benefit.

I mean, I'm sure you're right, it's that I just can't grasp what you're ...

So, again, what does God bring to the table, specifically through the example of Jesus?

It is specifically the passion and character of God, his will, yearning, and desire for us that runs throughout Jesus's message as a teacher, healer, prophet, and movement initiator.

So God brings to the table (through Jesus)... his passion and character, his will, yearning, and desire for us?

I'm not sure I understand.

Somehow I thought it would be something from which we could all benefit, like knowledge or a way to communicate with god directly, or... you know, something that has a direct benefit.

I mean, I'm sure you're right, it's that I just can't grasp what you're saying means just yet. I don't know how to translate "his" passion into something of value to "me".

I always thought his message was "love thy neighbor as thyself". But that was the message from centuries before his time. (The golden rule, etc.)

I guess I have this silly idea in my head that if one can encounter and converse with the source of all knowledge, the result would be a much smarter person!

So I look for the additional intelligence. The mathematical formulas that transform the world. The knowledge of chemistry that improves our lives significantly. The greater understanding of the cosmos and the unified field algorithm of macro to quantum physics.

You know... the real McCoy type of knowledge that transforms our lives and understanding of his creation!

But every drop of knowledge that we have gained, we have struggled for and paid for entirely on our own.

So I still don't understand just yet what part that God brought to the table. Again, I don't want this to be an argument against god, but an argument FOR kindness and respect to each other.

But again, this is purely a secular function. ALL religions can do that, including atheists and agnostics. No god required.

So I'm missing which part is from god (or Jesus)?

The passion of God Aces, is a path of personal transformation--the way of return from exile, sight to the blind, & liberation from bondage; it is the way to new beginnings, the way to a life centered in God. What is that way specifically?
It is about God's passion for a different kind of world--one in which people have enough, not as a result of charity but as the fruit of justice, and in which nations do not war against one another anymore. This theme runs through the Bible. It is about justice and peace. So it is both personal and political because it is about personal transformation and the path of resistance to the domination systems of this world. It is actively practicing nonviole...

The passion of God Aces, is a path of personal transformation--the way of return from exile, sight to the blind, & liberation from bondage; it is the way to new beginnings, the way to a life centered in God. What is that way specifically?
It is about God's passion for a different kind of world--one in which people have enough, not as a result of charity but as the fruit of justice, and in which nations do not war against one another anymore. This theme runs through the Bible. It is about justice and peace. So it is both personal and political because it is about personal transformation and the path of resistance to the domination systems of this world. It is actively practicing nonviolent resistance. Predictably, Jesus's resistance to the domination system of his time and his counter advocacy of the kingdom of God (as opposed to earthly kingdoms) led to his execution. While charity is always needed Aces, God's passion is for justice. Charity never offends; justice often does. Again, the theme runs through the Bible of God's dream for a world of justice and plenty and peace. Jesus spoke against the powers who stood in the way of this dream. I will provide the example of Jesus's statements about wealth which were critiques of the domination system. In his world, how did people become rich? Only by collaborating with a perpetuating domination system. How did the wealthy become wealthy? By taking land and much of their production. Another example: Jesus also indicted those Pharisees who insisted on meticulous tithing but who neglected justice. The issue is not personal goodness with the wealthy, rather God's dream for the world which will bring blessings for those who are burdened by the domination systems and woe to it's perpetrators and beneficiaries. Most importantly, the kingdom of God is NOT about heaven. Rather, it is for the earth as the Lord's prayer makes clear. It is about a transformed world, a world of justice, plenty, and peace, where

everybody has enough and where no one shall be made afraid. Jesus called people to participate in God's passion. Following suggests participation and striving for the kingdom of God and God's justice. Does participatory eschatology mean that Jesus thought God's dream can come though human political achievement only? I DO NOT think he thought that. It always involved a deep centering in the God Jesus knew. Did he think God would bring his kingdom without our involvement? Again, I DO NOT think so.
God's message is not, at least to me, complicated. St. Augustine said:

God without us will not; and we without God cannot

So really, Aces, don't worry about offending me by pres...

everybody has enough and where no one shall be made afraid. Jesus called people to participate in God's passion. Following suggests participation and striving for the kingdom of God and God's justice. Does participatory eschatology mean that Jesus thought God's dream can come though human political achievement only? I DO NOT think he thought that. It always involved a deep centering in the God Jesus knew. Did he think God would bring his kingdom without our involvement? Again, I DO NOT think so.
God's message is not, at least to me, complicated. St. Augustine said:

God without us will not; and we without God cannot

So really, Aces, don't worry about offending me by presenting your argument that every drop of knowledge we have gained we have struggled for and paid for entirely on our own. That statement has merit, but I hope I have explained God's passion for us.

It is about God's passion for a different kind of world--one in which people have enough, not as a result of charity but as the fruit of justice, and in which nations do not war against one another anymore. This theme runs through the Bible. It is about justice and peace.

These seem like secular goals to me. And when I look in the Old Testament, I can't support these as something (at least the OT) god supported at all.

God orders Moses to go into a town and slay every man, his brother and his wife (Ex 32:26-29 (KJV)), in one instance...

Then, in another instance, god orders to kill every man, woman and babe for not succumbing to being taken as slaves! Though in all suppor...

It is about God's passion for a different kind of world--one in which people have enough, not as a result of charity but as the fruit of justice, and in which nations do not war against one another anymore. This theme runs through the Bible. It is about justice and peace.

These seem like secular goals to me. And when I look in the Old Testament, I can't support these as something (at least the OT) god supported at all.

God orders Moses to go into a town and slay every man, his brother and his wife (Ex 32:26-29 (KJV)), in one instance...

Then, in another instance, god orders to kill every man, woman and babe for not succumbing to being taken as slaves! Though in all support, he DID say they could keep the young virgin girls... for themselves!

Now kill
all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls
who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

See. Unless the OT god and NT god are different gods, and the OT god is not the god you speak of (that is, the god of the bible), and thus you are NOT speaking in any sort of Christian context at all...

...then you are clearly making what you think a god SHOULD be in your mind, and using THAT as your god.

I could cite god condoning rape, pillage and all sorts of plunder. But this cannot be the god of which YOU speak! That is, the one that morphed into Jesus.

This is why I can't buy religious values posing as secular humanism. Again, the values you speak of are purely humanistic.

So far, (as far as I can tell) what god has brought to the table happens only after we're already dead.

While charity is always needed Aces, God's passion is for justice.

The vicarious atonement of sacrificing the innocent to absolve the guilty, from animals in the OT to Jesus in the NT, wouldn't support that.

Perhaps, again, the God you envision is not the god of the bible.

Well Aces,

Unfortunately, reflecting the times in which it was written, violence, homophobia, and traces of primitive attitudes can be found throughout scripture, and I'll admit you'll find plenty of ammunition to support that. It's the classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

then you are clearly making what you think a god SHOULD be in your mind, and using THAT as your god.

Nope. Not at all. I see the bible through a historical, cultural, metaphorical, and wisdom "lens" instead of just a purely literal approach. I like to scratch through the residue of history, like a restorer of old paintings to discover the true beauty underneath.

Tha...

read more»

Well Aces,

Unfortunately, reflecting the times in which it was written, violence, homophobia, and traces of primitive attitudes can be found throughout scripture, and I'll admit you'll find plenty of ammunition to support that. It's the classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

then you are clearly making what you think a god SHOULD be in your mind, and using THAT as your god.

Nope. Not at all. I see the bible through a historical, cultural, metaphorical, and wisdom "lens" instead of just a purely literal approach. I like to scratch through the residue of history, like a restorer of old paintings to discover the true beauty underneath.

That is, the one that
morphed into Jesus.

The vicarious atonement of sacrificing the innocent to absolve the
guilty, from animals in the OT to Jesus in the NT, wouldn't support
that.

Jesus's humanity disappears in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, Aces.

I'm not interested for the reasons above in making a purely literal or simplistic interpretation of the Bible like many of the religous right choose to do. And if you can't buy the religous values I pose to you as being more than secular it is most certainly your choice to do so, but I think I've made my points fairly clear.

I see the bible through a historical, cultural, metaphorical, and wisdom "lens" instead of just a purely literal approach.

You might be right about that. It would certainly take all those ways of seeing things to "un-focus" the atrocities and focus just on the good things.

But something tells me you wouldn't really go for the killing of a people because they didn't want to be our slaves, even if the virgin girls are kept alive for the pleasure of their captors. (Would you?)

(And I don't think an omniscient being's decision is subordinate to man's culture, unless that culture created the god.)

So why are you willing to "un-focus" that (historical, cultural, metaphori...

I see the bible through a historical, cultural, metaphorical, and wisdom "lens" instead of just a purely literal approach.

You might be right about that. It would certainly take all those ways of seeing things to "un-focus" the atrocities and focus just on the good things.

But something tells me you wouldn't really go for the killing of a people because they didn't want to be our slaves, even if the virgin girls are kept alive for the pleasure of their captors. (Would you?)

(And I don't think an omniscient being's decision is subordinate to man's culture, unless that culture created the god.)

So why are you willing to "un-focus" that (historical, cultural, metaphorical, and wisdom) lens when commanded by a god?

Seriously, with morals like that, how can you tell the difference between a god and a devil?

See, from a secular approach, the answer is obvious and constant. No defense of immorality and injustice is necessary, because "wrong" doesn't have to be defended by divine caprice.

The difference between right and wrong can be seen in the justice, the fairness. (Not who performs the act.)

And if you can't buy the religous values I pose to you as being more
than secular it is most certainly your choice to do so, but I think
I've made my points fairly clear.

I guess what I'm not understanding is why those values we both agree are good and important you call religious (values).

That's why I gave examples of supposedly divine actions that would be considered atrocious by a moral person.

I think if the god of love exists, he might want to give some better examples in his book.

If following the ways of Jesus is to do good, then that's a great example. I'd love to follow him myself.

I do good because I empathize with both the sorrow and the happiness of others. Same with justice.

If others do it because of Jesus, that's great. If they didn't have Jesus, they might do harm. Jesus is good.

No, no Aces,
You misunderstand me and I don't know how to make it any clearer except to say that one MUST take into account the history, the patriarchal attitudes, homophobia, culture, violence, metaphor, parables, story telling, etc. Seeing all of these factors is a broader way of understanding.

I guess what I'm not understanding is why those values we both agree are good and important you call religious (values)

If you are defining religon as the Christ "haunting" or Christ "forgetting" culture we live in Aces, then please don't include me in that Bible ass backward, conservative preaching, prosperity gospel, holier- than- thou group of idiots who place greed an...

No, no Aces,
You misunderstand me and I don't know how to make it any clearer except to say that one MUST take into account the history, the patriarchal attitudes, homophobia, culture, violence, metaphor, parables, story telling, etc. Seeing all of these factors is a broader way of understanding.

I guess what I'm not understanding is why those values we both agree are good and important you call religious (values)

If you are defining religon as the Christ "haunting" or Christ "forgetting" culture we live in Aces, then please don't include me in that Bible ass backward, conservative preaching, prosperity gospel, holier- than- thou group of idiots who place greed and intolerance above love and compassion.

I think if the god of love exists, he might want to give some better examples in his book.

Again, one must understand the Bible as man's fallible response to divinity. But actually, one out of sixteen verses in the New Testament, one in ten in three of the Gospels, and one in seven in the gospel of Luke referred to money or to the poor. So again, I see the the central themes as compassion and justice.
But let me ask you a question Aces. I sense that it seems to bother you that for me God is a reality and that I feel these values as we have both defined as being "good" are spiritual in nature, and that is the path I choose to find these values. Why is that? It doesn't bother me that you think these values can be achieved secularily.
If I misunderstand you in the above question, then I apologize.

Seeing all of these factors is a broader way of understanding.

Right, but how do these factors make immoral acts any more "right" when performed by a god?

(Isn't there a big red flag in there somewhere?)

---

If you are defining religon as the Christ "haunting" or Christ "forgetting" culture we live in Aces, then please don't include me in that Bible ass backward, conservative preaching, prosperity gospel, holier- than- thou group of idiots who place greed and intolerance above love and compassion.

I don't. That's why I don't understand why you defend the acts of the god in the bible. (The god you seem to refer to would never have performed those acts.)

[quo...

Seeing all of these factors is a broader way of understanding.

Right, but how do these factors make immoral acts any more "right" when performed by a god?

(Isn't there a big red flag in there somewhere?)

---

If you are defining religon as the Christ "haunting" or Christ "forgetting" culture we live in Aces, then please don't include me in that Bible ass backward, conservative preaching, prosperity gospel, holier- than- thou group of idiots who place greed and intolerance above love and compassion.

I don't. That's why I don't understand why you defend the acts of the god in the bible. (The god you seem to refer to would never have performed those acts.)

I sense that it seems to bother you that for me God is a reality and
that I feel these values as we have both defined as being "good" are
spiritual in nature, and that is the path I choose to find these
values. Why is that?

It doesn't (bother me).

What does bother me is that people use religion to justify their particular brand of injustice, even evil.

I question, how would they justify their pious thoughts and deeds of harm if religion were removed from the list of "acceptable causes".

Should child molestation (for example) be any more "acceptable" if done by a priest? I think not. So why the protection of these people by the Pope?

Answer: because he's a "man of god". Surely the Pope, if he were truly moral, would turn these people in for prosecution. Instead, "say three hail Marys and have a nice day."

Religion tolerates evil. Secular laws seek to make religion moot. If you do the crime, you do the time. It doesn't favor the protection of religion. It would be unjust to do so.

Here's a question for you: How do you tell the difference between a devil and a god?

Aces,
Last explanation. I don't take the Bible just literally. You may find your answer to the first question by studying the culture and history and violence of the times and humanity's reponse to that.

Again, I find the message of peace, compassion, and justice as central Biblical themes. I'm not interested in debating passages you find offensive because you cannot see it through a different lens other than literal.

What does bother me is that people use religion to justify their particular brand of injustice, even evil.

And so we are in total agreement Aces. And anyone who reads my clips knows my position on this.

Here's a question for you: How do you ...

read more»

Aces,
Last explanation. I don't take the Bible just literally. You may find your answer to the first question by studying the culture and history and violence of the times and humanity's reponse to that.

Again, I find the message of peace, compassion, and justice as central Biblical themes. I'm not interested in debating passages you find offensive because you cannot see it through a different lens other than literal.

What does bother me is that people use religion to justify their particular brand of injustice, even evil.

And so we are in total agreement Aces. And anyone who reads my clips knows my position on this.

Here's a question for you: How do you tell the difference between a devil and a god?

Yes Aces, read very carefully. It is the difference between Willhelm and me. hahahahahhahahahahaha!
Now, the debate is over. I win. Go away. Seriously, we agree on more than we disagree, and my points have been made. Adios amigo!

I don't take the Bible just literally. You may find your answer to the first question by studying the culture and history and violence of the times and humanity's reponse to that.

Yes, I know. You're looking at "the way things were" back then. The people were, to us, somewhat barbaric. But I think you know by now I'm not talking about the people...

I'm talking about the GOD.

And if evil acts by a god can be seen as a "cultural" thing, since they were barbaric back then, then that god is a product of that culture, not an independent omniscient entity "who was barbaric back then" but who is full of love now.

In essence, you are confirming exactly what ...

I don't take the Bible just literally. You may find your answer to the first question by studying the culture and history and violence of the times and humanity's reponse to that.

Yes, I know. You're looking at "the way things were" back then. The people were, to us, somewhat barbaric. But I think you know by now I'm not talking about the people...

I'm talking about the GOD.

And if evil acts by a god can be seen as a "cultural" thing, since they were barbaric back then, then that god is a product of that culture, not an independent omniscient entity "who was barbaric back then" but who is full of love now.

In essence, you are confirming exactly what Sam Harris was talking about. You aren't looking through the lens of facts, we are mostly a product of our feelings, or our neurology...

My original statement was that he is confirming nothing new.

Peace be with you debbyski .