Living with christianity as a non-christian.

[Galdrun]

I'm sorry to hear that your early schooling ignored tough questions and honest dialogue. That it a tough minute-steak to have to chew through.

I know that you're wanting to ask questions and journey here at our own pace and in your own way, but just remember that some of us Christians aren't afraid of questions or dialogue, in fact some of us (and I think many if not most here on CF) actually think questions and dialogue are important.

Well... I wouldn't say early. I was home schooled with very fundamental christian curriculum up until graduation (which, by the way, didn't give me a diploma that I could use - I got a GED later to make up for it). Things such as evolution and the age of enlightenment were glossed over, but alternatives were taught in much more depth, and I had to educate myself on many of these things after the fact. It makes it difficult when I have an interest in things such as anthropology, and I have to go through the process of learning these things all over again on my own just so I'm at the same level as my peers. I'm not blaming christian schooling or homeschooling in general, but that specific one did set me back, I feel. =/

Though, things we experience (good and bad) make us who we are, so maybe it's all for the best in the end.

I feel a lot of the questions I have had about god (in the christian world) have been answered to a satisfactory degree with me. I guess at this point I'm more interested in others and their walks with god. My experience with christianity is limited... and I want to construct a more complete image with different aspects and personal beliefs that people have. For instance...

One co-worker has a 38 year old son who has water on the brain. He's having another brain surgery soon (He's had dozens through his life) to remove an infected port and to have the infected areas cleaned out before having a new port placed into a different part of his skull. That same day, her son in law is having brain surgery to go after a cancerous tumor that is malignant. While this is going on, she suffers from the most severe environmental asthmatic reactions I've ever seen, and I've had to walk her over to the ER on a couple different occasions. It's to the point lately where she can't even laugh without having an attack. Her job is also very stressful, and I can see that she's in pain. I've been noticing how she's been coping with the hand she's been dealt, and she seems on the edge.

Suffering is as sure a thing in life as death and taxes, and the way people deal with it differs greatly. People of faith believe that they give their problems to god, which is a great relief off their shoulders - but this only softens a blow, IMO. Do you believe god only allows evils to happen that they can bear?

(sorry, long post, but my mind works on a tangent sometimes, heh)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well... I wouldn't say early. I was home schooled with very fundamental christian curriculum up until graduation (which, by the way, didn't give me a diploma that I could use - I got a GED later to make up for it). Things such as evolution and the age of enlightenment were glossed over, but alternatives were taught in much more depth, and I had to educate myself on many of these things after the fact. It makes it difficult when I have an interest in things such as anthropology, and I have to go through the process of learning these things all over again on my own just so I'm at the same level as my peers. I'm not blaming christian schooling or homeschooling in general, but that specific one did set me back, I feel. =/

Though, things we experience (good and bad) make us who we are, so maybe it's all for the best in the end.

I feel a lot of the questions I have had about god (in the christian world) have been answered to a satisfactory degree with me. I guess at this point I'm more interested in others and their walks with god. My experience with christianity is limited... and I want to construct a more complete image with different aspects and personal beliefs that people have. For instance...

One co-worker has a 38 year old son who has water on the brain. He's having another brain surgery soon (He's had dozens through his life) to remove an infected port and to have the infected areas cleaned out before having a new port placed into a different part of his skull. That same day, her son in law is having brain surgery to go after a cancerous tumor that is malignant. While this is going on, she suffers from the most severe environmental asthmatic reactions I've ever seen, and I've had to walk her over to the ER on a couple different occasions. It's to the point lately where she can't even laugh without having an attack. Her job is also very stressful, and I can see that she's in pain. I've been noticing how she's been coping with the hand she's been dealt, and she seems on the edge.

Suffering is as sure a thing in life as death and taxes, and the way people deal with it differs greatly. People of faith believe that they give their problems to god, which is a great relief off their shoulders - but this only softens a blow, IMO. Do you believe god only allows evils to happen that they can bear?

(sorry, long post, but my mind works on a tangent sometimes, heh)

Great post, Galdrun!

You've obviously come a long way through all of this. It seems that you've taken the baton of opportunity that life has handed to you and have begun to run with it very well. That's not easily done, so I commend you for wanting to learn and press ahead in fields like anthropology and whatever else I sure has in interest to you. These are my kinds of studies as well, so we have at least a little bit in common there.

I understand that you feel you've already found answers to your questions, so I'll respect that position and refrain from bring in any overt Socratic method to get you to think more deeply on things. You know best what it is you'd like to know, so I won't try to usurp that. However, along with others here, and in tandum with them, I'm open to fielding whatever questions you may want to extend my way.

Your co-worker is indeed having to face a wide spate of challenges. That's terrible to hear, but it's a good thing she's got some help from someone like yourself to extend her a hand here and there. Since we've both grown up dealing with our mother's problems, we both already have a taste of what it is to deal with these more entrenched and prolonged problems that come about, sometime in vastly unequal portions, out of the blue, and nowhere with an discernible reason of proportion of fairness. It is difficult for all involved, I know.

As to your question, I'll answer 'no.' And the reason I answer 'no' is because if we apply the hermeneutical method, I think the meaning of that portion taken from Paul in his 1st letter to the Corinthians (ch. 10, v. 13) does not mean what a number of Christians often claim it means. In that case, I'd also point you to 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 where we find even Paul suffering from an extreme malady .... and the Lord refused to take it away. In fact, we have no reason to think that Paul didn't continue to suffer from whatever malady it was even until the day he died. So, unfortunately, I'll just say that I'm not one of those Christians who thinks that God prevents every hardship that we might be overcome by. Sometimes, The Lord does let Christians suffer quite intensely; and both of our mothers are, I'm sure, examples of some of this.

Again, good question. Feel free to send more my way if you so choose to do so.

Blessings!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well... I wouldn't say early. I was home schooled with very fundamental christian curriculum up until graduation (which, by the way, didn't give me a diploma that I could use - I got a GED later to make up for it). Things such as evolution and the age of enlightenment were glossed over, but alternatives were taught in much more depth, and I had to educate myself on many of these things after the fact. It makes it difficult when I have an interest in things such as anthropology, and I have to go through the process of learning these things all over again on my own just so I'm at the same level as my peers. I'm not blaming christian schooling or homeschooling in general, but that specific one did set me back, I feel. =/

Though, things we experience (good and bad) make us who we are, so maybe it's all for the best in the end.

I feel a lot of the questions I have had about god (in the christian world) have been answered to a satisfactory degree with me. I guess at this point I'm more interested in others and their walks with god. My experience with christianity is limited... and I want to construct a more complete image with different aspects and personal beliefs that people have. For instance...

One co-worker has a 38 year old son who has water on the brain. He's having another brain surgery soon (He's had dozens through his life) to remove an infected port and to have the infected areas cleaned out before having a new port placed into a different part of his skull. That same day, her son in law is having brain surgery to go after a cancerous tumor that is malignant. While this is going on, she suffers from the most severe environmental asthmatic reactions I've ever seen, and I've had to walk her over to the ER on a couple different occasions. It's to the point lately where she can't even laugh without having an attack. Her job is also very stressful, and I can see that she's in pain. I've been noticing how she's been coping with the hand she's been dealt, and she seems on the edge.

Suffering is as sure a thing in life as death and taxes, and the way people deal with it differs greatly. People of faith believe that they give their problems to god, which is a great relief off their shoulders - but this only softens a blow, IMO. Do you believe god only allows evils to happen that they can bear?

(sorry, long post, but my mind works on a tangent sometimes, heh)

Note: I had to make a small edit to my previous post for the sake of clarity. I'm sorry for any confusion.

 

[Galdrun]

Great post, Galdrun!

You've obviously come a long way through all of this. It seems that you've taken the baton of opportunity that life has handed to you and have begun to run with it very well. That's not easily done, so I commend you for wanting to learn and press ahead in fields like anthropology and whatever else I sure has in interest to you. These are my kinds of studies as well, so we have at least a little bit in common there.

I understand that you feel you've already found answers to your questions, so I'll respect that position and refrain from bring in any overt Socratic method to get you to think more deeply on things. You know best what it is you'd like to know, so I won't try to usurp that. However, along with others here, and in tandum with them, I'm open to fielding whatever questions you may want to extend my way.

Your co-worker is indeed having to face a wide spate of challenges. That's terrible to hear, but it's a good thing she's got some help from someone like yourself to extend her a hand here and there. Since we've both grown up dealing with our mother's problems, we both already have a taste of what it is to deal with these more entrenched and prolonged problems that come about, sometime in vastly unequal portions, out of the blue, and nowhere with an discernible reason of proportion of fairness. It is difficult for all involved, I know.

As to your question, I'll answer 'no.' And the reason I answer 'no' is because if we apply the hermeneutical method, I think the meaning of that portion taken from Paul in his 1st letter to the Corinthians (ch. 10, v. 13) does not mean what a number of Christians often claim it means. In that case, I'd also point you to 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 where we find even Paul suffering from an extreme malady .... and the Lord refused to take it away. In fact, we have no reason to think that Paul didn't continue to suffer from whatever malady it was even until the day he died. So, unfortunately, I'll just say that I'm not one of those Christians who thinks that God prevents every hardship that we might be overcome by. Sometimes, The Lord does let Christians suffer quite intensely; and both of our mothers are, I'm sure, examples of some of this.

Again, good question. Feel free to send more my way if you so choose to do so.

Blessings!

Well as for any input you might have, feel free to share. I'm no master of philosophy by any means, but I appreciate deep thought on issues. I don't pretend to have all the answers to anything, and I always value different opinions on things. I'd like to think that I can change my mind when something more enlightening reveals itself, and I hate the idea of being too settled and stagnant in my ways.

Thanks for taking the time to cite scripture that I can look over and think about. Paul definitely had moments of suffering, as did lot (to say the least). I would have to agree with you on the fairness of suffering in life. With the things I've seen, and I'm sure you've seen as well, it's hard to imagine a being orchestrating various levels of suffering to be meted out based on what level of pain they can withstand throughout their lives... I can understand trials being given during life events, but life is far from fair on the whole.

I guess this tangent leads into one issue I have with the god of the Bible. He is depicted as a god of fairness, justice, and law. In nature, I don't see these concepts reflecting such a god (who created the nature of reality, and survival of the fittest) outside of human kind's own social constructs. The concept seems a bit man made to me - and moreover, seems a bit like other bronze age gods of law and order of the time (such as Ahura Mazda).

Another seemingly unnatural idea for instance is the concept of hell. A place of eternal torment and torture where a person's soul is kept for all eternity as punishment, or because people chose that path in regards to their decisions (as my old church taught, as if people would want that). It seems like an effective tool in keeping people from misbehaving, but how am I supposed to comprehend a concept that has no equivalent in observable reality. Though concepts like the speed of light or near absolute zero are fantastic to imagine, evidence of their existence can be seen.

Hmmm... Don't feel like you have to answer those. Just typing out my thoughts. =)

So what denomination do you identify with, and why did you ultimately accept Jesus as your lord and savior, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[bling]

Well, most of those questions have been answered, but I have been going over a few things in my mind today. Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, or god inspired? What are your thoughts on the other writings that weren't included in the final compilation of the bible at the Council of Nicea? Is Paul an apostle, and if so, why did he preach such a different message than Jesus? Also, do you believe in the Noahide laws? If so, why would Jesus need to die on the cross if there already was a rule set in place for non-Jews that was very basic and easy to follow? Thanks! =)

Lots of good questions:

The Muslim think the Quran has the actual words God spoke to Mohammad, so they cannot be translated into other languages, have to be guarded and respected and this has result in Muslims actually worshipping the “words” and a book. The Quran is poorly written, contradicts itself, is supposed to be poetic and "can" only be understandable by experts. The Quran is what the Muslims place their “faith” in.

If the Bible was completely God’s spoken words it would be perfect, way beyond anything man could write, so it would not be translatable and Christians would wind up worshipping the “Book”. You would also be able to “proof” God’s existence by linguistics and thus man could take pride in his discovery. The problem is we need humility and not self-reliance in our intellect. The lowliest mature adult on earth can believe in a benevolent Creator, so faith in God’s existence is a humbling activity. God is not trying to get you to acknowledge His existence, without wanting to know Him.

The Bible is just one tool for Christians and was not designed to convert people. We are trying to buy into God/Christ's Love. The Muslim’s will say: “God gave us a book”, while the Christians should say: “God gave us Christ who lives today”. You are to have a one on one experience with Christ listening to you, Loving on you, being with you, answering your questions, and mentoring you. This all happens by Christ living in and through true Christians. The Bible has the word of inspired men and also quotes from Deity.

Those group in the Council of Nicea did not work independent of the whole Christian community. The letters which make up the New Testament where the letters the Christians all over the Roman Empire considered inspired. The Council of Nicea was just confirming what was already being taught by very Spirit led Christians. The Spirit had made it known to those who were gifted with the power to discern the truth what was His inspired works. The Spirit really determined what books would be included or not included especially in the New Testament, the Old Testament had been around a long time prior to Christ coming and Christ did not try to change it.

Letters and books not included in the Bible are a contrast to the books and letters included in the Bible in that these letters were extremely poorly protected and preserved for us. We have single copies of these letters and when we have multiple copies they will contradict each other showing corruption of the copying. The are also inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

Paul is an Apostle and he did not preach a different message then Christ, but preached after Christianity had come into the world while Christ preaching was to those still under the Law prior to Christianity coming on Pentecost.

There were “laws” prior to the “Laws of Moses”, but I do not know if the Jewish scholars got them right with the Noahide laws. It is almost like “rules are made to be broken”. Humans do not follow “Written laws” well, so they need lots of help. We all want to say to God: “OK God, what do I need to do for You, just tell me (give me the Law) and I will do it, you can be satisfied and we can go on forever”? The problem is as the Jews found out and we can see from their experience, we cannot be good enough under our own ability to keep any law even the simplest rule of “do not eat from this one tree”.

Man’s earthly objective is not to obey some written “Law”, God will allow us to sin which will help us in fulfilling our earthly objective. (This gets to be a lengthy topic).

Christ going to the cross is not about correcting the Law, but for atonement which is a lengthy topic. Both Jews and Gentiles need Christ to go to the cross.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well as for any input you might have, feel free to share. I'm no master of philosophy by any means, but I appreciate deep thought on issues. I don't pretend to have all the answers to anything, and I always value different opinions on things. I'd like to think that I can change my mind when something more enlightening reveals itself, and I hate the idea of being too settled and stagnant in my ways.

The great thing is, none of us is a 'master' of philosophy, and this is part of what keeps it so very interesting for me. Although, I'm sure if you ask around you may find some here who'll tell you that they think that I think that I have all of the answers... But, I'm fairly certain as certain can be that I don't have all of the answers, and I too could even "change" my mind on some things. So, it sounds like we've got something in common there, too.

Thanks for taking the time to cite scripture that I can look over and think about. Paul definitely had moments of suffering, as did lot (to say the least). I would have to agree with you on the fairness of suffering in life. With the things I've seen, and I'm sure you've seen as well, it's hard to imagine a being orchestrating various levels of suffering to be meted out based on what level of pain they can withstand throughout their lives... I can understand trials being given during life events, but life is far from fair on the whole.

There's no doubt in my mind that life isn't fair, and it seems to me that the God of the Bible isn't concerned about necessarily providing fairness for us but rather in insisting to us that we have the ability, if we so choose, to be 'fair' to one another, and He expects us to bear the lion's share of creating 'fairness' and making it a reality in our world. Thus far, it seems we've all done less than an adequate job of making this a social reality.

I guess this tangent leads into one issue I have with the god of the Bible. He is depicted as a god of fairness, justice, and law. In nature, I don't see these concepts reflecting such a god (who created the nature of reality, and survival of the fittest) outside of human kind's own social constructs. The concept seems a bit man made to me - and moreover, seems a bit like other bronze age gods of law and order of the time (such as Ahura Mazda).

I agree with you. I don't think the Bible depicts God as very interested in, at present, making 'fairness' an inherent part of our world. But, this doesn't meaning that He might not bring this about in the future at some point, and I think we get at least an inkling that this is what the God of the Bible intends to do. As for Ahura Mazda, I'm not prone to bring in his comparison to, say, Moses, but I guess that philosophically speaking, I can see your point.

Another seemingly unnatural idea for instance is the concept of hell. A place of eternal torment and torture where a person's soul is kept for all eternity as punishment, or because people chose that path in regards to their decisions (as my old church taught, as if people would want that). It seems like an effective tool in keeping people from misbehaving, but how am I supposed to comprehend a concept that has no equivalent in observable reality. Though concepts like the speed of light or near absolute zero are fantastic to imagine, evidence of their existence can be seen.

Actually, I lean more toward a form of Annihilationism, but since that position is not allowed to be supported on CF, I'll have to decline from further consideration of it here with you. I hope you'll understand.

Hmmm... Don't feel like you have to answer those. Just typing out my thoughts. =)

So what denomination do you identify with, and why did you ultimately accept Jesus as your lord and savior, if you don't mind my asking?

For the most part, I've tended to associate with both Southern Baptist and/or the Christian Church (Reform Movement/Campbell), but it's been more of the latter, really. However, since I consider myself a philosopher, my overall approach to the Christian faith is probably a tad bit too expansive for the average denomination to contain.

And why did I ultimately accept Christ?: well, that is the Billion Dollar question, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, let's just say that the answer, philosophically speaking, has had about as much to do with the question of Beauty as is does with the question of Truth and Knowledge. Of course, this kind of conceptualization leaves both the front door and the back door of thought wide open for further shuffling through the various philosophical matrices which we might each try to bring to bear upon the Supreme Question of "Who do we say Jesus IS?"

 

[Galdrun]

The great thing is, none of us is a 'master' of philosophy, and this is part of what keeps it so very interesting for me. Although, I'm sure if you ask around you may find some here who'll tell you that they think that I think that I have all of the answers... But, I'm fairly certain as certain can be that I don't have all of the answers, and I too could even "change" my mind on some things. So, it sounds like we've got something in common there, too.

There's no doubt in my mind that life isn't fair, and it seems to me that the God of the Bible isn't concerned about necessarily providing fairness for us but rather in insisting to us that we have the ability, if we so choose, to be 'fair' to one another, and He expects us to bear the lion's share of creating 'fairness' and making it a reality in our world. Thus far, it seems we've all done less than an adequate job of making this a social reality.

I agree with you. I don't think the Bible depicts God as very interested in, at present, making 'fairness' an inherent part of our world. But, this doesn't meaning that He might not bring this about in the future at some point, and I think we get at least an inkling that this is what the God of the Bible intends to do. As for Ahura Mazda, I'm not prone to bring in his comparison to, say, Moses, but I guess that philosophically speaking, I can see your point.

Actually, I lean more toward a form of Annihilationism, but since that position is not allowed to be supported on CF, I'll have to decline from further consideration of it here with you. I hope you'll understand.

For the most part, I've tended to associate with both Southern Baptist and/or the Christian Church (Reform Movement/Campbell), but it's been more of the latter, really. However, since I consider myself a philosopher, my overall approach to the Christian faith is probably a tad bit too expansive for the average denomination to contain.

And why did I ultimately accept Christ?: well, that is the Billion Dollar question, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned, let's just say that the answer, philosophically speaking, has had about as much to do with the question of Beauty as is does with the question of Truth and Knowledge. Of course, this kind of conceptualization leaves both the front door and the back door of thought wide open for further shuffling through the various philosophical matrices which we might each try to bring to bear upon the Supreme Question of "Who do we say Jesus IS?"

I agree with you on the aspect that much more could be done. I've been proud of my girlfriend who works at the local Americorps. She's part of the homeless outreach group there, and works with homeless people to help them get into stable housing, and also helps them get in contact with folks who can give them a hand up in their times of trouble. Some of their stories can be raw, and there are a lot of people struggling with mental illness who aren't getting the help they need. Many try to cope by self medicating with drugs and alcohol, and a lot of the barriers they face to getting back on track in life are things that we can help them with (things our community could be better at, but thankfully, it seems to be getting better).

Heh, I am familiar with Annihilationism. Honestly, it is a concept that makes much more sense to me when compared to the natural world we live in. Interesting that you can't discuss it, since it's a completely christian concept, but I suppose the rules are the rules...

I like your answer to the saving question though, hah! Some serious build up, there. I feel I need some popcorn. =)

To me, Jesus seems to have two aspects. Jesus the person (though I know I'd be quickly corrected here, heh), and Jesus the myth. When I think of Jesus the person, he is deep, extremely thoughtful, and someone who espouses compassion and love on a whole other level. When I think of Jesus the myth, I think of a character who is very similar to the saviors of Zoroastrianism (born of virgin birth, for example), Mithra, Krishna, etc etc. A lot of the supernatural aspects that surround him seem very similar to other, much older religions.

I can't help but wonder if his story has been bolstered and exaggerated by other myths that came before him (that existed in and around the same area he was born into). Especially when you think about folks such as the Magi (three wise men who were Zoroastrians, and likely, astronomers who would be seeking that star over Bethlehem) who might add legitimacy to the claim that he is not just A savior, but THE savior.

Who is Jesus to you, then? =)

 

[Galdrun]

Lots of good questions:

The Muslim think the Quran has the actual words God spoke to Mohammad, so they cannot be translated into other languages, have to be guarded and respected and this has result in Muslims actually worshipping the “words” and a book. The Quran is poorly written, contradicts itself, is supposed to be poetic and "can" only be understandable by experts. The Quran is what the Muslims place their “faith” in.

If the Bible was completely God’s spoken words it would be perfect, way beyond anything man could write, so it would not be translatable and Christians would wind up worshipping the “Book”. You would also be able to “proof” God’s existence by linguistics and thus man could take pride in his discovery. The problem is we need humility and not self-reliance in our intellect. The lowliest mature adult on earth can believe in a benevolent Creator, so faith in God’s existence is a humbling activity. God is not trying to get you to acknowledge His existence, without wanting to know Him.

The Bible is just one tool for Christians and was not designed to convert people. We are trying to buy into God/Christ's Love. The Muslim’s will say: “God gave us a book”, while the Christians should say: “God gave us Christ who lives today”. You are to have a one on one experience with Christ listening to you, Loving on you, being with you, answering your questions, and mentoring you. This all happens by Christ living in and through true Christians. The Bible has the word of inspired men and also quotes from Deity.

Those group in the Council of Nicea did not work independent of the whole Christian community. The letters which make up the New Testament where the letters the Christians all over the Roman Empire considered inspired. The Council of Nicea was just confirming what was already being taught by very Spirit led Christians. The Spirit had made it known to those who were gifted with the power to discern the truth what was His inspired works. The Spirit really determined what books would be included or not included especially in the New Testament, the Old Testament had been around a long time prior to Christ coming and Christ did not try to change it.

Letters and books not included in the Bible are a contrast to the books and letters included in the Bible in that these letters were extremely poorly protected and preserved for us. We have single copies of these letters and when we have multiple copies they will contradict each other showing corruption of the copying. The are also inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

Paul is an Apostle and he did not preach a different message then Christ, but preached after Christianity had come into the world while Christ preaching was to those still under the Law prior to Christianity coming on Pentecost.

There were “laws” prior to the “Laws of Moses”, but I do not know if the Jewish scholars got them right with the Noahide laws. It is almost like “rules are made to be broken”. Humans do not follow “Written laws” well, so they need lots of help. We all want to say to God: “OK God, what do I need to do for You, just tell me (give me the Law) and I will do it, you can be satisfied and we can go on forever”? The problem is as the Jews found out and we can see from their experience, we cannot be good enough under our own ability to keep any law even the simplest rule of “do not eat from this one tree”.

Man’s earthly objective is not to obey some written “Law”, God will allow us to sin which will help us in fulfilling our earthly objective. (This gets to be a lengthy topic).

Christ going to the cross is not about correcting the Law, but for atonement which is a lengthy topic. Both Jews and Gentiles need Christ to go to the cross.

There's a lot here to mull over, and I want to give it justice with a thoughtful reply, but I do need to get ready for work! I'll reply just as soon as I'm able. =)

 

[AservantofGodandthelordJC]

Well... I'm sure they feel they are being peaceful in their discourse, but to me they seem more overbearing or invasive at times. In some of their cases, I can't blame them - such as in the case of my future mother in law. She cares about her daughter, and me, and wants to see us avoid what she sees as a terrible fate. In other cases, such as when my girlfriend was suffering from extreme stomach pain, and my future father in law wanted to lay hands on her and pray the pain away instead of us just taking her to the hospital when we are in the midst of a medical emergency... That's a little more aggravating for me.

It doesn't matter if they feel they are being peaceful, if they are not.. such as worrying about 'terrible fates' -- this is not peace. Trying to heal someone in medical danger when they do not possess real divine power, is insanity.

I don't mean to sound harsh but I want to describe the truth as best I can. Almost everyone is insane, because sanity is perfection.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree with you on the aspect that much more could be done. I've been proud of my girlfriend who works at the local Americorps. She's part of the homeless outreach group there, and works with homeless people to help them get into stable housing, and also helps them get in contact with folks who can give them a hand up in their times of trouble. Some of their stories can be raw, and there are a lot of people struggling with mental illness who aren't getting the help they need. Many try to cope by self medicating with drugs and alcohol, and a lot of the barriers they face to getting back on track in life are things that we can help them with (things our community could be better at, but thankfully, it seems to be getting better).

Yes, your girlfriend's work is commendable and something to be proud of, there's no doubt about that! Many people who are out on the streets have extreme needs and truly have to struggle as they attempt to survive. And as you've implied here, there are many negative social forces affecting people's well-being which also tend to funnel them into dire situations. Your girlfriend's work is an example that most of us should be following but often don't.

Heh, I am familiar with Annihilationism. Honestly, it is a concept that makes much more sense to me when compared to the natural world we live in. Interesting that you can't discuss it, since it's a completely christian concept, but I suppose the rules are the rules...

Yeah. Them's the rules here, at least in this section of CF anyway.

I like your answer to the saving question though, hah! Some serious build up, there. I feel I need some popcorn. =)

Popcorn is always good! I can go for that, along with some trail-mix and a big-size bottle of some Sparkling Flavored water. [That way we keep it all "low-cal"..........especially if a ton of it is going to be ingested during a long period of interlocution. I mean, I am health-conscious here, even when plowing through the labrynthine philsophical structures of Christian belief ]

To me, Jesus seems to have two aspects. Jesus the person (though I know I'd be quickly corrected here, heh), and Jesus the myth. When I think of Jesus the person, he is deep, extremely thoughtful, and someone who espouses compassion and love on a whole other level. When I think of Jesus the myth, I think of a character who is very similar to the saviors of Zoroastrianism (born of virgin birth, for example), Mithra, Krishna, etc etc. A lot of the supernatural aspects that surround him seem very similar to other, much older religions.

You're right, of course. We can look at Jesus "the person" and contrapose this entity to Jesus "the myth." The only thing is----and I don't say this as a countermeasure really, but rather as an additional consideration----when we handle the figure of Jesus through the various collected literature that we think we have about Him, and we seek to compare Him to similar ancient cultic figures, I'm more than likely to come up with weird questions from out of Left Field like, "So, just how does Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology, and whatever other relevant fields may apply, actually enable us to get to the heart and root of this Jesus character anyway, and when do we really, really, really 'know' when we've hit epistemological bedrock?" See? Questions like that, but these come with a plethora of other questions, too. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, these questions just pop into my mind like mushrooms on a warm, humid day.

Then there's other strange things that pop into my mind, like the urge to bring in and adapt some of the conceptual methodology associated with Apophatic Theology which @Silmarien ---my scholarly friend and compatriot in philosophy here at CF--- introduced me to not too long ago. [Although, I have to more appropriately say that when she did so, it was in relation to arguments that were more or less geared to issues of Ontology and God, which is her area of specialty).

So, when we ask something like, "Is Jesus just another cultified but amalgamated Dying/Rising Savior, or maybe even just another Bodhisattva of sorts?," I for one will say that this kind of questioning really does mire us down into what are basically swampy epistemological regions, and like most people, I do hate the idea of swimming in nasty swamps.

I can't help but wonder if his story has been bolstered and exaggerated by other myths that came before him (that existed in and around the same area he was born into). Especially when you think about folks such as the Magi (three wise men who were Zoroastrians, and likely, astronomers who would be seeking that star over Bethlehem) who might add legitimacy to the claim that he is not just A savior, but THE savior.

Yes, you make some interesting points here. I'm not sure that I've thought about the Magi in very lengthy of terms, and I'm not sure if the Magi were specifically Zoroastrians, but this could very well have been the case. It's something to look into.

As for the way I view all of this biblical criticism stuff surrounding Jesus, I'm sure there's been some substantive level of embellishment and/or editing made upon the figure of Jesus the Messiah as He is represented in Christian Literature; but the complete sorting of this probably requires much more than what even a bevy of Jesus Seminars could hope to figure out. Moreover, I'm somewhat skeptical that anyone has figured Jesus out in any way that should constitute complete satisfaction among those who are looking for complete satisfaction, and I think this tends to be the case whether that person is a Christian who posits a positive, constructive matrix of belief over Jesus, or she's instead a Skeptic who supports a negative, critical one.

Who is Jesus to you, then? =)

Who do I say Jesus the Messiah is? Generally speaking, I'm going to say that He is what Peter thought He was, but I would do this in a much, much more philosophically inclined kind of way.

 

[Silmarien]

To me, Jesus seems to have two aspects. Jesus the person (though I know I'd be quickly corrected here, heh), and Jesus the myth. When I think of Jesus the person, he is deep, extremely thoughtful, and someone who espouses compassion and love on a whole other level. When I think of Jesus the myth, I think of a character who is very similar to the saviors of Zoroastrianism (born of virgin birth, for example), Mithra, Krishna, etc etc. A lot of the supernatural aspects that surround him seem very similar to other, much older religions.

I can't help but wonder if his story has been bolstered and exaggerated by other myths that came before him (that existed in and around the same area he was born into). Especially when you think about folks such as the Magi (three wise men who were Zoroastrians, and likely, astronomers who would be seeking that star over Bethlehem) who might add legitimacy to the claim that he is not just A savior, but THE savior.

I wasn't going to post here, since I'm a refugee from the secular world and had barely any contact with Christianity before intentionally walking into it, but since @2PhiloVoid has now summoned me...

There's a lot to be said about this. There is a well developed tradition of Christian thought dating back to Patristics whereby Christ fulfills not just Judaism but the underlying hope of all religion. If you combine this with the idea of progressive revelation, you can end up in a situation where even Zoroastrianism is an early, partial, but genuine revelation that pushed us along towards the fully revealed truth of Christ. So even themes in mythology can really be used both to buttress Christianity and to attack it, depending on how precisely you're interpreting mythology and whether you think even pagan people might have been on to something.

@Quid est Veritas? is a serious mythology fiend and has been talking about making a thread on this particular argument for a little while, so perhaps we can prod him for it again.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The good thing about being Agnostic is neutrality. Sort of a starting point before embarking on one's own journey to the truth. Christian denominations can be a detraction from that truth. I don't believe Jesus intended His Good News to take different forms. He did say ,"My sheep shall hear my voice" and "Seek and you shall find.". So keep asking those questions but instead of directing them to a person , go directly to the source. He will show you the way to His truth. Blessings

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I wasn't going to post here, since I'm a refugee from the secular world and had barely any contact with Christianity before intentionally walking into it, but since @2PhiloVoid has now summoned me...

There's a lot to be said about this. There is a well developed tradition of Christian thought dating back to Patristics whereby Christ fulfills not just Judaism but the underlying hope of all religion. If you combine this with the idea of progressive revelation, you can end up in a situation where even Zoroastrianism is an early, partial, but genuine revelation that pushed us along towards the fully revealed truth of Christ. So even themes in mythology can really be used both to buttress Christianity and to attack it, depending on how precisely you're interpreting mythology and whether you think even pagan people might have been on to something.

@Quid est Veritas? is a serious mythology fiend and has been talking about making a thread on this particular argument for a little while, so perhaps we can prod him for it again.

The Missing Page

I did make a thread, but I have found it hard-going. A lot depends on what you think the essence of a religion is, what fulfillment occurs, and much ended up being a rambling explanation on others myths. I hope for some feedback from others, that they can maybe help guide the argument, as I am unsure if my meaning is coming across. I haven't even gotten to Zoroastrianism and more esoteric parallelism yet.

 

[Galdrun]

Lots of good questions:

The Muslim think the Quran has the actual words God spoke to Mohammad, so they cannot be translated into other languages, have to be guarded and respected and this has result in Muslims actually worshipping the “words” and a book. The Quran is poorly written, contradicts itself, is supposed to be poetic and "can" only be understandable by experts. The Quran is what the Muslims place their “faith” in.

If the Bible was completely God’s spoken words it would be perfect, way beyond anything man could write, so it would not be translatable and Christians would wind up worshipping the “Book”. You would also be able to “proof” God’s existence by linguistics and thus man could take pride in his discovery. The problem is we need humility and not self-reliance in our intellect. The lowliest mature adult on earth can believe in a benevolent Creator, so faith in God’s existence is a humbling activity. God is not trying to get you to acknowledge His existence, without wanting to know Him.

The Bible is just one tool for Christians and was not designed to convert people. We are trying to buy into God/Christ's Love. The Muslim’s will say: “God gave us a book”, while the Christians should say: “God gave us Christ who lives today”. You are to have a one on one experience with Christ listening to you, Loving on you, being with you, answering your questions, and mentoring you. This all happens by Christ living in and through true Christians. The Bible has the word of inspired men and also quotes from Deity.

Those group in the Council of Nicea did not work independent of the whole Christian community. The letters which make up the New Testament where the letters the Christians all over the Roman Empire considered inspired. The Council of Nicea was just confirming what was already being taught by very Spirit led Christians. The Spirit had made it known to those who were gifted with the power to discern the truth what was His inspired works. The Spirit really determined what books would be included or not included especially in the New Testament, the Old Testament had been around a long time prior to Christ coming and Christ did not try to change it.

Letters and books not included in the Bible are a contrast to the books and letters included in the Bible in that these letters were extremely poorly protected and preserved for us. We have single copies of these letters and when we have multiple copies they will contradict each other showing corruption of the copying. The are also inconsistent with the rest of scripture.

Paul is an Apostle and he did not preach a different message then Christ, but preached after Christianity had come into the world while Christ preaching was to those still under the Law prior to Christianity coming on Pentecost.

There were “laws” prior to the “Laws of Moses”, but I do not know if the Jewish scholars got them right with the Noahide laws. It is almost like “rules are made to be broken”. Humans do not follow “Written laws” well, so they need lots of help. We all want to say to God: “OK God, what do I need to do for You, just tell me (give me the Law) and I will do it, you can be satisfied and we can go on forever”? The problem is as the Jews found out and we can see from their experience, we cannot be good enough under our own ability to keep any law even the simplest rule of “do not eat from this one tree”.

Man’s earthly objective is not to obey some written “Law”, God will allow us to sin which will help us in fulfilling our earthly objective. (This gets to be a lengthy topic).

Christ going to the cross is not about correcting the Law, but for atonement which is a lengthy topic. Both Jews and Gentiles need Christ to go to the cross.

You know, I actually work with a few muslims, and they are great people. Some of the hardest working, most down to earth people I've known. I actually got the opportunity to pick their brains since one of them was my partner at work for quite a while... Very interesting dialogue. =) Islam does require a whole other level of commitment.

As for the quran and it's adherence, I think that depends on the denomination, much like christianity. The folks I worked with could be best described as liberal muslims. They take their quran very seriously, but they are much more concerned with the lives they lead than sticking to the letter of the quran in every little thing they do. Now, when it comes to more fundimental strains of islam, folks do get a little more persnickety. I don't have much nice to say about salafism or wahabiism, IMO.

Back to the topic at hand, if the bible is inspired by god and written by man, how much stock do we place in the words of such people like Paul, or John the baptist? What about stories of the old testament, such as the flood story (which is the 4th iteration of a flood story from previous, older versions), or the plagues of Egypt when Moses pled with Pharaoh? Are those to be taken as historical accounts, or taken as parables and stories with deeper meanings to teach?

Hmmm... As for your other points, they are very similar to what I was raised with. I'm familiar with these points of view.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out! =)

 

[Galdrun]

Yes, your girlfriend's work is commendable and something to be proud of, there's no doubt about that! Many people who are out on the streets have extreme needs and truly have to struggle as they attempt to survive. And as you've implied here, there are many negative social forces affecting people's well-being which also tend to funnel them into dire situations. Your girlfriend's work is an example that most of us should be following but often don't.

Yeah. Them's the rules here, at least in this section of CF anyway.

Popcorn is always good! I can go for that, along with some trail-mix and a big-size bottle of some Sparkling Flavored water. [That way we keep it all "low-cal"..........especially if a ton of it is going to be ingested during a long period of interlocution. I mean, I am health-conscious here, even when plowing through the labrynthine philsophical structures of Christian belief ]

You're right, of course. We can look at Jesus "the person" and contrapose this entity to Jesus "the myth." The only thing is----and I don't say this as a countermeasure really, but rather as an additional consideration----when we handle the figure of Jesus through the various collected literature that we think we have about Him, and we seek to compare Him to similar ancient cultic figures, I'm more than likely to come up with weird questions from out of Left Field like, "So, just how does Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology, and whatever other relevant fields may apply, actually enable us to get to the heart and root of this Jesus character anyway, and when do we really, really, really 'know' when we've hit epistemological bedrock?" See? Questions like that, but these come with a plethora of other questions, too. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, these questions just pop into my mind like mushrooms on a warm, humid day.

Then there's other strange things that pop into my mind, like the urge to bring in and adapt some of the conceptual methodology associated with Apophatic Theology which @Silmarien ---my scholarly friend and compatriot in philosophy here at CF--- introduced me to not too long ago. [Although, I have to more appropriately say that when she did so, it was in relation to arguments that were more or less geared to issues of Ontology and God, which is her area of specialty).

So, when we ask something like, "Is Jesus just another cultified but amalgamated Dying/Rising Savior, or maybe even just another Bodhisattva of sorts?," I for one will say that this kind of questioning really does mire us down into what are basically swampy epistemological regions, and like most people, I do hate the idea of swimming in nasty swamps.

Yes, you make some interesting points here. I'm not sure that I've thought about the Magi in very lengthy of terms, and I'm not sure if the Magi were specifically Zoroastrians, but this could very well have been the case. It's something to look into.

As for the way I view all of this biblical criticism stuff surrounding Jesus, I'm sure there's been some substantive level of embellishment and/or editing made upon the figure of Jesus the Messiah as He is represented in Christian Literature; but the complete sorting of this probably requires much more than what even a bevy of Jesus Seminars could hope to figure out. Moreover, I'm somewhat skeptical that anyone has figured Jesus out in any way that should constitute complete satisfaction among those who are looking for complete satisfaction, and I think this tends to be the case whether that person is a Christian who posits a positive, constructive matrix of belief over Jesus, or she's instead a Skeptic who supports a negative, critical one.

Who do I say Jesus the Messiah is? Generally speaking, I'm going to say that He is what Peter thought He was, but I would do this in a much, much more philosophically inclined kind of way.

You're right, there: myself included. I used to do more volunteer work. That's something I would like to get back into when my circumstances are less turbulent. A job opening is coming up, and with this opportunity I will be able to go back to school and get a degree (a bit late, but better late then never, heh).

As for healthy eating, I know what you mean! I plan on going for my bachelor's in nutrition so I can become a dietitian. =)

As for your thoughts on cultic figures vs. Jesus, that's the thing: it definitely does turn into a trip down the rabbit hole. People are limited in their interpretations (which changes from generation to generation, and loses context of the ancient world it was written in) of texts, they are limited in the archeological information they have at that particular moment, and they are limited to their cultural biases and the way others who write on the subjects view the subject at hand. More often than not, they have to work with fragments of a lost world they can never truly grasp.

I kind of enjoy wading out into the swamp, heh. Though I rarely find the answers I look for, I always find things of value that have other applications or fill in other blanks. The only thing is to remember to tie a rope onto a tree and anchor yourself down (metaphorically speaking), cause if you wade too deeply and lose yourself in it, you can sink down and lose yourself. I find objective honesty works great as an anchor, though my "objectiveness" is still clouded by my own biases.

As far as the Magi, they were Zoroastrian priests. I won't go too much into this as it's a whole other topic. It definitely is interesting, though!

I just want to say that I appreciate your thoughts on Jesus as he's perceived by others. It seems to me you have a very solid, and very thoughtful idea of Jesus and what he means to you. It's refreshing to think of Jesus in deeply thought and fleshed out terms instead of just accepting something because it's a cultural norm. I think that mindset is what drove me away more than anything else.

 

[Galdrun]

I wasn't going to post here, since I'm a refugee from the secular world and had barely any contact with Christianity before intentionally walking into it, but since @2PhiloVoid has now summoned me...

There's a lot to be said about this. There is a well developed tradition of Christian thought dating back to Patristics whereby Christ fulfills not just Judaism but the underlying hope of all religion. If you combine this with the idea of progressive revelation, you can end up in a situation where even Zoroastrianism is an early, partial, but genuine revelation that pushed us along towards the fully revealed truth of Christ. So even themes in mythology can really be used both to buttress Christianity and to attack it, depending on how precisely you're interpreting mythology and whether you think even pagan people might have been on to something.

@Quid est Veritas? is a serious mythology fiend and has been talking about making a thread on this particular argument for a little while, so perhaps we can prod him for it again.

I just wanted to say that I love the thoughts and perspective you give on the subject. I would like to hear more about how you're a refugee from the secular world, if you don't mind my asking. Though, maybe in a different thread if you feel it detracts too much from the OP (though, I don't mind talking about it here, if that doesn't break the forum rules).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're right, there: myself included. I used to do more volunteer work. That's something I would like to get back into when my circumstances are less turbulent. A job opening is coming up, and with this opportunity I will be able to go back to school and get a degree (a bit late, but better late then never, heh).

That all sounds like a great direction to be headed in, for both in expanding your education and in community service. One of these days, if I can get my wife to get in on it, I'd like to to plunge into more 'outreach' kinds of things too.

As for healthy eating, I know what you mean! I plan on going for my bachelor's in nutrition so I can become a dietitian. =)

Dude, you're my kind guy! That would be a great line of work, particularly since an awareness of Nutrition (and I write that with a capital 'N') seems to be sorely lacking in our society still today, despite all of the info health seemingly at our fingertips.

As for your thoughts on cultic figures vs. Jesus, that's the thing: it definitely does turn into a trip down the rabbit hole. People are limited in their interpretations (which changes from generation to generation, and loses context of the ancient world it was written in) of texts, they are limited in the archeological information they have at that particular moment, and they are limited to their cultural biases and the way others who write on the subjects view the subject at hand. More often than not, they have to work with fragments of a lost world they can never truly grasp.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I kind of enjoy wading out into the swamp, heh. Though I rarely find the answers I look for, I always find things of value that have other applications or fill in other blanks. The only thing is to remember to tie a rope onto a tree and anchor yourself down (metaphorically speaking), cause if you wade too deeply and lose yourself in it, you can sink down and lose yourself. I find objective honesty works great as an anchor, though my "objectiveness" is still clouded by my own biases.

You're a brave man! If and when I go near the epistemological swamp, I definitely take more than just Occam's Razor with me, 'cuz, oh the denizens may look cute, but where there's one, there's others!

As far as the Magi, they were Zoroastrian priests. I won't go too much into this as it's a whole other topic. It definitely is interesting, though!

I'm sure it is.

I just want to say that I appreciate your thoughts on Jesus as he's perceived by others. It seems to me you have a very solid, and very thoughtful idea of Jesus and what he means to you. It's refreshing to think of Jesus in deeply thought and fleshed out terms instead of just accepting something because it's a cultural norm. I think that mindset is what drove me away more than anything else.

Oh yeah, there's folks out there who feel that they just have to 'prove' their faith and/or religion. Of course, there's a few folks out there on the other side too who, unlike you, are kind of 'toothy' too about their non-faith, like the little guy above.

 

[Silmarien]

I just wanted to say that I love the thoughts and perspective you give on the subject. I would like to hear more about how you're a refugee from the secular world, if you don't mind my asking. Though, maybe in a different thread if you feel it detracts too much from the OP (though, I don't mind talking about it here, if that doesn't break the forum rules).

It's a very long story, haha. I come from a very secular liberal segment of society, so abandoning it for Christianity was not something anyone saw coming. I'm fairly quiet about it, since it's the sort of thing that most people aren't going to understand. I say "refugee" both because secular life was unhealthy for me, and because it's been difficult to escape. It's very strange to come from the other direction and realize that none of the secular defeaters of Christianity actually work if the Incarnation was real. With a claim that extreme, all bets are off, and I've slowly moved over to a Tertullian-style take on the whole thing: "I believe because it is absurd." It's just that perfect match of completely unreasonable and insane, and yet profoundly true at a human level, that I'm not really comfortable trying to resist it. (My politics have also picked up a strong Christian left flavor, à la Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., so that was a factor as well.)

 

[bling]

You know, I actually work with a few muslims, and they are great people. Some of the hardest working, most down to earth people I've known. I actually got the opportunity to pick their brains since one of them was my partner at work for quite a while... Very interesting dialogue. =) Islam does require a whole other level of commitment.

As for the quran and it's adherence, I think that depends on the denomination, much like christianity. The folks I worked with could be best described as liberal muslims. They take their quran very seriously, but they are much more concerned with the lives they lead than sticking to the letter of the quran in every little thing they do. Now, when it comes to more fundimental strains of islam, folks do get a little more persnickety. I don't have much nice to say about salafism or wahabiism, IMO.

Back to the topic at hand, if the bible is inspired by god and written by man, how much stock do we place in the words of such people like Paul, or John the baptist? What about stories of the old testament, such as the flood story (which is the 4th iteration of a flood story from previous, older versions), or the plagues of Egypt when Moses pled with Pharaoh? Are those to be taken as historical accounts, or taken as parables and stories with deeper meanings to teach?

Hmmm... As for your other points, they are very similar to what I was raised with. I'm familiar with these points of view.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out! =)

Yes, I to know many nice Muslims. Islam is very much a work-based religion and even though they believe “God can forgive almost anything”, there is a need to be deserving of that forgiveness through works or to pay back the forgiveness.


The Holy Spirit would not have allowed misleading doctrinal information to be pasted down to us. We know we are missing letters from Paul and most likely others, which the Holy Spirit must feel could be misleading.

John the Baptist did not write anything, but only some of his words are recorded.

Paul will say sometimes this is from me (my ideas for the particular group). Paul is not ever addressing us directly in any of his letters so we are reading other people’s mail carried to them by a spirit filled individual (one of Paul’s companions or friend). You have to keep the context in mind anytime you read Paul especially when he writes to new members he sees as his children almost and they look upon him as their father almost. I do not have a big issue understanding Paul, but it does take a lot of pray meditation and allowing the Spirit to help me.

The plagues in Egypt could easily have occurred as stated and I would not expect the Egyptians to put it in their history.

The flood might have been “regional” with the reference to the world being the world of the Bible at that time. God seems to be working with other people outside the Bible area differently. This gets “complicated”, because we today will not be able through studying artifacts to know the God of the Bible exists. We need to have faith in the existence of God for the benefit faith can produce, while using our “knowledge” to proof God’s existence would make us even more reliant on knowledge and less dependent on faith (we would avoid faith). God will not allow us the proof His existence through learning facts and proofing there was a whole earth flood would be scientific proof of God’s existence.

We need the humility faith in the existence of God can produce.

 

[Galdrun]

It's a very long story, haha. I come from a very secular liberal segment of society, so abandoning it for Christianity was not something anyone saw coming. I'm fairly quiet about it, since it's the sort of thing that most people aren't going to understand. I say "refugee" both because secular life was unhealthy for me, and because it's been difficult to escape. It's very strange to come from the other direction and realize that none of the secular defeaters of Christianity actually work if the Incarnation was real. With a claim that extreme, all bets are off, and I've slowly moved over to a Tertullian-style take on the whole thing: "I believe because it is absurd." It's just that perfect match of completely unreasonable and insane, and yet profoundly true at a human level, that I'm not really comfortable trying to resist it. (My politics have also picked up a strong Christian left flavor, à la Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., so that was a factor as well.)

I can't help but to respect when one goes against the grain to carve out their own path despite the obstacles that oppose them. It takes a strong sense of self, and a willingness to be uncomfortable, when it would be easier to just turn around and go with the flow.

When it comes to truths, there are things that one innately can see in contrast to their surroundings depending on what they are brought up in, IMO. When one lives in the grey concrete jungle of the city, the greens of the forest and rolling hills of the country are so much more vivid and awe inspiring, while those who live out in the boonies of the country can view a sprawling metropolis and giant skyscrapers in sheer wonder.

As for myself, Christianity will always be a part of who I am, but I can't help but contrast what I know with what I've seen later in my life in more secular/liberal circles. I think your situation might be similar, as you come from a secular society, and you are able to see the flaws that others around you that others might miss or dismiss outright in light of your walk with god. Ultimately, I think this is a good thing. It keeps us honest with ourselves, and drives us to be better people and more true to who we are when we question those things that others dismiss as nothing important or "just the way it is."

Thanks for humoring me, and Martin Luther King Jr. is a legend. =)