Loving & Rejecting God

[Loki]

I understand that the teachings of Jesus are held in high regard here, which leads me to conclude that there are maybe a few misguided people on this forum.

Jesus says that you have to Love (unconditionally accept) everything.

But then he looks down upon the Pharisees, says "away from me, you evildoers!" and labels things as detestable.

It's obvious that the Pharisees, the evil doers and the other detestable things are all parts of God. So then why does Jesus, on the one hand, preach acceptance of God, but then on the other hand openly reject parts of God?

This whole business of acceptance and rejection has always confused me. I've come to the conclusion that loving God makes no sense, because it leaves you in contradiction whenever you deem something is worth eliminating.

So anyone here see where I'm coming from?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jesus says that you have to Love (unconditionally accept) everything.

What gave you that impression?

So then why does Jesus, on the one hand, preach acceptance of God, but then on the other hand openly reject parts of God?

Acceptance as well as rejection are part and parcel of God's mind. Acceptance of truth and rejection of falsehoods. That is not only the law and the prophets, it's also the foundation of the word, any word, any truth, any meaning.

Think about it.

[maestro]

I understand that the teachings of Jesus are held in high regard here, which leads me to conclude that there are maybe a few misguided people on this forum.

I do not hold his teachings in high regard. I picture (perhaps incorrectly) him as deluded but sincere (with a healthy dose of megalomania) .

This whole business of acceptance and rejection has always confused me. I've come to the conclusion that loving God makes no sense, because it leaves you in contradiction whenever you deem something is worth eliminating.

Perhaps first accepting truthfully what is makes more clear what should be done, or requires fixing. If something is worth eliminating, it should be seen in depth and all its facets acknowledged to do it effectively.

[Loki]

Jesus says that you have to Love (unconditionally accept) everything.

What gave you that impression?

This:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. Matthew 22: 36

I can't make any sense out of what he means by this. How can I love something that I can't experience? We love the things which we can experience (children, nature, women, power, pets). God is not an experiencable thing, so the first and greatest commandment makes no sense.

So then why does Jesus, on the one hand, preach acceptance of God, but then on the other hand openly reject parts of God?

Acceptance as well as rejection are part and parcel of God's mind.

If God is defined as the totality, then logically, God can't have a mind. A finite creature can have a mind. But such a mind is always finite. A mind can only experience itself, and can never experience what is beyond itself.

[Loki]

I understand that the teachings of Jesus are held in high regard here, which leads me to conclude that there are maybe a few misguided people on this forum.

I do not hold his teachings in high regard. I picture (perhaps incorrectly) him as deluded but sincere (with a healthy dose of megalomania).

Well yeah!

Just consider these crazy quotes:

"Those who want to be my disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for me will find it."

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters yes, even his own life such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14: 26


I still can't get over Dan Rowden in his video Philosophy is not for the Faint hearted.

Dan says:

"Was Jesus just crapping on like your average idiot cult leader demanding complete personal devotion? Of course not. "

Of course not? Rowden, how the fuck could you even be remotely certain of such a thing? I can't be certain that Jesus wasn't pure hearted and wise, but I sure as hell can't trust that he was. Actually, the evidence strongly suggests to me that Jesus believed in some 'other world' beyond this one, that he believed himself to be some bridge to another world.

[Nick]

Of course not? Rowden, how the fuck could you even be remotely certain of such a thing? I can't be certain that Jesus wasn't pure hearted and wise, but I sure as hell can't trust that he was.

I don't think it's too important that you view Jesus as pure hearted and wise because it's always best to sort truth out for yourself rather than rely on someone else to do it for you. But if you want to understand what he said a little better you need to remember that people had different and/or more flexible meanings for words 2,000 years ago. This combined with the fact that he imparted truth in parables and poetry makes it highly unlikely to get a solid grasp of what he was talking about if you take any of his words in a literal sense. My guess as to why he spoke this way is because your average human needs to be entertained, so he disguised cold hard truths in cute little stories for them.

[Loki]

Dan goes on to say:

"And Jesus certainly wasn't talking about literally hating"

Rowden, are you that naive to think that you can know such a thing with any sort of certainty?

[Loki]

Of course not? Rowden, how the fuck could you even be remotely certain of such a thing? I can't be certain that Jesus wasn't pure hearted and wise, but I sure as hell can't trust that he was.

I don't think it's too important that you view Jesus as pure hearted and wise because it's always best to sort truth out for yourself rather than rely on someone else to do it for you.

I have no interest in relying on the teachings of Jesus, or anyone else, I'm just a little bit amazed that these 'wisemen' on Genius Forum are actually serious about Jesus. His stuff is so poetic and varied that you can cherry pick and interpret it anyway you like.

But if you want to understand what he said a little better you need to remember that people had different and/or more flexible meanings for words 2,000 years ago.

Well yeah, and there was a strong tendency toward 'magical thinking'. I mean, if you look over Jesus teachings, you'd have to be pretty dumb to walk away thinking the guy was an atheist. He was a mystic similar to people like Mikiel, Alex Jacob, Iolaus, Brokenhead. The difference was that he had a little more testosterone and aggression.

This combined with the fact that he imparted truth in parables and poetry makes it highly unlikely to get a solid grasp of what he was talking about if you take any of his words in a literal sense. My guess as to why he spoke this way is because your average human needs to be entertained, so he disguised cold hard truths in cute little stories for them.

Well, the world would have been a lot better off if he didn't do that. Pretty foolish if you ask me. But what can you expect from a guy who lived 2000 years ago? Not much I suppose. They were pretty primitive and simple minded back then. Well, we still are, but there's a lot more opportunities for sophistication and refinement these days.

[maestro]

"Was Jesus just crapping on like your average idiot cult leader demanding complete personal devotion? Of course not. "
Of course not? Rowden, how the fuck could you even be remotely certain of such a thing? I can't be certain that Jesus wasn't pure hearted and wise, but I sure as hell can't trust that he was. Actually, the evidence strongly suggests to me that Jesus believed in some 'other world' beyond this one, that he believed himself to be some bridge to another world.

I suspect that the administrators have a psychological attachment to Jesus, due to their Christian past or society. Perhaps that is the reason for the cherry picking of statements and interpretations to show him as "wise". If you pick a random guru nowadays you are bound to find more wise statements from him then there are in the whole Bible.

I myself was attached to the Buddha and perhaps still am, and reinterpreted his troublesome statements (eg. concerning rebirth) to suit my understanding, but now I realize that perhaps he was not right about everything and there is no need to put people on some pedestal, nobody can be right about everything. Buddha was probably wrong about many things.

[Loki]

"Was Jesus just crapping on like your average idiot cult leader demanding complete personal devotion? Of course not. "
Of course not? Rowden, how the fuck could you even be remotely certain of such a thing? I can't be certain that Jesus wasn't pure hearted and wise, but I sure as hell can't trust that he was. Actually, the evidence strongly suggests to me that Jesus believed in some 'other world' beyond this one, that he believed himself to be some bridge to another world.

I suspect that the administrators have a psychological attachment to Jesus, due to their Christian past or society. Perhaps that is the reason for the cherry picking of statements and interpretations to show him as "wise". If you pick a random guru nowadays you are bound to find more wise statements from him then there are in the whole Bible.

Agreed.

I myself was attached to the Buddha and perhaps still am, and reinterpreted his troublesome statements (eg. concerning rebirth) to suit my understanding

Although I'm a bit opposed to his views on women and sex, I regard Buddha as admirable, and far superior to Jesus.

Buddha's statements on rebirth seem pretty straight forward and logical to me.

It simply amazes me that someone who lived that long ago could confidently conclude that consciousness is generated by the machinery of the body.

The reason I'm amazed of course is because consciousness simply boggles my mind. No matter how much I take in what the neuroscience have to say about electro-chemical processes, it makes no sense to me why consciousness should arise at all. I'm simply baffled.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. Matthew 22: 36

I can't make any sense out of what he means by this. How can I love something that I can't experience? We love the things which we can experience (children, nature, women, power, pets). God is not an experiencable thing, so the first and greatest commandment makes no sense.

God, the one totality, includes experience, knowledge and imagination. So this could easily mean all the manifestations of God (hence the 'Lord' bit).

Also Jesus himself is called Lord, Lord and God and (implied to be) son of God throughout the gospels, to confuse the matter. It makes more sense to see the Jesus character as wisdom personified in a teacher and healer role. It's divinity at its best, meaning: at its brightest in terms of expression (hence the 'Lord' bit again).

Also, loving doesn't have to mean just accepting. It means to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of. Hold dear. That could easily include a lot of behavior, like the way one loves children and still correct or discipline them.

If God is defined as the totality, then logically, God can't have a mind. A finite creature can have a mind. But such a mind is always finite. A mind can only experience itself, and can never experience what is beyond itself.

God's mind is a mind that conceives of God. This is logically correct as it's self-reflection, the basis of awareness. Just as God's body is everything that makes up the totality. [Spinoza writes: "the essence of man consists of the modifications of the attributes of God"]

Biblical theology can be confusing [and is confused] and it's generally considered wise to not try to decode things that do not speak to you clearly. There are so many other inspiring teachings out there.

[Cory Duchesne]

If you guys don't mind, I'd like to help clarify.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. Matthew 22: 36

I can't make any sense out of what he means by this. How can I love something that I can't experience? We love the things which we can experience (children, nature, women, power, pets). God is not an experiencable thing, so the first and greatest commandment makes no sense.

God, the one totality, includes experience, knowledge and imagination. So this could easily mean all the manifestations of God (hence the 'Lord' bit).

To me, Lord implies a controller, ruler, or leader. And I can understand how the totality can be considered a Lord, because everything we learn, know, and do, we owe to the totality.

So do you think that Jesus meant: we must Love the fact that the totality is our Lord?

Maybe it's wise to interpret Jesus as saying: we must love, first and foremost, knowledge of the nature of God. We must love the logical truths, for it's these truths that makes God Lord.

That's quite a bit different than loving mere manifestations of the totality.

When we love the manifestations, we are not loving the Lord, but loving only the Lord's fruits, and thus hating the absence of the Lord's fruits. If we only loved parts of God (rather than the laws of God) We would be in denial of God's ways, and thus disrespecting him.

Jesus' emphasis on Lord, seems to imply we must love him as a set of laws.

Also Jesus himself is called Lord, Lord and God and (implied to be) son of God throughout the gospels, to confuse the matter. It makes more sense to see the Jesus character as wisdom personified in a teacher and healer role. It's divinity at its best, meaning: at its brightest in terms of expression (hence the 'Lord' bit again).

The word Lord means governer, authority, leader, controller. So, if the Jesus character is the brightest in terms of expression, then I suppose we could say that, as students, he is our lord, in the sense that he is our leader, our teacher.

Is that what you mean?

Also, loving doesn't have to mean just accepting. It means to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of. Hold dear. That could easily include a lot of behavior, like the way one loves children and still correct or discipline them.

Diebert, how does this sound:

I welcome, entertain and am fond of the LORD God. I love being conscious of God's laws.

On the other hand, when we love money, luxury, women and food, we are not loving God's laws, but we are loving our ignorance of them. In that sense, we are merely the slaves of God, rather than God's equal.

If God is defined as the totality, then logically, God can't have a mind. A finite creature can have a mind. But such a mind is always finite. A mind can only experience itself, and can never experience what is beyond itself.

God's mind is a mind that conceives of God.

This is logically correct as it's self-reflection, the basis of awareness.

Yes, I suppose. When I see the truth of God, I am seeing myself. Myself and God, become equal. We become one.

Just as God's body is everything that makes up the totality. [Spinoza writes: "the essence of man consists of the modifications of the attributes of God"]

That's right. After all, there are some people who conceive of God as Jealous, angry, and sadistically punishing.

But what about Secular Atheists? They don't conceive of God at all. This seems to imply that they aren't conscious of their true existence (and instead are only conscious of an existence that isn't true). Their self is false.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Loki, perhaps the missing point is understanding what is meant by "love" in this case. If you love and unconditionally accept a child, do you just feed it Twinkies and Mountain Dew because those are the child's favorite foods? Do you let the child run out on the interstate because the child thought that looked like fun? No, you do what is in your judgment the best for the child.

Yes, God is everything that is. God's actions are everything that is done. Although in a way God is also God's actions, do not confuse the two because it limits the piece of God known as you. Your actions are also God's actions because you are a part of God. Sometimes one part of God has to do something that another part of God does not like for the Ultimate good.

Cory, I like the way you put that. The greater part of God does Lord over us smaller parts of God. One human standing alone and without tools or psychic abilities an not stop a tornado so the part of God known as nature does lord over us to an extent, but it is possible to build structures that will not be harmed by a tornado (think under ground), and thereby lord over some effects of the tornado. Your ability to cause such a structure to be built, which includes your judgment on whether or not to build such a structure, partially determines whether or not your belongings (including your body) are scattered in the wind. Whether a tornado hits or not, or if you build such a structure or not, the result is God's judgment because both you and nature are parts of God. The Ultimate decision is based on all of the factors that went into the equation. If we knew the numerical values of all the factors, God's judgment could be seen as clearly and undeniably as a mathematical equation.

[DHodges]

I understand that the teachings of Jesus are held in high regard here,

It's mostly Dan, but maybe also Kevin and Dave Q.

I think that, being in Australia, they don't see the day-to-day consequences of what Christianity is really like, the way you do in the US.

After all, there are some people who conceive of God as Jealous, angry, and sadistically punishing.

That certainly sounds like the God described in the Old Testament. Kind of a dick, really.

[Loki]

I understand that the teachings of Jesus are held in high regard here,

It's mostly Dan, but maybe also Kevin and Dave Q.

I pretty sure David Quinn thinks very highly of Jesus, because he actually made a compilation of Jesus quotes, and even wrote an essay praising Jesus.

Check it out: The Horror of Jesus

Here's Quinn's essay:

As everyone knows, there is very little resemblance between the religion of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. They embrace entirely different values and point in completely opposite directions. It is like chalk and cheese. This applies as much to the "serious" mainstream denominations of Catholicism and Anglicanism, as it does to the wacky Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. Without exception, all of the various Christian sects have turned away from the reality of Jesus, choosing instead to pursue a fabrication of their own imaginations for the sake of their own egos.

One is reminded of a quote by Soren Kierkegaard: "Think of a very long railway train - but long ago the locomotive ran away from it. Christendom is the unmoving train, each generation linked to the previous one. The locomotive is Christianity, the restlessness of the eternal." I could not put it any better. Over the years, the real teachings of Jesus have become infinitely removed from the many religions that bear his name.

The reality is that Jesus was a man of the Infinite, a great sage who implored people to abandon their attachments and live a life of truth. His constantly emphasized the need to give up everything for the sake of God. He urged his listeners to transcend the world of mediocrity and ordinary human values and become perfectly wise. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", was his core teaching.

But no one these days wants to hear this, especially not Christians. They have far too many attachments to protect - to their families, their wives and children, their preachers, their religion, their good works, their reputation and status within the community, their inner images of God and Jesus. Because of this, they do everything possible to kill the reality of Jesus in their hearts. They nail him on the cross and leave him there to die. And then, when they have succeeded in this, and they are absolutely sure that Jesus can never come back to life again, they come together to light candles and sing hymns in celebration, giving thanks to God for the wonderful things in their lives. All done, mind you, in the name of Jesus.

If the Devil himself wanted to create a perfect tool for turning people away from the spiritual path, he could not have done any better than the religion of Christianity. It is, for all intents and purposes, the embodiment of evil, and if Jesus were ever to come back to earth he would denounce it from the rooftops and condemn it with all his being. You don't believe me? Just look at his words recorded in the Gospels. He has already denounced it. The condemnation that he regularly poured forth onto the Jewish religious leaders, Pharisees and teachers of the Law of his time is just as applicable to the modern Christian of today.

Jesus went much further than this, however. He not only attacked the religious mentality which underlies Judaism and Christianity, but he also challenged the deeper emotional values and attachments that all humans love to cherish - e.g. marriage, love, family, women, motherhood, financial security, reputation, contentment, etc. From the point of view of the average fun-loving person, Jesus was an absolute monster. He was literally inhuman. He presented a teaching that was so offensive that it enraged those around him - to the point that all they wanted to do was to put him to death.

So be warned - what follows here is some of the deadliest wisdom ever spoken. The God that Jesus worshipped was not the warm, embracing "Grandfather in the sky" so beloved of Christians, but rather the cool clean loftiness of the Infinite. Sample this wisdom if you must, but sample it with care. It is not for everyone.

David Quinn

[brokenhead]

I can't make any sense out of what he means by this. How can I love something that I can't experience? We love the things which we can experience (children, nature, women, power, pets). God is not an experiencable thing, so the first and greatest commandment makes no sense.

You can experience God. Part of faith is understanding that it is not a delusion. Believing that it is a delusion will destroy faith before it can begin. This would be the barren ground on which the mustard seed fell that produced no growth.

If God is defined as the totality, then logically, God can't have a mind. A finite creature can have a mind. But such a mind is always finite. A mind can only experience itself, and can never experience what is beyond itself.

This is not the definition of God. Nor is anything else. If you believe it is, then this constitutes a belief, by definition. This belief implies that you cannot have a relationship with God, and therefore is not a belief consistent with faith. You are fully entitled to it just as you are entitled to believe anything else, whether true or false.

"Those who want to be my disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for me will find it."

Those whose only concern is this world will lose their lives. This is true because everybody loses his life. Those who lose it for Jesus' sake have obviously lost it as well, but, unlike those who do not, will find that death from this world does not constitue the end but rather a transition from one existence to another. They will find that life goes on in another world. They simply have to believe him when he promises this.

Well yeah, and there was a strong tendency toward 'magical thinking'. I mean, if you look over Jesus teachings, you'd have to be pretty dumb to walk away thinking the guy was an atheist. He was a mystic similar to people like Mikiel, Alex Jacob, Iolaus, Brokenhead. The difference was that he had a little more testosterone and aggression

Christ was not an atheist, nor was he a mystic. Speaking for myself, I am not a mystic of any sort and do not believe in any kind of magic or Magick. I do not know about Christ's testosterone, but I definitely think he had less aggression, or mastered his better than I have done mine.

There is confusion with QRS views on Jesus, but this stems from their definition of god as identical with the totality, which is logically erroneous no matter how many time they repeat it. Jesus is not God but a god relative to us, they way an ant might consider a human a god if it had the capacity of limited sentience as humans do. This is not due his teachings or his relative wisdom, but rather his wisdom is due to his nature. He cannot be compared to Buddha or to anyone else born here on earth. This is why he called himself the Son of Man.

Jesus did not espouse the abandonment of tradition but the enslavement to it. He would agree that the paper from the city hall does not make the marriage but rather the real love between husband and wife. He was not against the family unit but the construction of extended families based on material gain and worldy power of the resulting clan rather than on the love that is in the human heart. To believe he wanted to strip people of society is deluded; rather he wanted not to replace it but to free society from the evil in it. His parables should be read with the utmost care. He wanted to rid his garden of the weeds which were strangling it and always return without constant watchfulness; he did not want to burn the garden. But from his point of view, better to burn a garden with no one to tend it than let its decay to spread to other gardens.

"Hating" one's father and mother must be understood rationally as well. It means simply that one must be willing to destroy your attachment to them or anyone else who prevents one from accepting his word which is the truth. Many, too many, people never succeed at severing their umbilical cords. Such people can never make free decisions because they have never been free. You cannot hear what is in your heart if someone else's voice is always in your head. You cannot love unless you understand that love comes not from you but rather through you. Otherwise, what Jesus requires from you will seem impossible, even monstrous.

The extent to which what he asks seems self-destructive is the extent to which one lacks comprehension. The way to obtain it is through compassion. Put into practice, compassion answers many objections to Jesus' teachings that naturally arise among people who have never put it into practice. You are not asked to love everyone, but rather your neighbor. This does not, necessarily, mean literally the person next door, but it may. It means the people you encounter who require your service. It is like triage. You cannot be everywhere minding everyone else's interests; when you and those who are closest to your heart have enough, do not keep on consuming, because then it will surely be at someone's expense who is more in need, and in the meantime, you yourself grow fat and unfit.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I understand that the teachings of Jesus are held in high regard here,

It's mostly Dan, but maybe also Kevin and Dave Q.

I think that, being in Australia, they don't see the day-to-day consequences of what Christianity is really like, the way you do in the US.

It seems to me that it is mostly David. Dan seems to have an awareness of what Christianity in America is like, and funnily enough - the first comment Kevin made when he got here was about there being a church on every corner in America.

[Shahrazad]

E,

the first comment Kevin made when he got here was about there being a church on every corner in America

You mean there are countries where that isn't true?

[Tomas]

E,

the first comment Kevin made when he got here was about there being a church on every corner in America

You mean there are countries where that isn't true?

Even when the commies (Leyla's Marxist buddies) take over a country, they leave the churches intact.

See Serbia, USSR (including Russia proper), Cuba, El Salvador, VietNam, etc?

Still in North Dakota... and those dang churches (prostitutes) are on every corner - plying their trade. AKA making the people drunk with the uncleanliness of the inside of the cup. Yes, the harlotries of world religions have us in a blind stupor.

Jesus tossed the money changers from Solomon's (Masonic) Temple in Jerusalem because..?



.

[Loki]

Just as God's body is everything that makes up the totality. [Spinoza writes: "the essence of man consists of the modifications of the attributes of God"]

That's right. After all, there are some people who conceive of God as Jealous, angry, and sadistically punishing.

But what about Secular Atheists? They don't conceive of God at all. This seems to imply that they aren't conscious of their true existence (and instead are only conscious of an existence that isn't true). Their self is false.

The essence of man is the God he creates? Weird....but perhaps true.

So what are you saying is that the old testament God was created as jealous, angry and punishing, because the people were jealous, angry and punishing.

As for your point about secular atheists - I don't follow. They don't conceive of a God, so does that mean they don't exist?

[Loki]

I can't make any sense out of what he means by this. How can I love something that I can't experience? We love the things which we can experience (children, nature, women, power, pets). God is not an experiencable thing, so the first and greatest commandment makes no sense.

You can experience God.

Oh yeah? And how do you know that it's God you are experiencing?

Part of faith is understanding that it is not a delusion.

How do you know it's not a delusion?

[Cory Duchesne]

Just as God's body is everything that makes up the totality. [Spinoza writes: "the essence of man consists of the modifications of the attributes of God"]

That's right. After all, there are some people who conceive of God as Jealous, angry, and sadistically punishing.

But what about Secular Atheists? They don't conceive of God at all. This seems to imply that they aren't conscious of their true existence (and instead are only conscious of an existence that isn't true). Their self is false.

The essence of man is the God he creates? Weird....but perhaps true.

So what are you saying is that the old testament God was created as jealous, angry and punishing, because the people were jealous, angry and punishing.

Yes, precisely.

As for your point about secular atheists - I don't follow. They don't conceive of a God, so does that mean they don't exist?

Well, they may not conceive of a God, but they conceive of things that are very important to them. Money, power, family, women, theories, career. Those are the things they worship. And those things just happen to involve a lot of fear, greed, transience, and denial about what is ultimately true.

So basically, if what you value highly involves a lot of fear, greed, transience and ignorance - then what you are is fear, greed, transience and ignorance.

[Leyla Shen]

Even when the commies (Leyla's Marxist buddies) take over a country, they leave the churches intact.

So on, and blah, blah, blah...

Seriously, Tomas. Reading your contributions to this forum is like spending a lifetime watching a cow chewing cud.

Make your way to fresh, greener pastures, you boring old fart!

[Ataraxia]

E,

the first comment Kevin made when he got here was about there being a church on every corner in America

You mean there are countries where that isn't true?

In Melbourne they are slowly being turned into 'New York loft' style appartments. :)

[Alex Jacob]

Elizabeth writes:

"It seems to me that it is mostly David. Dan seems to have an awareness of what Christianity in America is like, and funnily enough - the first comment Kevin made when he got here was about there being a church on every corner in America."

I would rather suggest that he does not, if what he/they write on this forum is an indicator of this supposed 'knowledge'. I would rather suggest that he is largely ignorant, even in a basic sense, about Christianity in America, an extremely broad subject. One must keep in mind the following: this forum has an extremely precise and acutely defined viewpoint that it represents, and one cannot deviate from it. It is a fixed position. Fortunately or unfortunately for them, there are a number of people who now participate on this forum who, it would seem, have quite contrary views. This of course makes conversations more interesting, more dynamic. But it must be a little disheartening to those who want and need to pursue the 'acutely fixed definition' (the standard rap about 'enlightenment').

I am completely amazed, myself, at the tremendous variation within 'mainstream Christianity'. You'd have to 'sample' it to really understand the broad dimension of issues discussed, the way that 'faith' and 'belief' are channeled into the problem of psycho-social well-being. In a very real sense the spirit of real human caring is expressed and undertaken in the church-setting that is simply nowhere matched in the culture at large. Some of the discourse I posted through links on another thread, especially the one on Killer Culture, is sophisticated, self-aware, well-informed, avant-guard and quite to the point. (At the same time, from my perspective, there are troubling and backward elements within these faithful discourses, and very strange and even potentially dangerous ideas like the idea (fact for some Christians) of the anti-Christ. Also, a big percentage of the Christian audience is, it would seem, lower middle-class, with questionable preparatory education.)

To begin to understand this American Christianity, you have to really take an unprejudiced look, and keep looking because it is changing and growing very rapidly.

This for example: Emergent Church