Feeling bad about yourself is the point

[Yaakov]

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110240,00.html

Richard Wise, a 20-year member of the small, traditional Wesley United Methodist Church in Union City, Ind., said "Sin is in life and sin is everywhere, we are all sinners," he said. "If you just leave church feeling good you are missing the whole point. The point is you need a purpose in life." ... "I don't see how you could put God first in your life if all you're going to do is go to church and feel good about being there.

Count me as one of the people to miss Wise’s point. I don’t see how feeling good about yourself is excluding God. I guess this guy thinks that the purpose in life is to feel bad about yourself and constantly remind yourself that you are a sinner and can never be anything else. Poor guy.

[Friend]

Yaakov

I am nurturing feelings of disappointment. You have demonstrated in many postings on several subjects that you can do better than this.

"If you just...", "if all you're going to do..."

There is no reference here to excluding God by feeling good about myself. Feeling good is a byproduct of striving towards the light. It can be a useful indicator that I am on the right track and, if I lack will, it can steer me in the direction of sleep. This is a very complex notion not normally well communicated in the semantic universe.

Not the best start for a new topic my friend.

[hannah (198.81.26.106)]

Jesus said, "I came so that you would have life and have it abundantly." That's me. I came out of darkness and thanks only to him, I live in the light and I feel GREAT!!!!! i don't recall Jesus saying, "I came so that you would have life miserably." Do you? In fact, wasn't the premise that the serpent enticed Adam and Eve, that they were missing out on something.

As for "going" to church, I don't "go" to church. I am the church. So we do church every day all day long. WooHoo.

I certainly don't think feeling bad about yourself, or being guilted into tithing, or guilted into anything scores you any points with God. That sacrificial giving is BS. It's just another example of people trying to build a stairway to heaven. Jesus is the only sacrifice that counts for diddily. The law was to point you to your need for him.


If you're feeling bad, I'd have to wonder why?

hannah.

[hillbilly (hillbilly)]

Hannah,

You are probably mad at me because I did not agree with you; however, you have to give me credit for trying to understand and respect the fact that you had an opinion (Carman board).

I have to ask you, do you really believe you have been raptured? I read this on another board here. I started to take this literally and then realized later that you do not take the bible literally (which I do) based on some of your comments. Therefore, perhaps I shouldn't take your comment about being raptured literally.

Just curious.

[franklin (franklin)]

Feeling bad about yourself comes from being doing wrong and being convicted in the spirit. Until we repent and recieve forgiveness we will continue to feel bad. That is the Christian walk. It's called having a conscience.

[yaakov (yaakov)]

franklin

<font color="0000ff">Feeling bad about yourself comes from being doing wrong and being convicted in the spirit.</font>

Blech! Thank God, I am not Christian. This original sin stuff and that mankind is inherently evil is awful, IMO.

I much prefer the Jewish way. Mankind is inherently good, with a predilection for evil. That each person has personal contact with God without needing any intermediary.

[franklin (franklin)]

Yaakov. That is not what I said. I did not say anything about original sin or mankind being inherently evil.

Let me ask you this. Do you have a conscience? Does it ever hurt? Does it feel better after you atone for that wrong?

[yaakov (yaakov)]

Yes, yes, yes.

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Well, I'm an atheist and as long as you mean atone to the person I've wronged, I can also answer yes, yes, and yes. Why do religious people believe that a conscience is only available to them? Sociopaths are sick individuals who have no conscience, but I bet they exist in equal proportions in all religions.

[overseas (overseas)]

Bible and Christianity is not man-centered. It means that the primary goal of the Bible revelation is not utilitarian (i.e. directed to people well being). Primary goal is to reveal God and communicate truth. People are called to know God and accept truth, even if this makes them feel bad about themselves. Christians dignity comes not from self-value, but derives from the glory (i.e. very positive attributes) of God who made them His children and made them His ambassadors. Christians are called to find pleasure in God's character (i.e. understanding God's wonderful way of being and experiencing a relationship with Him). Bible does not promise to provide arguments to make people feel fine about themselves or justify their own likes/ dislikes.
To avoid misunderstanding, I must say that when people lose their self-esteem, they are vulnerable to cults. Bible provides balance to this, meaning that your dignity as a Christian does not depend to a specific person/ preacher/ guru.

[yaakov (yaakov)]

geokstr

<font color="0000ff">Why do religious people believe that a conscience is only available to them?</font>

That is a pretty broad brush. I am religious, but disagree with your rhetorical question.

<font color="0000ff">Sociopaths are sick individuals who have no conscience, but I bet they exist in equal proportions in all religions.</font>

Agreed. Being religious does not mean that crimes are not committed or ethics are not breached.

[yaakov (yaakov)]

overseas

<font color="0000ff">People are called to know God and accept truth, even if this makes them feel bad about themselves. Christians dignity comes not from self-value...</font>

Agreed. A religion that tells you that you are born in sin and you are bound for eternal punishment for not accepting their god, makes that very clear.

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Hi Yaakov:

Agreed. Apology extended. I should have said "...MANY religious people...".

Since this board seems to be nearly totally Christian, I made an incorrect assumption there would be tolerant people from other religions.

However, I don't think I would have been far off if I had said "...all CHRISTIANS believe". As I stated above, I grew up Catholic, and they believe you can't get to heaven unless you believe in THEIR "God", no matter how good and honorable a life you led. I had thought that "God" loved all the creatures he made in his own image, but apparently he loves some more than others.

[just_curious (just_curious)]

"since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

The one true God can be known and understood without ever hearing about Him! Thus every creature He made in His own image is loved by Him and can love Him.

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Hi curious:

Just what do you mean by "known"? Like, buddies, or something?

And if "...every creature he made in his own image is loved by him..." does that mean me too, a theist, or atheist, who does not believe in him?

And if he loves me, and I live a life by his 5th though 10th commandments, will I go to heaven too?
Or am I condemned to purgatory or someplace below heaven because I don't believe in him?

[overseas (overseas)]

Great discussion and thank you for allowing me in ! I propose you separate your views on the following aspects, not in writing but maybe in thinking:
1.pro/ against existence of some kind of God
2.if the Bible is reliable
3.what the Bible says
About the 3rd point, even if someone is not positive about points 2 and 3, he sould make efforts to understand what Christians claim. Why do I say this ? Because Christianity is far away of any other religious beliefs (Hindu, Tao, Buddha, Islam, you name it...), even if sometimes talks about same subjects (love, sin, relationships, nature etc.). This is crucial for any honest human being that intends to deal with Christianity, accepting or rejecting it.
It is not that Christians take pride because of this difference by itself, but because Christians want to be accepted or rejected for what they really believe, not for myths spread around. So, letting aside the topic of "why on earth do these poor-minded Christians believe the Bible", please note that the Bible is absolutely unique in its main message, arguments used, solutions provided, explanations ...
On the other side, it is easy to show great simmilarities between the other world's religions - which validate the popular opinion that "all religions have the same God" - if you exclude Christianity, that is true.
For everybody, uniqueness of the Bible is not an argument for accepting the Bible, but is a factor to consider in understanding the Bible before accepting or rejecting it.
On the other side, I tell the same to some church members that believe the Bible without taking into account its difficulties (I don't say errors or mistakes !). I have a problem with people that "swallow" the "nice" messages of the Bible (God loves you, God helps you, God is good) without acknowledging the "tough" parts (e.g. God makes justice and punishes His enemies, God may not respond to your prayers some times...).
It may seem a little off topic, but may help us structure our discussion.

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Hi over:

"It is not that Christians take pride because of this difference by itself, but because Christians want to be accepted or rejected for what they really believe, not for myths spread around."
How about we accept or reject ANYONE by their behavior and how they treat us and others, NOT by their BELIEFS? I realize that your belief in a particular God can affect that behavior in some relatively minor ways. However, as I stated on another thread:

"I have always maintained that if you took the last six commandments, the ones that don't mention "God", modernized the wording so they wouldn't be recognized as such, put them in a room with the leaders of all the world's major religions and most of the minor ones too, and atheists, and agnostics, you could probably get agreement from all in short order that these are pretty good guidelines for how to treat others with honor and respect.

Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't screw around on your SO, don't be envious of what the Jones's have, love your Mom and Pop, and most of all don't kill."

You said:
"On the other side, it is easy to show great simmilarities between the other world's religions - which validate the popular opinion that "all religions have the same God" - if you exclude Christianity, that is true."

As I stated above, I believe that there almost perfect matches between ALL belief systems, INCLUDING Christianity and even atheism, when it comes to how we deal with each other in an honorable and just manner. (That excludes certain fundamental Islamicists.)

It's only the "God" part that is the difference. If we only just believed what we believe without trying to convert anyone, allowed others to believe whatever they want, and lived life on THIS planet by the precepts in the 4th through 10th commandments, I do believe war and other conflicts would be history.

It's the "God" part again (sigh).

[geokstr (geokstr)]

I was misquoted when I said "...4th through 10th commandments". It should have said "5th through 10th commandments".

[overseas (overseas)]

We all live by our beliefs, even if many times we are hypocrites and do not confess the same beliefs that we follow. Judging one after his beliefs is judging after the belief that is manifest by his deeds, not by the beliefs one likes to parade.
I love you emphasised the 'God' problem in the Bible. You got it right. And I hope everybody sees it is a problem of the Bible itself, not a problem created by one's opinion of the Bible. Many christians refuse to acknowledge this problem while I think it is central.
It's the moment to tell you what I understand about Pharisees in NT. Maybe someone else can help here. But I know Pharisees were the priests class that rejected the supernatural part of the OT, still they did the priesthood job. Now why they continued to stick to the "natural" part of the Bible ? Probably for its educational/ social/ civil value. Paul said in 1 Corinthians (sorry I do not have access to my Bible right now)approx. 'if we trust the Lord only for this life, then we are the most miserable people'.
To me, taking the 'natural' part of the Bible (like 5-10 commandments) without the 'supernatural' part (God claims) does not work. Because I have more brilliant ideas that commandments 5-10. I may even like to live in anarchy (more fun) than being a good neighbour. Probably when I would get older I would like to live in a 5-10 comm. world, but not because of conviction, but because of my needs. But commandment 1 warns me those are not the product of humans minds like mine, but of someone claiming to be God. And I checked some evidences and reasoned on things and found that God really exists.
So I had to leave aside my plans for myself and look to God's plan (e.g. the 10 commandments) for myself. 1st comm. is there to make it clear this is a world dominated by God and His interests and glory. Human interests come second not only as importance, but also because without obeying 1st comm. you cannot really obey 5-10 comm. I know we can derive some controversy here...
I am sad when people approach christianity a few years for its social effects and then get disappointed when they discover the 'God' issue. Such people prefer to not read hard passages (bloody fights in OT etc.) and keep their humanitarian view on Bible.
If we are honest, we should all note the God proeminence in the Bible and his un-reasonable claims. I mean, if God's purpose is to bring goodies to the people, why God asked the apostles to sacrifice for His name ? At the same time, God is not unsensitive to people needs, but addresses our deep/ eternal needs, while we would only be interested in some more urgent ones. So living for God is not to be accepted based on immediate 'goodies' (although it is not His goal to make your life a living hell...), but based on knowing His character and being in love with Him. God's claims in the Bible are so un-reasonable (love Him with all our heart ? accept to die than dropping our faith in the name of Jesus ? loving our enemies ?) that only if He is really, really a splendide/ most wonderful/ absolutely unique/ omniscient/ omnipresent/ almighty etc. Person, these claims make sense.
I do not have a problem with people telling : 'if this is God, I do not want to follow him'. I have a problem with people that extract a mockery of God from the Bible for their own use and psychological well being.

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Hi Over:

Good post.

"To me, taking the 'natural' part of the Bible (like 5-10 commandments) withou the 'supernatural' part (God claims) does not work."

I agree that without a rationale for accepting the earthly commandments, they won't work. We are after all animals (I know you'll disagree with that) with but one overriding natural instinct - survival (reproduction is secondary, you need to live long enough to do that); therefore anarchy would be a mild term for the hell on earth that would happen without RULES to live by.

Without requiring the need for a "God", it can easily be deduced that it is in the best interests of these "humans" to have "rules" (morals). We have no great strength, or leaping ability or huge teeth or claws, yet we have to survive in a world where there are lots of creatures who DO. We also have to compete with them for food. How do we do that?

We form "groups", because "there is strength and safety in numbers". OK, now we're more safe from the beasts, so how do we protect ourselves from EACH OTHER? Rules evolve. The society or tribe with the ones most effective in protecting its members will survive over the others in the long run.

So what rules would be the best for that survival?

- Don't kill anybody in our group (which also explains why we find it so easy to kill those in OTHER groups)

- We'll need to trust each other or the group breaks down, so don't lie or cheat. Otherwise no one in the group will be able to rely on what you say or do.

- How do we insure that we produce the most, and the best, offspring (another critical survival need), while at the same time training the new members (children) in the rules our group deems most important to its survival? The most effective method seems to be having as many of the group reproduce as possible. The gene pool will be the most diverse that way, and children will get individual attention and training one-on-one. (It also helps to stifle rebellious tendencies if everyone in the group gets laid instead of just the strongest. :-) )

The rules for this one - form stable one-to-one relationships that will last for the entire child-rearing period to insure the survival of the most members in your group, and make sure the new members learn the rules.

The group whose members have the rules as part of the fabric of their being will survive over ones who pay lip service to them. Therefore a "conscience" must be instilled in the children at an early age by the parents. Corporal punishment used to be the way that was done; now we have schools and bible classes.

In other words, don't screw around on your SO, and the kiddies should honor Mom and Pop. If they don't, they won't learn the rules.

- in order to make sure that the rules are followed, the group punishes those who don't

With the exception of the "covet" ones, which are indirectly covered in the "penumbra" of the other ones, I've pretty much shown that a "God" is NOT necessary for there to be "morals" which are important to the survival of the group.

Are the rules always good? Not necessarily; as times change, now and then so must the rules. But those changes MUST be at the margins. EVERYONE in the group MUST follow the BASIC ones; don't lie, cheat, steal or kill and love Mom and Pop, or the group eventually becomes too weak to defend its members and it dies.

Where "God" comes in (among other reasons) is to provide at least the appearance of authority for those strongest enough or persuasive enough to become the leaders who MAKE the rules. If they make bad rules, it weakens the group, so natural selection keeps providing for the leaders who can best make rules to provide for the safety of the group. (Up until the last few centuries, it was unheard of for the members to peacefully "choose" their leaders. Before that it was the strongest or the ones who claimed direct support for their positions from "God": royalty and religious leaders. It still remains to be seen which is best for the survival of the group.)

That does not address specific leaders who are usually not important to the group's survival, but over the long term, the group that selects the best leaders overall wins.

[overseas (overseas)]

I agree the Bible sometimes deals with people organisation/ ways of living in colectivity and logical group behaviour. This is very clear in OT, but not as a purpose in itself, but because God chose to reveal himself to a nation and to make Himself known to the world by conducting/ punishing/ educating this nation. However, His final goal was to deal with people on a personal basis in view of eternal things, not with groups for ensuring a comfortable collective environment.

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Hi Seas:

I am contending that, even without a bible or other spiritual inspiration, human societies would have to evolve those rules anyway, because the ones that didn't would die off.

You said:
"His final goal was to deal with people on a personal basis in view of eternal things, not with groups for ensuring a comfortable collective environment."

No one's talking about comfort; I am addressing SURVIVAL.

Be that as it may, if we are arriving at pretty much the same place either way, but I don't choose to believe in your "God", why should I be punished for it after I die? Doesn't say much for all that all-merciful, all-good, all-just stuff, does it? Especially if he lets the ones who believe in him into the pearly gates, even though they treat others down here like dirt.

[overseas (overseas)]

Indeed survival instinct made people organise themselves. Though, their code of rules many times addressed issues beyond mere survival, like personal dignity and freedom. Seems to be more about life than survival.
About your last question, I guess you got many times the same 'churchy' answers and you are bored. Ok, let's try something different.
If you think God is vengeful and unjust, I will not contradict you for the moment, for the sake of the discussion. I just draw your attention that your opinion on Him does not erase historical evidence about Jesus. Cause you say that a just and loving God cannot punish those that disregard Him, I agree. What is the difference for those people if it will be an unjust God that will punish them eternally ? My point is that evidence about supernatural/ spiritual world cannot be superseded by our interpretation of God's character. Maybe Christians are wrong about the loving character of God (for the sake of the discussion), but the point is that there is a God. In fact, many christians honestly question God's loving character when they experience sufferings and persecution and they confess this plainly.

[murdoc (murdoc)]

Whenever I experience sufferings, I question Lady Luck, but then she just whistles n' walks away.

She's such a jerk....

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Hi Over:

<font color="0000ff">Indeed survival instinct made people organise themselves. Though, their code of rules many times addressed issues beyond mere survival, like personal dignity and freedom. Seems to be more about life than survival.</font>

What you have described is Maslow's Hierarchy, which says that life is driven by motivations, which he arranged in a pyramid. You can only go up the steps of the pyramid if you have satisfied the one you're on now, as well as all the ones below it.

The very FIRST level is Survival. Without that you can just hang it up on the rest of them. Then Safety/security, followed by Belongingness and Love, then Self-Esteem, etc., ending in Self-transcendence (whatever THAT is) at the peak.

As human societies fulfill the first one, Survival, they are freed to look for the next layer, Security. That allows them the freedom to want love and belongingness. At each level, a new and higher set of rules evolves to permit the greatest number of the society to achieve that level before moving on to the next.

The point being that this can all occur without a "God" as well as with one. These are psychological principles unrelated to a deity.

[doug (doug)]

I remember Maslow from psych.
I think you can hang up survival, safety, security by transcending self out of love!
On a natural level I call that mothering instinct. In a way it is Maslow's first step, survival, eminating from the last step, survival of the race transcending self or individual.

(Message edited by doug on December 26, 2004)

(Message edited by doug on December 26, 2004)

[solopilot (solopilot)]

Not having read the whole thread, I see one of two possibilities -- either the guy is one of those sackcloth-and-ashes types or he was trying to say that if you are satisfied with yourself, then you aren't as Christian as you think you are.

Spirituality isn't a staircase, it's an escalator going the wrong way. If you stop because you're "good enough," you're actually being carried back down to where you started.

This is something that most Protestants don't understand. The are "saved," they "believe," and then when Sunday School is over, they go back to their secular existence, confident that they will be with Jesus. Secure in their safety, they trample their neighbors, cheat their employers or customers, and loudly proclaim that there is no need for works when they have faith.

[doug (doug)]

Solopilot
Maslow, I believe, is not christian at all but a psychologist or someone like that and is in a lot of college text books.
<font color="0000ff">Spirituality isn't a staircase, it's an escalator going the wrong way. If you stop because you're "good enough," you're actually being carried back down to where you started.</font> good analogy

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Solo:

<font color="ff0000">"...they go back to their secular existence...Secure in their safety, they trample their neighbors, cheat their employers or customers..."</font>
What makes you so sure this is only a problem with "<font color="ff0000">Protestants</font>"? Seems to me you're pretty much describing human nature.

"<font color="ff0000">Spirituality isn't a staircase, it's an escalator going the wrong way. If you stop because you're "good enough," you're actually being carried back down to where you started."</font> "<font color="0000ff">good analogy</font>"
But you're both again just describing human societies; if they don't grow, they die. Spiritual or NOT.

[solopilot (solopilot)]

Geo: Protestantism differs from Catholicism and Mormonism in the doctrine of "being saved." Protestants of most denominations refer to being "born again," but condemn any suggestion that anything else is necessary for their salvation beyond "accepting Jesus as personal savior."

Anyone who suggests that there is more needed is condemned ("You Mormons think you are saved by works, rather than grace!").

(Faithful) Catholics and Mormons, whose doctrines call for confession and repentance, are less likely to be "Sunday Christians" than their counterparts, who are taught that once they've already been "saved," that's all there is to it.

Mormon jokes poke fun at people who don't understand our doctrines and our culture, but many also tell of Mormons who aren't so faithful following doctrines ("Q: When you go fishing, how do you keep a Mormon from drinking all your beer? A: Take two Mormons"). Those jokes generally wouldn't work against, say, Methodists or Baptists, because their faiths' doctrines are more "think" and less "do."

Yes, I am generalizing, and this is not to trivialize the many Protestants who are Christians all week long, but they, too, would know that I'm accurately describing most of the others in their own congregations.

[marie (marie)]

<font color="0000ff">"Spirituality isn't a staircase, it's an escalator going the wrong way. If you stop because you're "good enough," you're actually being carried back down to where you started."</font>

No, true spirituality is throwing yourself into the arms of Grace and letting Him carry you.

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Grace is a him?

:-)

[marie (marie)]

No, a <u>H</u>im! (To me anyway)

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

(Message edited by marie on December 31, 2004)

[geokstr (geokstr)]

Marie:

You know, you're pretty nice....for a True Believer.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[marie (marie)]

geokstr

Thank you...I think...

Happy New Year!

[geokstr (geokstr)]

I don't wink at just ANYBODY........

and to you and everyone on this board as well -

<font color="ff0000"><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size="+1">HAPPY NEW YEAR</font></font></font>

[tpfkasof (tpfkasof)]

I wish the whole wide world and all people everywhere: <font size="+2"><font color="119911">BETTER LUCK IN 2005</font></font>

<center>Lord knows, we need it! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif</center>

[overseas (overseas)]

Thanks God that Protestants do not live by the protestant doctrine as compiled by Mormons ! Anyway the term Protestant is also widely applied to large groups of people including social not ony religious groups. And I have no doubt that Mormonism also comprises people that do not stick exactly to Mormonism but are there because Mormons talked to them before Protestants or Jehova's Witnesses...

Christian life starts by faith and continues by faith, and my Protestants are delighted to preach about the fruits of the Holy Spirit that results in good deeds. It is that Mormons like to mock Protestantism rather than face it. Romans 6:1 shows that the result of preaching salvtion by faith alone exposed apostles (and Protestants) to the accusation of imorality and lack of good deeds. And if I remember well, Luther paid the price of telling the truth with his death which is the supreme sacrifice. But in this respect of salvation, Mormons come together with Adventists and Eastern Orthodoxy that puts facts before faiths or facts together with faith in working out their salvation. Back to the Bible, gentlemen !