What is “oneness” without [a] spirit? What is “oneness” without [a] God? If the two are not brought together, as “one body,” as written, how fulfilled should one become? Yes, one could find complacency without the whole. But, why “enslave our consciousness” (and our selves) with imposed limits – instead of opening further doors to infinite awakenings? Does one want to embrace the (supposed) “Big Bang” of scattered nothingness, or a (promised) “Eureka!” of immeasurable awareness?
Atheists and “true spirituality”: In this area, they will always fall short of beginning to touch upon the (actual) reality of Spirit (holy or otherwise). Why? If one purports to advocate (preach) about truths wherein the author/speaker has walled off acceptable conclusions, as a chosen path, how much moving validity would be forthcoming for the audience? Example: Denigrating and equating Jesus Christ’s teachings with the evils of the 1% modern elites exposes a total lack of learned discovery and literally experienced relativity, as opposed to what becomes known as facts, through tangible revelations, by Christian leaders. Whom would we prefer to listen to and/or follow? One who has (actually) lived corresponding subjects? Or, one who criticizes matters from only having read about them – where believing in any core precepts was never even considered as an opening? The latter leads to further exhortations which share halting blindness. Whereas, the former leads to further growth (which is continual) of overall possibilities (within and without).
“If you’re having trouble interpreting a particular Bible verse, it’s because the correct interpretation is ‘This is an ancient document authored by confused men whose words have no relevance to my own experience.'”
Re: “If you’re having trouble interpreting particular Bible verse[s] [as an atheist], it’s because the [various] interpretation[s]” are, of course, beyond your allowable perceptions of discernable realities. The related “ancient document[s] [were] authored by [clearly inspired and touched] men” who were moved undoubtedly by spiritual callings. Consequently, and of course, again, “[those] words [would] have no [embraceable] relevance [within your current void of holy] experience[s].”
“Because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
A while back some ambitious apes figured out how to stand upstraight and use abstract thought, and now deep fried Twinkies are a thing. It’s been a hell of a ride. If you asked a human what the most amazing thing about humans is, they’d probably tell you something very humany, like “Our ability to think” or “Our capacity for self-awareness” or “Our resemblance to the White-Bearded Paternal Deity Who created us in His own image.”
Have you ever considered that God (the Oneyou constantly disparage) most likely appears to us in fashions of which, individually or as associated groups, we would relate – such as to Buddhists in a Buddha form, to Native Americans in their ancestral Indian form, and, correspondingly, also to Christians in a form constructed along lines of their expectations? Doubtful, because you don’t Believe. Have you ever sought to see that Spirit must exist for life itself to exist?
Doubtful, because you don’t even care to try and understand (this first level reality).
“What is the most amazing thing about humans”?
One answer: their Spirits live forever.
Without a living God, there would be no Spirit. And, since God is Spirit (shared), that is “beautiful” – to a level we can barely touch, in comprehension. This wondering, which can lead us to an acceptance of the Fact, is as natural as our need for water. If you think everything in existence (including aliens/life on other planets) just came together through an immeasurable happenstance of odds, without Spirit, your ongoing writing in these areas would equal a fomenting of attempting to explain our entire being (and infinite universe) as soulless science – void of any higher meaning, where we just live to die without any more purposes than weeds. Of course, you can continue your Atheistic “[ideological]” promotions while locking out due diligence; it’s your blog. But, no matter how much you do this, it will never mean you are Right: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Acts 17:28
Moreover, the continuance will only further and further reveal your lack of Vision: without those first steps toward a broader seeking of possibilities, you will never begin (or be able) to understand, thus progress, to Belief. Until the latter and former is turned around, you will not fully “fall down before . . . another in breathless awe and wonder at their beauty.” How could you, when they are only “[ambitiously evolved] apes”?
Many people (and spirits) have been on missions. Many people (and spirits) have also been guided, as well as misguided. Many people (and spirits) have had agendas – some pure with open (true) light and messages, some pure with (purposely) hidden light and messages – while others who were corroded with (false) illumination fulfilled services for the original source of malice, some unreservedly confident, and some concealed though concerted.
In this case/instance, after a few questions and upon objective research, one might find a revealing basis for Bart D. Ehrman’slong history of continually expounding (as a scholar, he rarely fails to point out) his discounting discoveries/”realizations” (in the most public forums possible) about Jesus Christ. Ask yourself, first, regarding his articles, books, or appearances (in this area), is he a believer? Ask yourself, next, did he ever believe (in the Son of God sent and sacrificed as a Savior)? Following, search previous “works” with associated focuses in multiple “efforts” over various years. Through each step, the bottom line answers should eventually become clear.
Has the driven nature of his learned discourse in relation to the “King of Kings” sincerely evolved with concurrently promoted presentations? Or, has it always been just a supposed sharing of studied consummations – which were both (actually) goal-oriented and patently subjective (beyond sight) from the onset?
As a liberal (progressive) of/with higher education, my disgust while reading this (blind, but supposedly enlightened) diatribe only grew. From Jesus Christ pictured on a dinosaur to “religion as parable/myth” to “Jesus literally flew up out of a cave and into the sky” to “Here is the body of Jesus,” Mark Morford succeeded in revealing himself to be just as hypocritical, ignorant, abusive, and lost as most of those he so gleefully sought to ridicule in a public forum.
Numerous “university professors and scientists [who] identify as Democrat/progressive” also believe in Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God. To them, “reading” the Bible is taken as a “complex” journey – where the literal, figurative, allegorical, and poetic language within collected stories of those obviously inspired and guided beyond earthly possibilities enhances their “critical” and “analytical” “thinking,” while also lifting spiritually.
Along these lines, how many people are mocked throughout history? From the most common to the most prominent, to him it would seem that followers of Moses were laughingstock material, just as those who were willing to be crucified (or burned to death, etc.) in the name of Jesus. For believing, was Thomas Jefferson another idiot for joke routines? What about Lincoln? Was Martin Luther King a fool to be mocked for rising to such levels based on cartooned centers? For any that do believe (simply or complexly), to him the answer is clearly “yes” – regardless of “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) or any other truths.
Note: Not all Christians are behind the times in intellectual development (i.e., thinking the earth was created 6,000 years ago: 2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.).
Note: Not all Christians attack atheists with vitriol and half-wit monikers/denunciations.
And then, when he has been “[led] straight to” “a more open-minded” view than he ever imagined, may he experience all the necessary paths (from a bottomless void) of seeking forgiveness and true enlightenment that long lines of soulless derision require.
Obviously, some “Liberals [do actually] hate God [or will go to any extremes to deny His existence].” “Was it a terribly elitist and unkind thing to say? Sort of.”
“[R]emove the nails and separate him from the crucifix, which we leave to one side.” “Another culinary ‘guideline’ recommends using a proportion of ‘one gaunt Christ’ for each two potential diners.” “Krahe’s film shows the audience, in a style much like a cookery program, how to take a figure of Jesus on the Cross, remove the nails from the figure’s hands, prepare for roasting in a dish, and then put the figure in the oven and ‘after three days inside, he comes out of the cooker by himself!’”
This would not fall under “so-called offensive,” as belittled; it is blatantly and purposely offensive — in an extreme. Levels exist, and this artist precisely meant to offend, in the highest level of degree. If the same scenario was applied in various fashions, would as many supporters still flaunt with a laugh? For example, how about a video that became viral after presentation on FOX: “How to Cook Obama”? Or, from MSNBC: “How to Cook Bush (Until He Confesses)”?
Or, “How to Cook an Atheist (to the Point of Believing)”? Or, “How to Cook Mormons (Until They Renounce Their Religion)”? Or, “How to Cook Union Activists (Until They Quit Organizing)”? Or, “How to Cook Mother Teresa (Out of Heaven)”? Or, “How to Cook Your Wives (Into Submission)”? Or, “How to Cook Your Pets (and Strays)”? Or, “How to Cook a Buddhist”? Or, “For a Master Race: How to Cook Americans in Ovens”? Or, “How to Cook Javier Krahe’s Wife (For Not Wearing a Veil)”? Etc.
[Note: This reflection should not to be taken as advocacy for turning back history with prison terms in relation to Free Speech and Expression.
It is straightforward: Extreme MeetsExtreme.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.