The Gospel - according to me

[thegospelkiss]

God is sovereign.
Therefore nothing happens without God’s having ordained it.
God’s foreknowledge is, in effect, the same as God’s fore-ordination.
Therefore, “sin” – defined as a violating of God’s will – is not possible.
Therefore, sin is a delusion, a lie.

Sinners are those who believe that they and others have, or can, violate God’s will. To that extent, we have all been “sinners” - but only in our own minds, not in fact. Salvation is the act of being liberated from this delusion.

Jesus, preaching the Kingdom of God, lived this truth.
Forgiveness, mercy, compassion, love - all become easier once we stop judging ourselves and others for their “sins”. Once this judgment ceases, the heart and mind open; and it becomes possible to love fully (i.e. to meet the needs of) ourselves and our neighbors.

Everything is part of God’s divine plan, even the things we don’t like.
However, this offends those who live “in sin”; and often, in order to prove wrong those who understand the Gospel in this way, they resort to the most ungodly acts to correct, punish, or save the “heretics”. But look who’s perpetrating such hateful acts, and who’s performing acts of charity! Watch who’s doing the persecuting, and who’s being persecuted!

Judge the two “gospels” being lived out in the above-described scenario; and evaluate the fruit of each. Who was doing the good works; and who was doing the bad works – Jesus or those who crucified Him, and their supporters? Those who believed in the reality of sin have carried out the most violent acts in history. Those who instead believed in the Kingdom of God have rejected and repudiated such acts, many becoming victims.

Jesus understood all of this, and therefore did not condemn those who crucified him. Providing a unique example to history of actual faith in God, He was obedient unto death. His sacrifice has saved mankind by revealing the true way of peace, and exposing the false religion of His time - and of every era - for the murderous lie that it is.

The judgment of self and others is the root of all evil; and it is only possible in a God-less universe. Judgment is actually illogical if God exists. Once delivered from judgment by recognizing the Kingship of God, we enter the Kingdom of God. Only when humanity as a whole understands this can humanity’s salvation be said to be complete - a return to Eden.

 

[Quagmire]

This is wonderful, Thegospelkiss. :yes:


The way I read Genesis agrees with everything you're saying here.

In objective reality, there is no "evil", everything's good.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.


"Evil" came into the picture when man, himself, began passing judgment on his environment:

Before:

Genesis 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

After:

Genesis 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:10
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.


So what changed? God obviously didn't have a problem with their nakedness, He had made them that way, and anyway He had already declared that "everything was good".

So who told Man that nakedness (or anything for that matter) was evil, or something to be ashamed of? Obviously man had told himself that.


I believe The Creation myth is really meant to tell the story of how we as a species created the whole concept of "good vs. evil" ourselves when we started judging our reality instead of just allowing ourselves to experience it.

 

[Skwim]

This is wonderful, Thegospelkiss. :yes:


The way I read Genesis agrees with everything you're saying here.

In objective reality, there is no "evil", everything's good.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.


"Evil" came into the picture when man, himself, began passing judgment on his environment:

God: "I make peace, and create evil". Isaiah 45:7

Before:
Genesis 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
After:
Genesis 3:7
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Genesis 3:10
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
So what changed? God obviously didn't have a problem with their nakedness, He had made them that way, and anyway He had already declared that "everything was good".

So to what were their eyes opened? Obviously it had to be some preexisting condition. And the only being making stuff at the time was god, so whatever they saw was of god's doing.

So who told Man that nakedness (or anything for that matter) was evil, or something to be ashamed of? Obviously man had told himself that.

As pointed out above, A&E were shamed by their nakedness because of what they saw god had created.

 

[Quagmire]

God: "I make peace, and create evil". Isaiah 45:7

Or maybe: "I make that which you guys have, for whatever reason, decided to call good and evil."

So to what were their eyes opened? Obviously it had to be some preexisting condition.

If thats so, then at least a cpl chapters must be missing. Again: up until that point, according to the story, everything is just as God had made it and He had already declared it all "good".

And the only being making stuff at the time was god, so whatever they saw was of god's doing.

Uh huh, but whatever they decided to call it was theirs.

As pointed out above, A&E were shamed by their nakedness because of what they saw god had created.

They were, God wasn't. That's the whole point: Good and evil aren't objective aspects of reality, they're subjective concepts dependent on human perception and evaluational (judgment).

 

[Skwim]

Or maybe: "I make that which you guys have, for whatever reason, decided to call good and evil."

Is that how you approach all of god's words in the Bible: they don't really reflect what he means, just the definitions we've decided to assign to them?

In any case, if what you suggest is true then it makes no difference. If what god created corresponds to what we consider to be, or define as, evil then it is no less deserving of the label.

Uh huh, but whatever they decided to call it was theirs.

What did they decide to call what?

They were, God wasn't.

God wasn't what? Ashamed, or ashamed for them?

That's the whole point: Good and evil aren't objective aspects of reality, they're subjective concepts dependent on human perception and evaluational (judgment).

So what? As I said, "If what god created corresponds to what we consider to be, or define as, evil then it is no less deserving of the label." "Evil" was used in Isaiah 45:7 because either that's what god intended to be used, or it was the concept the writers wanted to convey. Either way, the believer is faced with noting this characteristic ascribed to god as he does with all the others found written down in the Bible.

1) God is said to be love
2) God is said to be just
3) God is said to be good
4) God is said to be forgiving
5) God is said to have created dark
6) God is said to have formed light
7) etc.
8) etc.
​

And for these he is no less obligated to look at the terms as those god intended to be used, or they were the concepts the writers wanted to convey.

From there it's up to the believer to do with them as he likes.

 

[Quagmire]

Is that how you approach all of god's words in the Bible: they don't really reflect what he means, just the definitions we've decided to assign to them?

"God's words"? Sorry Skwim, I didn't know you were a Christian fundamentalist. Well in that case, I'll expand on what I said for the sake of clarification: from my non-religious, secular interpretation of the Old Testament, I'm saying that by the time we get to Isaiah, "good" and "evil" are fully developed concepts in any human lexicon. In order for any author to portray God speaking to humans (or for the sake of you people who actually do believe the Bible to be the "Word of God": to be able to convey God's words in any way that humans would be able to understand) he would have to use the dualistic terms just so people would understand what he was talking about.

In any case, if what you suggest is true then it makes no difference.

Makes no difference to what and from what perspective? A Biblical perspective? A logical perspective?

If what god created corresponds to what we consider to be, or define as, evil then it is no less deserving of the label.

As judged by whom and by using what standard?

What did they decide to call what?

*sigh OK, you said:

And the only being making stuff at the time was god, so whatever they saw was of god's doing.

(*emphasis mine)

I responded:

Uh huh, but whatever they decided to call it was theirs.

What I'm saying here: "whatever-they (Adam and Eve, Mankind, whichever you prefer)-decided-to-call-the-STUFF-you were referring to was their (Adam and Eve's, Mankind's, whichever you prefer) doing, ie., it was their decision".

Seriously, did anybody else need to have this sentence explained to them?

God wasn't what? Ashamed, or ashamed for them?

:yes: that's what I meant: God wasn't ashamed of their nakedness, or of anything else that He had made.

So what?

So it proves that, from a Biblical perspective, the concept of good and evil is a human invention, as is shame and guilt.

As I said, "If what god created corresponds to what we consider to be, or define as, evil then it is no less deserving of the label." "Evil" was used in Isaiah 45:7 because either that's what god intended to be used, or it was the concept the writers wanted to convey. Either way, the believer...

The "believer" of what exactly?

... is faced with noting this characteristic ascribed to god as he does with all the others found written down in the Bible.

1) God is said to be love
2) God is said to be just
3) God is said to be good
4) God is said to be forgiving​

These are all based on human judgments. If you think they apply for the sake of this debate, then you missing the point of this debate.
​

5) God is said to have created dark
6) God is said to have formed light

These aren't actually characteristics, they're actions.


​

And for these he is no less obligated to look at the terms as those god intended to be used, or they were the concepts the writers wanted to convey.

Sorry, can't make heads or tails out of this sentence. Can you rephrase it?

From there it's up to the believer to do with them as he likes.

This thread isn't about what a "believer" is required or allowed to do. It's an interpretation of the message of the gospels followed by my corresponding interpretation of the Creation Myth. Your declarations of what a "believer" is obligated to do, think, beleive, etc. are moot.

 

[Skwim]

"God's words"? Sorry Skwim, I didn't know you were a Christian fundamentalist.

I'm not, but that doesn't prevent me from taking Christian concepts and commenting on them in their religious context.

Well in that case, I'll expand on what I said for the sake of clarification: from my non-religious, secular interpretation of the Old Testament, I'm saying that by the time we get to Isaiah, "good" and "evil" are fully developed concepts in any human lexicon. In order for any author to portray God speaking to humans (or for the sake of you people who actually do believe the Bible to be the "Word of God": to be able to convey God's words in any way that humans would be able to understand) he would have to use the dualistic terms just so people would understand what he was talking about.

So, in the case of Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." just what was god trying to convey if among other things he wasn't try to tell us that he creates evil?

Makes no difference to what and from what perspective? A Biblical perspective? A logical perspective?

From the perspective linguistics. In this case, connecting the symbol for evil, using the term "evil," to its concept (use a dictionary definition if necessary).

As judged by whom and by using what standard?

The writer and his audience. If, for instance, I want to convey the condition of "enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy," I might select the symbol (word) "happy." My hope would be that the reader will recognize the word "happy" and understand the emotion I was trying to convey.

*sigh OK, you said:

(*emphasis mine)

I responded:

What I'm saying here: "whatever-they (Adam and Eve, Mankind, whichever you prefer)-decided-to-call-the-STUFF-you were referring to was their (Adam and Eve's, Mankind's,
whichever you prefer) doing, ie., it was their decision".

Thanks, Just wasn't sure what you were referring to.

Seriously, did anybody else need to have this sentence explained to them?

I don't think anyone else is paying any attention to what we're saying here.

So it proves that, from a Biblical perspective, the concept of good and evil is a human invention, as is shame and guilt.

No it doesn't. If god created the situation to which we have assigned the term "evil" then that situation and our concept of it are correspondent. We didn't have to be around when the late Pleistocene took place in order to create a word for it. Same thing with this issue. No one had to be around when god created evil in order for us to attach a term that reflects its nature.
Furthermore, given that god has a mind, which is where concepts arise, then, whether or not he attached a term to this condition, the conception of the condition was there. He conceived of (invented) the condition, to which he then used the word (our term?) "evil"---either directly or through inspiration of the writer of Isaiah---to signify to us that he was its creator.

This thread isn't about what a "believer" is required or allowed to do. It's an interpretation of the message of the gospels followed by my corresponding interpretation of the Creation Myth. Your declarations of what a "believer" is obligated to do, think, beleive, etc. are moot.

Aside from thegospelkiss' OP, in as much as we're the only ones posting here this thread is about what we've decided it would be about. You're no less responsible for the direction it's taken than I am.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not, but that doesn't prevent me from taking Christian concepts and commenting on them in their religious context.

You're taking biblical concepts and commenting on them in a mainstream Christian context.

This is completely ridiculous for the purposes of this thread. The OP is anything but a mainstream Christian interpretation of the Gospels, and my post, the one you responded to, is about as far from a mainstream Christian interpretation of Genesis as you could get.

So, in the case of Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." just what was god trying to convey if among other things he wasn't try to tell us that he creates evil?

Doesn't matter, that isn't the topic. The OP is about the Gospels, my post is about Genesis. The idea that everything that any one book of the Bible has to say somehow applies/corresponds and/or relates to every other book of the Bible (or should) is, again, a mainstream Christian notion.

From the perspective linguistics. In this case, connecting the symbol for evil, using the term "evil," to its concept (use a dictionary definition if necessary).

That doesn't answer my question.

The writer and his audience. If, for instance, I want to convey the condition of "enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy," I might select the symbol (word) "happy." My hope would be that the reader will recognize the word "happy" and understand the emotion I was trying to convey.

Yeah, that's the whole point: the writer and his audience are what? They're human huh? That's what this whole thread is about: the human condition, the way the human capacity for analytical thought (judgment), and moreover our reliance on it as a substitute for direct experience, has set the stage for everything that we call "sin", and facilitated the development of the whole concept of good vs. evil.

All your observations so far (of Isaiah in this case), as well as your definition of "evil" demonstrate this. The idea of looking at something in it's totality instead of compartmentalizing certain aspects of the subject (and ignoring others) is such a foreign concept that the concept itself can't be explained to you adequately.

And just an aside: the idea that, again, all of the books of the Bible are somehow dependent on all the other books of the Bible is a mainstream Christian idea. Citing passages from one book to refute an interpretation of another book really doesn't make any sense for anyone who isn't a mainstream Christian (or someone with a blind grudge against mainstream Christianity).

I don't think anyone else is paying any attention to what we're saying here.

That doesn't bother me,. What bothers me is that you decided to post in a thread without bothering to listen to or understand anything the OP was trying to say.

No it doesn't. If god created the situation to which we have assigned the term "evil" then that situation and our concept of it are correspondent.

Which proves what?

We didn't have to be around when the late Pleistocene took place in order to create a word for it. Same thing with this issue. No one had to be around when god created evil in order for us to attach a term that reflects its nature.

Again, you're missing the point. If, as the OP seems to be saying (and as my response to the OP is definitely trying to say) that evil is our own creation, a product of our perception, then God didn't/doesn't create evil: He creates circumstances that we assign judgment values---good or evil--- to. The dichotomy is of our own making.

Furthermore, given that god has a mind, which is where concepts arise, then, whether or not he attached a term to this condition, the conception of the condition was there. He conceived of (invented) the condition, to which he then used the word (our term?) "evil"---either directly or through inspiration of the writer of Isaiah---to signify to us that he was its creator.

Again: Isaiah's audience would have had a fully developed conception of the dichotomy and it would have been impossible to talk about the Universe in it's totality without putting it in dualistic terms.

What I'm saying here (since this thread is, among other things, about individual interpretation of Judao/Christian scripture) is that that passage from Isaiah could easily be interpreted to mean: "I'm god. I make everything. Since you guys have already decided I'm "good", then it kind of stands to reason that everything I do and everything I make is also "good". So where is this whole idea of "evil" coming from?"

Obviously it's coming from us.

Aside from thegospelkiss' OP, in as much as we're the only ones posting here this thread is about what we've decided it would be about. You're no less responsible for the direction it's taken than I am.

It's not headed in any direction so far. We're still wrestling over the steering wheel. You're trying to take something that has nothing whatsoever to do with mainstream Christian thought or theology, and make it about mainstream Christian theology so that we'll have one more thread telling everyone how wrong Christian theology is about everything (because, ya know, we can never have too many of those ).

And anyway you're wrong: the OP gets to decide what his thread will be about. If someone comes into it trying to make it about something else, then they're posting off-topic.

 

[Skwim]

Quagmire,
Because you feel I, and only I, have taken the thread off topic this will be my last post in it.

It's not headed in any direction so far. We're still wrestling over the steering wheel.

Cute, but far from the truth. I can't believe anyone was twisting your arm to respond directly to my points, so I can only assume you were happy to help establish the direction of the thread, even though, as you claim, none of it was relevant to the OP. It takes two to tango, and you were just as much a part of our dance as I was.

You're trying to take something that has nothing whatsoever to do with mainstream Christian thought or theology, and make it about mainstream Christian theology so that we'll have one more thread telling everyone how wrong Christian theology is about everything (because, ya know, we can never have too many of those ).

I couldn't have done it without your complicit cooperation.

And anyway you're wrong: the OP gets to decide what his thread will be about.

If they wish. You certainly had no qualms about continuing with the direction the thread was taking.

If someone comes into it trying to make it about something else, then they're posting off-topic.

Pot calling the kettle black here. I responded to what you said--You responded to what I said--I responded to what you said--You responded to what I said--I responded to what you said--You responded to what I said, and here I am listening to claim your hands are clean.

 

[Quagmire]

Now, apparently, the topic is "who took the thread off-topic".


Actually, I've spent the last cpl posts trying to get you to see what the topic is. Since you're changing the subject, I guess I at least partially succeeded.

 

[punkdbass]

The judgment of self and others is the root of all evil; and it is only possible in a God-less universe. Judgment is actually illogical if God exists. Once delivered from judgment by recognizing the Kingship of God, we enter the Kingdom of God. Only when humanity as a whole understands this can humanity’s salvation be said to be complete - a return to Eden.

First of all, WOW. Thank you for your extremely though provoking post! If I could somehow make it so every person here had to read it- I would.

But anyways, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I havent really necessarily made any concrete beliefs on what I think about the concept of sin, but I like your ideas a lot!

Shalom