Charismatic Chaos

You keep creating the God in YOUR image Phat.

Phat writes: As of this writing, I am unconvinced that Christians do not benefit from the Communion beyond what non-Christians have. It will likely be hard if not impossible to prove, but it is the way it *should* be, in my opinion. Otherwise, God has no need to interact with our culture.

Why would God need to interact with our culture?

jar writes: ... it's far easier and far more lucrative to sell the "Friends with Benefits" Christianity. The benefits though are in creating a better world for those, the least of these my brothers.

You would then ask me what the evidence showed.
I see the blatant dishonesty of the televangelists. I see the spiritual blindness over the US Christian church who are a majority Right-Wing manifest destiny +priosperity gospel+America as a "Christian" nation when in fact Whose nation? Which communities? The fault lines of the new Christian nationalism seems to be the fruit of political Christianity.

Still, the Christian churches that I identify with are small conservative hamlets like Pastor ICANTS church.

You likely would label them as willfully ignorant. Im not convinced that their connection with God is a myth, however.

You are right in that I have essentially imagined God to be the way I want. Like I told ringo, a God Who does not interact or bless worshippers in any measurable way should be thrown away, as you say.

And I would then confess that I really don't want to have to put in a lot of hard work and obey some vague "charge". Just leave me alone, give me my social security, and let me die.

jar writes: Why would God need to interact with our culture?

because some of us need Him. We don't have the heart to sacrifice everything as part of some vague "charge". We need some charge benefits ourselves rather than being told we have to follow the Jesus of the book and take up laCrosse.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Then it is not that God needs to interact with our culture but rather some of our culture needs to believe that God will treat them preferentially over all the other creation.

Nice to see Phat back.

Otherwise we may as well throw Him away. Do you seriously think im stupid enough to believe that GOD loves pond scum as much as humans? What an all inclusive heneric form of a Deity that would be.

Phat writes: As I have mentioned before, I once had a definite encounter with an unknown chorus of voices. There were but 4 of us present. To this day the event is etched in our minds.

Step one would be to get all four stories separately and see if there is actually any agreement.

But in any case, that seems to contradict what you were saying about God's only powerful rival being us.

Phat writes: ... the idea that belief (and/or God) is unnecessary is very much a hot button topic.

No more so than the idea that unicorns are necessary.

Phat writes: As of this writing, I am unconvinced that Christians do not benefit from the Communion beyond what non-Christians have.

Then show us the benefits.

Phat writes: ... it is the way it *should* be, in my opinion.

There "should" be no diseases that make children suffer - but there are. Things are what they are, not what they "should" be.

Have you ever read Genesis 1? Do you remember where it says "31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

Where in Genesis 1 does it say "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, the human was very good"

Phat writes: What an all inclusive heneric form of a Deity that would be.

The question you should be asking yourself is why would God NOT be all-inclusive? We know why humans like to exclude each other but why would God?

Phat writes: What an all-inclusive generic form of a Deity that would be.

ringo writes: The question you should be asking yourself is why would God NOT be all-inclusive?

I believe that God chose to focus on humans rather than simply all lifeforms on the planet. Jesus did not simply sit around sniffing flowers and relishing in the things His Father created. One can speculate, I suppose.

jar always asks me why GOD should value me any higher than pond scum.

Perhaps my opponents are right. Perhaps I am anthropomorphizing the Creator of all seen and unseen.

Phat writes: I believe that God chose to focus on humans rather than simply all lifeforms on the planet.

"All-inclusive" means all humans, doesn't it? Why would God prefer the obsequious ones?

I had to look that up!

Google Dictionary writes: Obsequious-obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree. servile ingratiating unctuous sycophantic fawning toadying oily oleaginous greasy groveling cringing toadyish sycophantish subservient submissive slavish abject Uriah Heepish slimy bootlicking smarmy sucky soapy brown-nosing arse-licking bum-sucking kiss-ass ass-kissing

Good question. He may need a few of us like Faith, though because she needs work and yet has a lot of knowledge of the apologists and experts throughout the church historically and currently. Perhaps everyone may end up at a royal banquet stunned by all of the other guests so unworthy of being there. Of course, we ourselves would hopefully be amazed that we made it in. You likely would size up the Host and decide whether you even wanted to stay!

Phat writes: You likely would size up the Host and decide whether you even wanted to stay!

The RSVP would usually be, "I'll be there, plus one," or, "No, thank you very much but I am otherwise engaged."

Your Host is saying, "Be there or else!"

ringo writes: Your Host is saying, "Be there or else!"

Nonsense. He might at worst say "You don't wanna miss this!:

You can lead a horse to (living) water but you can't make him drink.

There are just some events and communions that reality dictates can and should not be missed. I fear that were you to define a God of your approval, He likely would be all laid back and simply say to people to show up if they wanted there were free loonies and toonies and lots of food but that they were entirely free to be otherwise engaged. Your idea of God is that of an optional relationship and communion. My idea is not that of an autocrat but rather of a concerned deity who knows that we need the inoculation His communion provides.

Phat writes: ringo writes: Your Host is saying, "Be there or else!" Nonsense.

Why should I believe you over the Bible? Your version is self-serving.

Phat writes: He might at worst say "You don't wanna miss this!

Why can't I decide for myself what I want to miss?

Phat writes: There are just some events and communions that reality dictates can and should not be missed.

Nonsense.

Phat writes: I fear that were you to define a God of your approval, He likely would be all laid back and simply say to people to show up if they wanted there were free loonies and toonies and lots of food but that they were entirely free to be otherwise engaged.

Why on earth would you "fear" that?

Phat writes: Your idea of God is that of an optional relationship and communion.

My idea of God is the same as my idea of unicorns. And "communion" with them is nonsense.

Phat writes: My idea is not that of an autocrat but rather of a concerned deity who knows that we need the inoculation His communion provides.

As I have pointed out before, that inoculation ain't workin' - which suggests that the "communion" ain't real.