Polyamory and Christianity

[serialmonogamist]

Originally Posted by Quath

Be careful of listening to God (or thinking you are). Sometimes the results are humorous like in God's Busy Schedule. Or horrible as seen in the stories of Peggy Ross, Latisha Lawson, LaShaun Harris, etc. These people killed family members because God told them to. While mental problems seem to be an obvious blame; how can you tell if someone who listens to God is mentally ill or not?

If you hear God physically, then I think it is more likely you have dissociative identity disorder, schizophrenia or you are listening to your own inner voice. The easiest way to help you decide is to ask that voice a question that you do not know the answer to. For example, ask what the lottery numbers will be right before they are called out. God should know. You don't. If there is no answer or you get the wrong answer, then I would suggest getting help.

I don't mean to sound attacking of other people's beliefs, but I worry when people say they can hear God.

There are different ways of thinking of "God" in practical terms that distinguishes it from just any insane ideology you can think of. The way I think of it is as a concept of a good authority that is not afraid to question any human authority figure. So whatever anyone tells you or leads you to believe, God lets you question it and if you think it's wrong in some way, you can search further for a better answer. I think God also provides guidance by illuminating which thoughts are wrong. I guess you could view "God" as just a sense of truth and goodness where you KNOW when things are wrong or not good. Sure, you could go insane and be misled but if that is the case, what other voice (internal or external) is going to prompt you to be more sane? It sounds like all you're really saying is not to trust the voice within because it could trick you. What is that doubt supposed to do for you other than leave you confused? Ultimately you have to make choices and you need a basis for that. If you don't call that basis "God," what would you call it then? The next question is if you trust whatever basis it is you use, why would you avoid attributing it to "God?" Don't you think that all humans have ever done is attribute whatever wisdom they can muster to a greater being or force?

[Magdlyn]

Originally Posted by serialmonogamist

If you don't call that basis "God," what would you call it then?

One's higher self.

The next question is if you trust whatever basis it is you use, why would you avoid attributing it to "God?"

One might be an atheist.

Don't you think that all humans have ever done is attribute whatever wisdom they can muster to a greater being or force?

No, not at all. Some people have a belief in their own inner power, wisdom and strength. You could call it god, buddha or spirit if you are religiously inclined. Not all people are that religious.

[River]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

No, not at all. Some people have a belief in their own inner power, wisdom and strength. You could call it god, buddha or spirit if you are religiously inclined. Not all people are that religious.

(My emphasis added.)

Buddhists "have a belief in their own inner power, wisdom and strength," Magdlyn, and we're not all "religious" in the traditionalist sense. Most modern buddhists "have a belief in their own inner power, wisdom and strength," along with practices which are designed to cultivate these.

There is some superstition in some buddhist traditions, but -- overall -- buddhism is non-superstitious, rational and humanistic.

[serialmonogamist]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

One's higher self.

Right, the thing that I find interesting about it is that it seems to transcend the ego. So I guess "higher self" implies that it's 'higher' than egoism.

One might be an atheist.

No, not at all. Some people have a belief in their own inner power, wisdom and strength. You could call it god, buddha or spirit if you are religiously inclined. Not all people are that religious.

Yeah, I just mention it because I was pretty alienated from religion before I realized all religions are just philosophers writing from a certain standpoint. So if you can related to what they mean when they use language like "God" or other metaphysical ideas, you can gain a lot of insight to use in your personal spiritual development.

You have to be comfortable that you're not going to get brainwashed, though.
You would think people wouldn't be so afraid that they are susceptible to brainwashing, but I think many are. Also, many are afraid of getting into conflicts with devoted practitioners of religions and that causes them to avoid learning anything from those religions at all. You just have to accept that there can be crazy people and bullies involved in anything so if you want to learn about it and understand it, you just have to review the information you can get ahold of and try not to fear people who could harass you for not believing in it the way they do. Usually if you find anything good about a religion and tell that to devotees, they appreciate that you see something worthwhile in their religion.

[Athena]

The instinct to treat other people with respect and love for their diversity is what comes from God. If you think you are getting predictions, for people who are ill the predictions seem to be right or are rationalized away as to why they came out wrong. I would just plain be worried if someone thinks he or she hears God as a set of predictions or instructions.

[Magdlyn]

Originally Posted by River

Buddhists "have a belief in their own inner power, wisdom and strength," Magdlyn, and we're not all "religious" in the traditionalist sense.

I don't know why you thought I was talking about anything "traditionalist," and I don't even know what you mean by tradition in this case. Whose tradition? Buddhists follow spiritual practices, without needing to believe in a god or gods. The Buddha is within, esoteric, not a big sky god Daddy.

[River]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

The Buddha is within, esoteric, not a big sky god Daddy.

True enough.

Otherwise, I just responded to your own words, and what appeared to be their implications. If you don't get that, it's okay. We can let it go. Too much work to explain!

[jasminegld]

Originally Posted by sage

Sifting through teachings and working out what is right for me and what isn't is part of my process. I don't think I can dismiss all of Jesus possible words as being propaganda but neither can I leave my brain at the door and accept everything that is taught as part of Christianity.

This has been really important to me at various times in my process. So I hear what you are saying.

Curiously enough, the "becoming one flesh" is one of the bits of Scripture where absolute literal reading can have meaning: man and woman join together and create a chld - literally one flesh. It doesn't matter if the couple later separates; they are still tied to each other by custody complications, under normal circumstances.

This literal meaning is another layer, along with the metaphorical meaning of sexual union, as others have pointed out.

The verse about yoking together -- I won't take time to look it up. I remember it as "be ye not yoked together with an unbeliever." This relates to the purity codes and survival of the clan. Ancient peoples often lived on the brink of extinction. Marrying within an approved in-group kept to the purity codes, and more importantly, it kept the clan alive. Marrying outside the clan risked loss of children and loss of population, and perhaps eventual death of the clan. So, who a person married was about more than simple approval; it was about survival of the entire nation.

As Christianity first began to form with its very small numbers, this new religious group faced the same risks of dilution and extinction from marrying the "wrong" people.

What does it mean for Christians today? I"m guessing that militant atheists and militant fundamentalist Christians won't pull together well in the "same yoke." They can't find enough common language to be respectful of each other's beliefs. But as someone said, (serialmonogamist?), sometimes it's possible to open oneself up to the ideas of another person, even when they use foreign theistic/non-theistic language in order to learn something applicable to one's own spiritual process.

I suspect that people who find themselves in this "we can hear each other" space will be able to manage being "yoked together" and find ways to pull together.

Jasmine

[serialmonogamist]

Originally Posted by jasminegld

Curiously enough, the "becoming one flesh" is one of the bits of Scripture where absolute literal reading can have meaning: man and woman join together and create a chld - literally one flesh. It doesn't matter if the couple later separates; they are still tied to each other by custody complications, under normal circumstances.

Wow, I'm glad you thought of this interpretation. I think you could go beyond custody issues and think about the very inner existence of each individual as both their parents combined inside themselves. A child is literally one body constructed from two people who created it through sex.

The verse about yoking together -- I won't take time to look it up. I remember it as "be ye not yoked together with an unbeliever." This relates to the purity codes and survival of the clan. Ancient peoples often lived on the brink of extinction. Marrying within an approved in-group kept to the purity codes, and more importantly, it kept the clan alive. Marrying outside the clan risked loss of children and loss of population, and perhaps eventual death of the clan. So, who a person married was about more than simple approval; it was about survival of the entire nation.

I'm not sure which book/passage you're talking about but my impression was the that warnings against being with an unbeliever have to do with the conflicts between forgiving and unforgiving individuals. A person who themselves doesn't believe in forgiveness may take advantage of it from someone else while wielding power by refusing to forgive others. As a forgiving believer, you will keep forgiving them for their unforgiveness but they will keep score against you. Idk, maybe that's just one interpretation. I know it comes into play where they talk about divorce being about forgiving the unforgiveness of an unbeliever.

As Christianity first began to form with its very small numbers, this new religious group faced the same risks of dilution and extinction from marrying the "wrong" people.

But as someone said, (serialmonogamist?), sometimes it's possible to open oneself up to the ideas of another person, even when they use foreign theistic/non-theistic language in order to learn something applicable to one's own spiritual process.

Thanks for liking this idea I have found it very fruitful in pursuing my own path exploring knowledge of various forms without fear and hate.

[FeknainnaDymn]

+1