In Drag, Former Pastor Finds Peace
| |
A former pastor spent years trying to "set gay people free," but that was before he embraced his own sexuality. After coming out to his family and friend, Zach Coleman left his church and moved to New York. Today, Zach performs as a successful drag queen — known by the stage name "Stella" — and says he can "see God in a more clear light. "
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
Losing My Religion
I'm losing my religion Thank God I prayed about my decision How odd For the man with the mic To be the man all his life While Christ-like stipes did with REM Rev up the RPMs How do I begin to try to paint this sin, of rules? That divides God's people in two
In the beginning, religion created a mask The reformation helped but soon the patch didn't last I don't tell, you don't ask So we created a lie And for generations, church was where we went to go hide Or we no longer tried Because rules read our relationship was empty inside Leaves you bitter, dry Swift to cut like a razor Swift to call you a traitor 'Cause you're swift to love Taylor Now we got bad blood with our neighbor
Who's wrong, who's right Every Sunday we're divided Who's black, who's white, C'mon Now the man in the mirror never gets race right He'll never be Christ-like Never receive good pay So your faith never rises above minimum wage
So when it's time to save the world You don't know what to say To your brother that you love when he tells you he's gay Do you push him away? Judge him down till he leaves? Give him a gospel he hears or a gospel he sees Love wrapped in truth is the gospel he needs There's room at the cross for everyone, even me
Well, my sins are now clean The loss now redeemed Religion is a prison but truth sets us free Helps us believe That the world we're in now is not the world that will be Terror, famine, disease Millions in poverty Hungry, can't sleep With all of this religion, why these babies can't eat? And if the middle class is gone, how can America see? How can America breathe? When the oxygen is gone from the American dream And these American streets listen close as they speak The next time you think America please include me
Help the ones that are weak All they want is a piece Of the pie that you keep Is that too much to ask of those who lay the concrete? Still laying on concrete Pop, pop by police See, they the foundation of the nation Not the 2% Not the ones that own the building that the middle class rent Because they make sense
Tell me how do you feel? I'm the new Franklin and I have the new deal I fight and do right FDR for real
One nation under God God, show us the way The science of opinion God is not a buffet You pick what you want so no God on your plate The preacher isn't God Religion's first mistake Serving stewards, shepherds, not kings Has to die to his flesh everyday like me
One VIP All the other seats in church are free We're just groupies God's the celebrity Before 313 AD Before Constantine Before the council of Nacia Before Romans and Greeks Before Kalvin Alexander, Luther Before let there be Before history To the last century Before the death on the tree Before the fall of man Was a picture of me Now to his heart Right before the last three Words he would speak It is finished
Can you believe? I'm losing my religion Thank God Helping you lose yours Is my job
It is never too late to put right lonely lives misspent in self loathing. "Above all else, to thine own self be true"...
Dear Friend JBB: Well said!
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Is still shocks me that after 30 years of these self-loathing social conservatives that anyone is surprised when ministers and other religious who have spent years railing against LGBT come out of the closet as being gay les, bi or trans.
Laura Ingram is a closet queen who will someday be the emcee of the gay pride weekend.
I'm not sure what psychological idea is more important to be taught in public schools. Should it be psychological projection or the Dunning-Kruger syndrome?
So when it's time to save the world
You don't know what to say
To your brother that you love when he tells you he's gay
Do you push him away?
Judge him down till he leaves?
Give him a gospel he hears or a gospel he sees
Love wrapped in truth is the gospel he needs
There's room at the cross for everyone, even me.
What's exciting and interesting to watch and read about are homosexuals dedicating and rededicating themselves to God. Even traditional "church folks" are taking steps to elevate their understanding of these "new arrivals" amassing on church thresholds, seeking (requesting) room to make their case before God. The church door rusted shut against homosexual expression, is being tediously oiled for a chance for healing between a group of outcasts and mainstream faith and religion.
I hope the homosexual community, my people, are aware of what is at stake here. Holiness is the single requirement to enter and stand in the presence of God. These adherents coming into open expression of this faith must play by the same set of rules which provides order in the Body of Christ. So as to keep schisms down in the Body. Marriage, defines sexual relations in the Church for all who choose to live together as one.
* Frankly, I do not know how homosexuality works in the larger scheme of faith, church, and religion.*
The New Testament 'tap dances' around the subject of homosexuality either because it had become a foregone conclusion that much of the relevant debate about divergent sexual acts had been swiped from Jewish nation and 'spaces' in the ancient world, or as Apostle Paul 'stirred' it up afresh in Romans 1 with the entrance of the pagan world. . .leading to our day, or the Council of Jerusalem -attended by Apostle Paul- placed its emphasis on abstaining from acts of fornication (Acts 15).
What is new in this era of same-sex marriage law is homosexuals face one less barrier (the state) to getting to spiritual wholesomeness and soundness. That's a mouthful!
It does not demand the death penalty as did the OT, but the NT still deems it a sin. Given the authors, this is understandable. The ancient authors of this book clearly had no concept of sexual orientation, biochemistry and fetal physiology so of course they presumed it was an act against nature and thus a sin. Little did they know that a minority of creatures (human beings and others) are born homosexual - wired into their very nature.
The views of ancient men should have very little impact on modern society. They had some excellent ideas yet also had some truly naïve / horrible ideas.
I think it is a very good thing to see people, such as this former pastor, thinking critically and not simply accepting what is written in the Bible as divine. One might argue that the Bible obscures understanding God - it looks at God through the (relatively-speaking) ignorant and naïve eyes of ancient men with pens. Zach/Stella seems to seek God through his own eyes and own experiences and relegates those of ancient men to quaint writings.
Antithetical?
Welcome, my brother!
You and your 'bucket' do get around. (Smile.)
Exactly what is happening here? You seem to be vouching for God's influence in Stella's life, and seeking to turn people away from spiritual writings. Be clear.
Read this:
Those questions take us off on an entirely different discussion. Ask those tangential questions after you provide a response that at least acknowledges you read and understood the point I made.
... or not ...
Good, what point did I make?
Correct! One of the foundations of the point I made in my original comment. You seem to have interpreted the exact opposite from my words.
Deflection, my friend TiG.
I am not feeling good right now (been poorly all day). So you can answer the two questions or not. The way I feel right now, it does not matter to me. )-:
Cal, please cease labeling my comments as slimy debate tactics. I do not deflect, nor do I use straw man arguments.
There is nothing in my direct response that deflects from what we were discussing. My comment was spot on target.
Your two questions were technically a deflection (if you want to get into this labeling business). But note that I told you I would answer them once you demonstrated that you understood the point I had made. This is a long-standing practice by me to keep discussions on track. Your questions are easy for me to answer, this is discipline - not evasion (or deflection).
Sorry to hear you feel badly today. We can continue this when you feel better.
You accuse me of taking the actions you are doing?
I can ask you questions beyond the straight-line of the topic, in order to aid the development of the thread.
You and I are not new to each other. I know, you have shared in many comments over the years, you do not believe in God, religion, and faith. It was two questions to "flesh" out the basis of your support for Stella.
Thank you for remarking on my health. I do not understand what is going on with me. I did nothing out of the ordinary last week. It started Sunday night and continues today. If not better by tomorrow, I go to the doctor!
This is beyond ridiculous. Let's continue later (maybe) when you feel better.
And thus, you still have not answered the questions:
Both are simple enough. You could answer them honestly and move on. In the process, the discussion would flow freely. However, it seems to me, you like to balk at sharing anything about yourself even though you wish to speak academically (and theorize) about other people's situations and views.
TiG, I saw the doctor yesterday (Tuesday) and got an "All clear." But, though I am better, . . . I may never get well. (JOKE!)
So, I am better able to discuss today and hopefully going forward. No medicines or injections imbued so I should be free of any so-called "delusions." (Sarcasm.)
Glad to hear that.
Refresher, here is the point I made (in essence):
Your questions (still on the table) are:
If you would show that you understand the point I made (not requiring agreement) I will answer your questions (which have nothing to do with the point I made).
The problem I have with your writing is this: Zach/Stella has given you no explanation or elucidation of any proofs that you can label, "critical thinking." If I missed one mention of this in the video, please clue me in. What Zach is doing is akin to losing his religion by walking away from all gathering houses of worship, because he can no longer belong there in his present mental state: Stella is a drag queen persona Zach wants to venture out as. Clearly, drag is a lifestyle and in Stella's case it is partial to performance artistry. It is questionable that organized religion would , should , ever accept "the world/scene" and licentiousness within it walls.
After all, The Church is were people go to receive peace , calm , dignity , humility , and grace . These are central among many other factors conducive to the young, middle-aged, and very old. Grace covers many people whom the world has taught travesty/shown up/rejected/abused/ and now these folks seek a refuge ("A high tower") from the world.
If the Church can be considered one good thing: It is that it is not the world right outside its doors.
&
Stella is new to her experiences if this video is any indication of time (Video date: 3/18/2018). Let's give Stella some time out there. See what becomes of her. Maybe try to check in on her from time to time, if possible.
It's late, I'll stop here. More on this later. Now, will you answer my questions?
Sure he has - he decided on his own that the religion he had been taught was not entirely correct. He decided to cast aside many of the teaching he accepted on faith and has forged his own understanding of God that is less reliant on the words of ancient men.
You think Zach is now lost (implying, it seems, to being at least temporarily mentally unbalanced). I think he is more found. Losing one's religion (in various degrees) is a consequence of critical thinking regarding religion.
Sure.
First, I see no reason to believe that a God exists. But if by 'God' you mean nothing more than the supreme entity that created the known universe, then I will say that God could very well exist. There is no way, at this point, to know either way. If God (by this definition) exists then all indications are that God does not really care too much about us given the lack of interaction.
Second, if by 'God' you mean the Abrahamic God (or the gods of other religions) then I do not support these definitions of God. The Abrahamic God, as defined by the Bible, is logically impossible - it does not exist - it is a contradiction. A God might exist but certainly not the one defined by ancient men with pens. This correlates with my comments on the Bible and its ostensible divinity. I do not support people following the Bible as if it were divine. I think that is a major mistake - much better to take the Bible as a book of ancient wisdom and use it as one sees fit rather than strictly abide by the ancient, naive rules and morality contained within.
The genuine people who are honest and simply communicate their beliefs - especially when providing comfort to people - have a positive purpose. While I think their honest views are wrong, I cannot fault them for being honest. However, when their views are challenged with facts and logic and they ignore same and simply run back to their faith, I consider that to be intellectual dishonesty. It is a way of coping with the cognitive dissonance, but it is intellectually dishonest all the same.
Those who inform others of God as a ploy of exploitation (e.g. the televangelists) should be run out of town. Take Kenneth Copeland as the prime example. Then we have people like Ken Ham. Ham likely believes in the Abrahamic God but he is horribly dishonest. He and his organization go out of their way to distort science so as to keep their minions ill-informed and faithful. I find this to be highly negative and would prefer Ken Ham be exposed as the charlatan he is.
Zach's remarks in this video apply laser-focused to homosexuality, specifically homosexuality in the Church. You affirm his choices, because it suits a continuous (and excessive) apparent need to ignore God and any writers who support God through spiritual writings. For instance, your importunate use of, "ancient men." In fact, Zach/Stella is acting on emotion. The things she does to her body to pull off the impersonation of a female, may in some sense not be reasonable or safe to a rational exclusive person. You are permitting her a "pass" to drag and feel the presence of a God no rationalist currently accepts , but you link this "return" to the church's loss.
Kirk Franklin states in a 2016 interview , "Like marriage does not guarantee intimacy; religion does not guarantee relationship." Zach is seeking God without religion.
You assert I think Zach is now lost? No, I do not make such judgements, because:
Luke 15:11-32 New International Version (NIV)
11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate. So he divided his property between them. 13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
This is the parable of the Prodigal Son. God does not shut the door in this life on people. It is clear that God does not follow after , nevertheless. God patiently waits and. . . can out-wait too.
Best to not presume selfish or dishonest motivations in others. I stated what he stated in the video.
Well you wrote this:
Those words do not connote the idea that you think Zach is well grounded in his religion (understatement). Just going by what you wrote.
As for this 'ignore God' idea. What, precisely, is God (as you define God) how do you know this and how do you distinguish God (as you define it) from 'feelings'?
God is Spirit. Special revelation (faith) and (Scripture) reason and practical experience. Feelings, per se can not extend out 25 years and counting into the future.
Your intent to diminish the New Testament by undercutting the writers of it stands implied throughout this thread. It is plain to me.
Moreover, as a rational exclusivist-atheist, it can be argued you can not hold a positive notion of a personal God, Jesus, Spirituality, Bible, or bible writers as expressed in the Bible. If atheism is true, by definition, nonatheism is false.
I wrote this too. Tell me: Can you see it?
You assert I think Zach is now lost? No, I do not make such judgements, because:
Luke 15:11-32 New International Version (NIV)
11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate. So he divided his property between them. 13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs.16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
This is the parable of the Prodigal Son. God does not shut the door in this life on people. It is clear that God does not follow after, nevertheless. God patiently waits and. . . can out-wait too.
What is Spirit (as you define it)? How does Spirit interact with the natural world?
You wrote:
Best to not presume a ' need ' Cal. Just go with what is written. I have no ' need to ignore God ' or a ' need to ignore supporters '. That is presumptuous and incorrect. Further, I am not purposely undercutting anyone. I simply do not find any reason to hold that the words of these ancient, naive men (and those are facts) is divine truth.
My position is that the Bible provides no reason to interpret it as divine and, indeed, a multitude of reasons to NOT consider it divine. Very different from your presumption.
Sounds like Dr. William Lane Craig lingo: '... if atheism is true ...'.
Atheism is not a proposition; it is simply the lack of belief. An atheist is simply one who is not (yet) convinced there is a god.
So atheism is not true or false.
How about the substance of the comment?
3.1.23
3.1.24 by TiG replied to calbab @ 3.1.20
I will get to the other comments separately - busy right now!
Yes because I specifically asked how you define the term.
Those are two different meanings of 'Spirit'; illustrated by inserting your definition of Spirit:
Working past the obvious semantic problem, God putting 'his Spirit' in hearts seems to be indistinguishable from a 'feeling'. The means of distinction is what I was asking. The 'feeling His spirit' sensation is (thus far) indistinguishable from the quite natural (and well understood) release of neurotransmitters. How does one know this is communication to the natural world from a claimed supernatural entity?
Expected Answer: I just know. You have to open your heart to know. Faith. More scripture.
None of the above would answer the question.
To be clear, you left off the last two words. Moving on now. The word " S pirit" has multiple meanings and nuances. Also, there is small s, s pirit (the human version).
FORGIVE me for it being late at night not launching into a full-on theological discussion about the essence of God/Spirit. Plus , never ever being fully made aware of your level of comprehension, acceptance, past personal experiences, tolerance for, or comfort level with spiritual matters, I try not to 'overdevelop' various aspects of faith and religion in my posts—which an essence of Spirit/spirit appropriately needs.
As to distinguishing the two apart, the quick answer , in every exceptional experience you may have occur in your life, it magnifies itself. It leaves a 'mark.' For example: In my article, " The One about FAITH " John Newton becomes Rector St Mary Woolnoth, London, 4 August 1802 and George Foreman, a former mugger, opens a thriving and vibrant church in Houston, Texas. Both men giving accounts of what caused their shifts in perspectives, like countless others, see " The Spirited H Word ," selfishness gives way to a lifetime of devotion . It being just one aspect of the process.
Yes!
I merely asked how you defined 'Spirit'.
You substituted 'experience' for 'feeling' in your answer. Assuming that was not an intention to change the question I will take them (in this comment) to mean the same. A feeling that grows stronger is still a feeling. Why is one particular feeling deemed to be 'the spirit of God' and not simply a natural biochemical experience? What distinguishes this feeling from other feelings other than a desired interpretation? (Other feelings magnify.)
"Feeling" is strictly a term you selected, and I did not grope to ask why. You may or may not have exceptional feelings, but generally everybody can compare internal life experiences—pulling out the unique ones for closer regard.
Looking in an online thesaurus , the word, feeling , traverses the word, experience , then each other branches off in different ways, respectively.
[ Why is one particular feeling deemed to be 'the spirit of God' and not simply a natural biochemical experience? ] A. The experience is life-changing and 'everlasting.' You can not maintain a temporary feeling—its nature is to come and go.
[ What distinguishes this feeling from other feelings other than a desired interpretation? ] A. Devotion.
God is Spirit, the personal, non-corporeal, living Spirit and source of all life.
I appreciate this:
God is
Spirit,thepersonal, non-corporeal, living Spirit andsource of all life.God is the source of all life simply presumes that life comes from a source (one might even add sentient). This is not based on evidence (it is simply a belief) but it is also quite possible. Given the current state of science it makes no sense to rule out the possibility of life (as we understand that term - carbon-based biochemical organisms) being the result (albeit indirect) of a sentient agent. When dealing with that which nobody could possibly know (like God), it makes sense to be abstract: e.g. the creator of the universe or the creator of all life or equivalent.
But people cannot resist adding attributes (and stories) to their God. The more attributes one adds to God the less likely the God and the easier it is to expose the definition as human imagination. We are overloaded with definitions of Gods - most of which are detailed to the point where one can make quite strong, fact-based and logical arguments showing the God, as defined, does not exist.
Er, strike-through has arrived? I love strike-through!! Please put it on my edit menu too!!
My friend, you persisted in asking me how I define Spirit, and you feel it is appropriate to redefine MY definition? How rude!
I did not redefine your definition. Stop complaining at every turn. I illustrated the portion of your definition I could support and then took the time to explain why I could not support the balance.
How could anyone possibly know that whatever they ' experience ' is communication with 'God'? There is a possibility that you are communicating with something - what that something is remains to be evidenced. The likelihood of you communicating with it is a function of what IT is.
Odd how you never ever seem to understand this. How many times have I discussed the value in an abstract definition for God?
What I just did was start with what we demonstrably know about God: NOTHING.
To have a religious discussion we necessarily must add something. Thus I added (and would have expected you to appreciate) that God is the source of all life. I mined this from your definition thinking you would not object to that as a starting point. (Yet you objected nevertheless ....
)
So now we are in religious belief ( God is the source of all life ) because we are now presuming a sentient agent for life. But nothing else is presumed. Nobody could argue that this definition of God is false because there is nothing in human knowledge that shows this cannot be true or even that it is far-fetched.
Now, keep adding attributes to this definition and, as you do, you will take this notion of God and make it less likely and bring it into the realm of logical and factual scrutiny. Bring this definition of God into the realm of Yahweh and you will have defined an impossible God.
Strikethrough is not on the menu, but you can cause it to occur by going into the HTML (the <> button on the menu).
To strikethrough text simply enclose it with the 'del' tag. For example <del>this will appear strikethroughed if you did this in the editor</del>.
... and never got an answer that was not vague. I stopped asking questions (did you notice?) because it was obvious that it was going nowhere.
Including that definition of Spirit in your definition of God (note that you were defining God here, not Spirit) added no value.
In short:
Hooray! Got it. Good ol' source code!
You're mistaken :
"I merely asked how you defined 'Spirit'."
"God is Spirit, the personal, non-corporeal, living Spirit and source of all life."
I appreciate this: God is
Spirit ,thepersonal, non-corporeal, living Spirit andsource of all life .My brother, you ripped the 'innards' out of my definition! So, nice spin,. . .but you do not get to accuse me of "whining," when you stamp out my definition without any acknowledge of it. No way.
Your comment is incoherent. It contradicts itself. I am not even going to bother illustrating why - a waste of my time.
So much better to simply make a point backed by a calm, logical argument. Emotive language (complaints, allegations, etc.) is drama. I have no interest in drama, Cal.
Funny, I am quoting you twice and it's inconsistent? Interesting. Do you even SEE your own comment in my comment? Moreover, in many of my comments I say a lot more than you acknowledge or simply 'side-step' as if it is not even there. And, you want to accuse me of wasting time?! Would that be the time it took me to type it all? Just for you to ignore?
I got you point? And brother! part of my point is this: It ain't all about you.
Hi Kathleen! There is the capital S, Spirit (God) and the small s, spirit (human and animal).
Try this.
To the 'rest' of this comment I write: Christians have a well-established orthodoxy and we do not need it reconstituted to suit natural man. When you get done with it, there is a high probability there will exist nothing spiritual.
No thank you!
Hi Galen! . . . Yeah.
God is Spirit. Moreover, you redefined or 'marred' my definition with your own as a sign of what. . . logic?
Christian nomenclature uses the word spirit in many ways. God is Spirit. Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Angel spirits, Demon spirits, humanity as flesh and spirits. Animal spirits. All a part of a great set of theology. Are you really interested in going 'there'?
No, this may be what unlimited rationalists know about God, because unlimited rationalist-atheists
do notcan not acknowledge there is a God, therefore, you never get close to Special revelation.Hi Calbab.
I like the little s to Ms. Butterfie, I like to think that there will be animals in what ever Heaven or, place we will go when we leave this life, otherwise it would just be boring there.
I think of all the animals I have known and, hope I will see them again, they were good friends.
Given you insist on continuing with this 'victim' game in spite of my clear explanation of my point, I am ignoring your latest round of intellectually dishonest, emotive comments.
Good morning TiG! One thing I am not is anybody's, and I mean this firmly, "victim." My emotions are not engaged here, and it would be nice if you continue advancing the discussion versus such digressions.
And, now I'm a: "victim," "intellectually dishonest," and 'emotional' all rolled into one comment. I merely do not intend to be steamrolled in a discussion about homosexuality, faith, and spirituality by someone who professes to rank inexperience in the categories. For me, this is not an academic exercise.
Now we can either get back to discussing these matters, granting special revelation its warranted space alongside general revelation, are you are free to yield.
Drama, intellectual dishonesty and straw man allegations accomplish nothing of value Cal.
Agreed. Let's move on now. (Smile.)
Let's see.
As I noted, we can start off a definition of God with what we know: NOTHING.
To have a religious discussion we necessarily must add something. So let's take the portion of your God definition that I would agree to (thus you and I should still be in agreement at this point). Thus we now have God = the source of all life. To make this more meaningful we should make explicit the implicit 'sentient': God = the sentient source of all life. This definition is very abstract, connotes a sentient creator yet does not presume anything else. There is no evidence of even this definition of God, but I am unaware of any knowledge (scientific or otherwise) that shows this to be impossible or irrational. This definition of God might be true.
Now, as I noted, if one continues to add attributes to this definition one will take this notion of God and make it less likely and bring it into the realm of logical and factual scrutiny. Bring this definition of God into the realm of Yahweh and you will have defined an impossible God.
Why are people (in 2018) driven to include entirely unevidenced attributes to their definition of God and, in so doing, make their definition less likely and more a product of imagination? Why are people not content with God defensibly defined as sentient creator with details (if God exists) to be revealed in the future?
General revelation and Special revelation expounded across thousands of years and, of course, practical spiritual application of those revealed truths.
ad populum
Just because human beings claim something is true does not mean it is true. My point is that in 2018 we can (and I suspect a lot of people do - including theists) take a fresh look at existential questions. We can note that there is no evidence of God (sentient creator of life) but also that there is no reason to rule out a sentient creator of life hypothesis. That is honest, objective reasoning.
We can then proceed to review the information available to us, using critical analysis, to include attributes of God that can be justified. I suspect there are NO attributes that can be justified. But such an approach is, IMO, substantially superior to simply accepting (faith) the inconsistent and generally flawed summary teachings from antiquity.
We have minds, we have information, why not put them to use? We cannot go back in time and scrutinize the recording process of 'Mark', et. al. But we most certainly can use modern knowledge, methods and logic.
To wit: God = sentient creator of life is an hypothesis. Why not build from there using sound methods of analysis? Why simply hold as divine the demonstrably flawed words of ancient men?
Typical retreat. You reduce the life and times of people who lived, loved, recorded, and died giving voice to the influence of God in their existence, to "rubbish." Thus, as you did with their existences - you attempt to do with my own. I offer witness to you about a great many things which I practice and develop life experience in—not mere theories and, your come-back is similarly, "trash it." Because you can not see it.
Because general revelation can not establish God to your senses, you dismiss spirituality outright. Moreover, you desire me to do like you. Simply ignore special revelation from God and pretend these past twenty plus years of personal spiritual experiences just never occurred. "Poof!" I don't see how I can do so.
The fact is we believers stand on the shoulders of other great believers and persons of faith across great lengths of time. We are not confused or struggling with the nature of God. God has reached out to us and we have accepted the 'invitation.' In this way, we gain godly wisdom continually.
James 1:5 NASB
5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
Retreat from what Cal? You wanted to proceed so (as an experiment) I reestablished the point I made. Seems to me you do not really want to discuss this topic but would rather engage in drama and misrepresentation.
Read on beyond that part, please.
I had read your entire comment before I responded. Repeating yourself (yet again) does not advance the discussion. You did not attempt to thoughtfully address the points I made and in your apparent zeal to simply disagree did not even consider how personal experiences might be used to expand on a modern definition of God (sans simply accepting ancient flawed words).
Not going to pursue this with you at the moment. Maybe later when you are in a different mindset.
What part of your 3.1.61 comment to me do you think is COMPLICATED? Preposterous!
My friend, you can not define God, Jesus, Spirituality or religion for Christians and other religions as a rationalist exclusivist! Plain and simple. That's been my thoughtful opinion all along. My "mindset" is not an issue here and it is not going to change. Try not to so despise the past, because we too will be in a similar posture not long from now.
It is interesting to me that I chose to tell Stella 's story above. I thought that after The Spirited H Word I would step away from the "scene" for a while. Life is so "Karmatic," isn't it? Personally, being friends with a few drag queens in my life, I have never cared an iota about a personal backstory on it.
I like this new 'look' in the 'States. People budding, flowering, and owning the sunlight above. All Zach Coleman yearns to do is approach God spiritually as his authentic self. There in the presence of God, he will plead his case for acceptance, just as any other believer will and should.
Welcome Conservative Point of View.
Open Discussion.
God and Religion. Are these two the same thing?
Absolutely not.
What is the difference, please?
sounds like an unheard of unsound argument, sorta like the egg and the chicken, who was afraid to say who came first, cause he wanted to be the rooster who simultaneously climaxed out like a fertilized egg gone scrambled cause he wasn't over being uneasy.
.
did religion create God to create religion to serve God, as he needed to employ servers to help with his creationism, that he follows religiously, creating irrefutable fax, for e mails and femails to obey and follow, like a solidified petrified Forrest seen despite their tense in defence of their offensive fears seemingly seamlessly dense, for the pourest, educated by the richest,
without any agenda
but the betterment of man or at least a few
You need this defined for you??
God = supreme sentient entity; Religion = stories and practices worshiping a god defined within the religion
Or you can always go to Oxford:
Offering a serious answer, I suspect the notion of a particular god came first and then later a religion evolved to define the particular god and offer tales of his exploits, etc. The religion, if polytheistic, might have then spawned additional gods.
does that make God a Procreator ? does he believe in creationism if he created it ?
to spawn additional gods to be around, sounds like the evolution theory revolution.
.
in all most seriousness, I do enjoy reading your educated opinions typed to enlighten some who could certainly use the enlightenmeant for them.
keep up the good work, like a messenger from god, compromised, in a missionary position, against many who would know no others
Thanks, but I was only speculating.
I suspect so. The human mind is a fascinating thing to behold - what we are capable of imagining (and believing) seems boundless. But, IMO, the increased availability of information and the explanations of that which in the past was entirely unexplained will continue to make many beliefs awkward to hold. Even today if one engages in calm, thoughtful debate with theists there are questions that they simply will not touch. Seems to me that is an indication that they know of problems with their religious beliefs and resolve the cognitive dissonance by ignoring the conflict and taking a firmer grasp on faith. That is simply my observation - not claiming it is necessarily accurate.
Seem religious faith and defenders of god, have a few things in common with possibly some of our politics, but ill stick to Religion, till I get to the bar
If you feel strongly that a "talking board" should not encourage additional discussion and clarification from persons across great distances, you could have ignored the original comment!
I directly answered your question and you deliver a straw man comment in reply??
You need this reintroduced to you?
It is almost as though you are dropping random comments in replies.
Maybe someone else can interpret your last two comments in this thread to me and if whatever you are trying to express is reasonable I will respond.
I am not going to try to decipher such vague language.
It is almost as though you are full of. . . it. I do not need nor will I accept any "interpreter" between us.
I need the interpreter, not you. I suspect you do understand what I wrote.
Note your last comment did not help except to express anger. Not interested in dealing with vague comments or anger so let's just forget this thread. I am pretty sure I answered your question.
There was no question at this intersection of importance , but you managed to drag it out anyway. Let me be perfectly clear, I will give you respect and expect respect in return. Otherwise, . . . How the heaven you need an interpreter to decipher something trivial you wrote (see 6.1.3 ) which should have been let go of several comments back is beyond me.
I am trying to be as fair as I know how. That's Christlike. (Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.)
If you do not mind me asking: Who are you quoting (in your comment)?
Where ever and by whatever means one can find peace, we all view the world through different eyes.
I can't see past my future
crossed T's
So when it's time to save the world
You don't know what to say
To your brother that you love when he tells you he's gay
Do you push him away?
Judge him down till he leaves?
Give him a gospel he hears or a gospel he sees
Love wrapped in truth is the gospel he needs
There's room at the cross for everyone, even me.
As prominent Christian singer/leader Kirk Franklin expresses it above, the Church world is changing ever so slowly its policy about homosexuality. Or, is it?