I am – and I am cool with that

“Well, you can start by answering this question if you are up to it ….  Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe?”

An extract from a conversation in a place and time not far from here.


I was at the dentist’s recently for a scrape and polish.  And one of the tools of the trade is a water jet thingy.  It’s hard to see the exact make and model because it was inside my “Open wide, please” mouth and I was gagging.  But the hygienist is a caring human being.  So each time I raised my hand she stopped while I spluttered.  I apologised for interrupting her work so often.  And she said this –

“Don’t apologise.  I had someone else in this chair – we were talking about the same thing – how some of the instruments we use here are the same as they use for water-boarding.”

The same as they use for …

Just like “innocent” questions?

“Well, you can start by answering this question if you are up to it ….  Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe?”

Now I have no experience of ever being water-boarded – nor of creating the universe.   So please accept that the following is not in the “expert witness” category.

It’s just that I see “stuff” in this world that was here … that isn’t here any longer … stuff we have created out of something … made of out something … produced out of something … Stuff we live with, that we accept, that we couldn’t imagine living without.  Stuff my great-grandparents would never have imagined even possible … And in every case that “stuff” can be used for something of good or something not of good.  And I always have a choice in how I use “my stuff”.

Like the bible, like any sacred text, that “we” created, made, produced, live with, accept, couldn’t imagine living without – not now – not as they have become so embedded.  And – just like any other “stuff” we have produced from something  – I can do something of good or not of good with any sacred text.

So … “Do I believe that Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe?”  And am I “up for” even answering a question so simple?  I sense your choice to use not of good here.

Because if i answer “yes” … I am simply agreeing with your definition, your dismissal, and your disbelief (a “faith based belief not observable of evidence” belief).   And if I answer “no”  … I am simply agreeing with (ditto as with the “yes” option).

So in this place of daylight and kindness and loving space – here is where I choose to answer – and this what I choose to answer.


I believe in a spiritual world.

One wherein “souls” reside (for want of a better label).  A world that overlays the physical world.  Two worlds (for want of a better label) that are one.  A world I have sensed and touched occasionally (and now more and more).  A place I have heard others describe.  Those who believe in “Jesus Christ” and those who don’t.  Those I trust and believe to speak truth because their “faith based belief” (or absence of) is so individual.

Which makes this “experiential” observable evidence belief – personal evidence – my stuff and what I choose to do with it.  Just like you and what you choose with your stuff. Just like what we each choose to do with “love” really.

I observe that love (as I know it) is not for all.  I see for some it means control and abuse.  It means rules and regulations.  Punishment and reward.  It means earning love.  It is an investment.  A transaction of love.  A totting up and a reckoning.

Just as I see “love” in the call to war.  The love of my country and our way of life (which usually means your resources – but not your way of life) is used to get me to sign-up.  A love that merits killing “them” in the name of protecting “us” (and those we love).  And a deity or two usually gets dragged into justifying all the killing along the way – but not always.

Just as I see “love” (for a few religious folk) validates causing others to strap explosives to themselves.  Who justify taking another’s life (and/or freedom and sacredness) in the name of (whichever religious deity) – just as I see others validate using drones to kill “them” cleanly before they kill” us” messily.

I see some who equate “love” (no “god” is ever really needed) to justify not of good.

I don’t.  Not any longer.

(one final anecdote and then my “yes/no” answer)

I sat on a metal chair outside a restaurant in London yesterday.  A chair that “observable evidence belief” (that is universal) will tell me is “not of solid” – that I am sitting not on a hard cold metal surface – but on no molecular surface at all.  And I “know” the science to be true.

But my bottom told me that a cushion between it and the cold metal would have been very welcome – between my posterior and the “surface of no surface at all”.

(so here is my answer)

I know God Soft Hands Jesus not because I believe every logical, illogical, provable, non-provable “universal fact” that is (or is not) “observable evidence”.  That is merely winning an argument.  An argument that changes nothing.

I am not sure that “Jesus Christ” as you know him created the universe.  Nor do I think I have to be sure of that to know my God Soft Hands Jesus.

I know my God Soft Hands Jesus because “that” is the closest thing I have found to a universal sacred love of freedom and kindness of the spiritual AND physical world that I see, feel, know (and want more of day by day).  And I have my own wealth of personal “observable evidence belief”.  Which is now my “truth”.

And that is how I choose to use my stuff.  Just as you choose how you use yours.

How do I prove that?  I don’t need to anymore. I don’t align with anything but love – and I see so much love in you.  But I also see you use some of your “stuff” to align with an agenda that keeps me out (unless I align with you on this).

Oddly – that was just how I was taught the bible.

Is it just me …

Or do you see that as well?


23 thoughts on “I am – and I am cool with that

  1. “How do I prove that?  I don’t need to anymore.”

    Amen. That’s exactly where I am. The more we are in relationship with God, the less we have to prove anything to anyone or win an argument. The more we are free to hear where other people are at and enjoy the conversation.


    • Mel, if I may, how can one be in any sort of relationship with a biblical character who (even if he existed) has been dead for over 2000 years?
      Isn’t necromancy considered completely off the reservation for Christians?


        • That would true if He was dead…

          Or even if he were a real historical character as well.
          You are not seriously that credulous to believe the character in the bible actually brought himself back from the dead are you?
          Or even got his ”dad”, Yahweh to do it?

          I thought you said you had no interest in discussing this stuff… and yet, here you are again.
          Has the game been cancelled or something, Mel?


          • Well, this on a thread from my comment. I was merely correcting your statement. He’s not dead so it’s not necromancy.
            No amount of dismissive ridicule will change anything, btw. And like I said, I don’t need to win the argument or prove it. And besides, we’ll all see if it was a fairytale in the end won’t we. I’m fine with that.


            • Ah.. yes, the old ”But what If you’re wrong” jibe?
              Of course he is not dead, Mel, what a silly thing to suggest …. as the character Jesus of Nazareth is simply a narrative construct. How can one really kill a make beleive character?

              Maybe some smelly little Jewish rabbi got himself nailed to a tree for sedition… so what? The Romans were highly intolerant of such dissent.
              You don’t need to win an argument because you have accepted the lie.
              It is called compartmentalism I believe?
              It is the way god believers are able to function in a secular environment.

              You probably dismiss Young Earth Creationism I suppose, yes?


            • Of course not… there is nothing to prove.
              I fear you truly are not getting the point here, Mel.
              Let me try to explain it differently, and maybe you will understand.

              You appear to have accepted that you are some sort of ”sinner” in need of salvation for problems you may have had in the past.
              Thus, by accepting the supernatural is your path to some sort of salvation based on the unverifiable ”promise” of eternal life you have turned your back on critical thought in this matter and you are now currently not open to any form of reasoned discussion that questions your belief.

              In effect you have ”Shut up Shop” to use one of my dad’s phrases.

              And you too can believe whatever you want, as I have stressed so many times.It is your absolute right to do so and I would not want it any other way. You are an adult, after all.
              However, you do not have the ethical right to inculcate such beliefs into others, and especially young people, who have not yet developed critical thinking skills to make a reasoned argument/defense.

              Fair enough?


            • I won’t concede any such thing. Will you promise not to teach your ethics or your conspiracy theory propaganda about Jesus?

              Btw. the reason I don’t get into these debates about the resurrection, or whatever, is because I have done so for years, with people just like you, some of them were Fundamentalist Christians. I have found that these debates are a fruitless waste of time. So, when I bow out, they like to declare that they’ve won. Okay, so what. I don’t care what they think they’ve done. All I know is that there are many forms of torture that would be more pleasant than to continue with the incessent wrangling and trying to best the other, which is what this endless debate amounts to. Winning the argument isn’t everything to me.

              You have no right to force your ethics on me or tell me what I can and cannot do. And I won’t tell you not to preach your atheology either. Fair enough? That’s called freedom of speech.


            • I won’t concede any such thing. Will you promise not to teach your ethics or your conspiracy theory propaganda about Jesus?

              My ethics do not include any form of eternal separation or damnation from a god that cannot be demonstrated to exist.
              I do not impose any sort of unverifiable belief on any person in this regard.
              You do.
              And in a professional capacity as well, which many seem to believe for some odd reason adds more authority to the words you impart.

              I believe in freedom of speech. And you too can say whatever you like.
              But you must not teach it as truth to children who are unable to offer a critical response unless you can back your claims to the hilt. When coupled with the threat baggage inherent in a religion such as Christianity this is simply abuse

              I reiterate … there is no argument to be won, Mel.

              Why are you fretting so much?

              You have personally accepted belief in the supernatural because you consider you are a sinner and require a supernatural salvation in order to achieve eternal life in a place called Heaven where you can spend eternity with someone you beleive is a god.
              What on earth could I possibly say that would make you disbelieve this?
              You do not require any evidence whatsoever for this to be true for you, even though you agree to an extent that the bible is not a factually accurate document … and does not need to be, apparently. How does argue with such a perspective?

              I am not forcing anything on you. I am merely ”putting it out there” as do others who fully embrace reality and accept the scientific method.
              You can choose to accept it or not. And in part, you most certainly do accept it, don’t you Mel?
              You are using a computer, for example, and probably utilize the latest medical advancements or certain kitchen appliances and even the internet to research a lot of biblical stuff no doubt, yes?

              As you have said before, no one was ever argued into faith by reason, and by all accounts most certainly not you.


            • “My ethics do not include any form of eternal separation or damnation from a god…”

              Clarification on this statement. My ethics don’t either. You have me confused with Fundamentalists or other versions of Western dualist Christianity. I think I’ve already said that there is no separation in my other comments on the other sites. If anything, we separate ourselves. God is not the one separating us.

              Btw, I am not fretting. That’s in your imagination. 🙂 I’m simply trying to explain why I don’t get into fruitless debates.

              I love technology, too, and embrace the scientific method. I think I’ve made that clear. My point is that it doesn’t necessarily explain everything (yet anyway). We are both free to disagree. We can end the conversation there.


            • So it matters not then if I beleive in your superternatural version of reality … we all go to your heaven when we die to be welcomed with open arms by the narrative construct you consider to be the creator of the universe. How bizarre.
              Seems a bit pointless being a Muslim then, doesn’t it?
              Why don’t you do a blog post explaining this t them?
              I’m sure it would come as a big relief to someone like Salam Rushdie for example.
              Time to show a bit of compassion for your Muslim brothers, don’t you think?
              But humour me for a moment. How the heck do you know you are the ”right” type of Christian and the proper ones aren’t the Catholics?
              After all, they were the ones that invented your religion … read Eusebius.

              But you are engaged in a debate and you make it ever more fruitless by you own interpretation of the Christian religion, which comes across as risible in so many ways. I really do wonder where you obtained the mandate to decree your version of god belief to be correct.

              You embrace the scientific method do you? Yet do not employ it when it comes to your supernatural beliefs?And you are unable to see the rampant hypocrisy in this statement?


            • I knew I would open up a whole new can of worms when I said that. Okay, I am not a “universalist” if that’s what you mean. But my view is on solid theological ground. C.S. Lewis’s short story “The Great Divorce” would be a fair allegory. But everything in the cosmos is contained in Christ (Col.1:16-17). So there is no separation. Even if we don’t know Jesus by that name (weren’t told His name), we can know Him intuitively. As Paul quoted the non-Christian Athenian philosopher’s poets about their unknown god, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17). It doesn’t mean everyone has chosen to have a relationship with Him. We choose to respond to Him. Technically speaking, a life in Christ is not a religion at all, even though it’s practiced as one.

              What I said about the scientific method is that I embrace it but it doesn’t necessarily answer everything. It’s totally inadequate for spiritual matters. I said maybe because…perhaps when we understand the other ten or more dimensions outside of space and time, it will. I have no idea. That’s why I said it might.

              But I’m afraid we’ll have to have this discussion another time. I’ve had a very busy day…did a funeral this morning, and now I really do need to get some work done.


            • Exactly how is everything in the cosmos ”contained in Christ”.
              There is simply no evidence for this character, yet you make monstrous claims without the slightest ounce of integrity to support them.

              And how would one have an intuitive relationship if there was no bible?

              You cannot simply quote the bible to justify the bible or your claims. The Catholic church compiled it and you do not accept they are proper Christians for one thing.
              And Acts is little more than fiction in any case.
              You are aware of the studies, yes?
              Or do you cherry pick this as well?

              Furthermore, you cannot possibly ”respond” to the character, Jesus of Nazareth unless via the biblical text, and then its veracity immediately comes into question, including the veracity of the biblical character itself. And of course, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the character.
              So we have unverifiable textual claims about a narrative character for whom there is no evidence and even those who have given credence to the character are now questioning the veracity of what is even attributed to have been said by him.
              I am sure you are aware of the most recent studies in this regard ( and have likely dismissed them as well)

              What I said about the scientific method is that I embrace it but it doesn’t necessarily answer everything. It’s totally inadequate for spiritual matters.

              This is all part of compartmentalism. A way of dealing with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that so often crops up.
              And of course, when you say spiritual, you mean supernatural of course, yes?

              So, little but polemic.
              Do you have a reasoned response?


            • Again, I’m trying to end this conversation. Yes, you don’t believe in anything intuitive or spiritual. I get that. We will have to talk about this another time.


            • Oh,I subscribe to certain aspects of intuition, it is simply your erroneous claim that you can ”know” the character, Jesus of Nazareth intuitively.
              This is a fallacious statement unless you can provide evidence?
              But that is an impossibility, of course, as the character is a narrative construct. There is no evidence for him outside of the pages of the bible.

              So in fact , what you claim is an intuitive relationship is in fact a delusion and maybe even a clinical psychotic reaction?
              Have you ever considered this as a distinct possibility, Mel?


            • Again … you are the one who keeps saying you have nothing to defend and do not want to ”argue ”this – yet you keep arguing it!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.