Here’s a God People Might Like

Studying the gods that capture peoples’ hearts and minds is to learn about ”the human experience”.  The more we know about gods, the more we know about people.

If ever there was an attractive god,  it would would be the Hindu god, Krishna.  In the 1960′s and early 70′s, young people chanted, “Hare Krishna”.  Hare Krishna is a pop term referring to the International Society of Krishna Consciousness.

An important development in today’s Christianity is the growth of the “emerging church” movement.  This version of Christianity plays down sin, the cross and hell and replaces it the a Jesus figure who accepts us all, sinners included.  This upbeat version of the cranky, jealous and vengful God/Jesus concept seems, to my amature eye, to be much like the god, Krishna.

A few years ago, a young science professor gave a presentation at our Freethinkers about the Hindu faith.  He is convinced there was more evidence of the once human god, Krishna, than for the figure, Jesus.

In the Hindu faith, Krishna lived 5,000 years ago in Mathura, 91 miles south of New Delhi.  He was always happy to serve his followers. One thing he did for them was wash their feet.

The holy book of Krishna is Bhagavad Gita (“the song of god”).  In another ancient text the earthly Krishna is described as “…possessing the beauty of blooming youth…” 

In our youth-focused society, people might find a young attractive god just what they are looking for. Perhaps one day the names Krishna and Jesus will be used interchangably.


It’s coming, the 2011 Freethinker’s Conference, Sept. 24 in Fargo. There will be a great debate between a Christian & atheist. Many speakers and new friends. Come join us.



Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Here’s a God People Might Like

  1. Wanna B Sure says:

    Jon; What are the names of the Christian and Atheist that are going to debate at your conference?

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Wanna 12:17 …names of the debaters…. They are both from the Minneapolis/ St. Paul area. The atheist is August Birkshire. The Christian clergy member;s name it don’t have in front of me because my own laptop is down and I can’t reach some info with my wife’s that I’m using. I’ll have it in a day or so. I think information about the debate, it’s title and so on, will be posted soon on soon. I’m not involved with all the goings on but I try to keep up

  2. Henry says:

    “Here’s a God People Might Like

    And the implication is that in the non-emerging church God isn’t likeable? I disagree.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 12:37 Some people don’t like the idea of stoning children to death. I guess it’s personal tastes.

      • Henry says:

        Hmm….My “non-emerging” church hasn’t taught that as a practice. Are you operating out of the right millenium?

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 1:00 So you, or your church, just ignore the parts of the Bible you don’t like? (Not to worry. Someone will be coming on here soon to explain the “stones” we are supposed to use to kill children were really marshmellows.)

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; Can you show me in the new testament (in context) where children are to be stoned?
            Please. Book, chapter, verse.

          • Henry says:

            Let’s first start with stoning children. You tell me where it is.

          • Eric says:

            Fun… I wanna play!

            How bout:
            Deuteronomy 21:18-21
            Psalm 137:9
            But those are simply about stonings… the bible mentions many justifications and methods of child killing. :)

            Of course these are not from the New Testament. Even though God is infaliable, I would guess that the arguement would be made that we can ignore his words from the old testament because god has changed and is a much nicer god in the NT. Of course this goes back to Jon’s statement about ignoring the parts of the holy book which you disapprove of.

          • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

            Well, since you asked . . .

            Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 is pretty clear, although today only Old Testament verses regarding homosexuality are embraced.

            One might think Matthew 15:4 is pretty explicit, albeit it only says ‘put to death’ rather than stoning.

            I’m aware I don’t understand scripture and if I did this would make perfect sense.

          • Avatar of Eric A Eric A says:

            How bout:
            Deuteronomy 21:18-21
            Psalm 137:9
            But those are simply about stonings… the bible mentions many justifications and methods of child killing. :)

            Of course these are not from the New Testament. Even though God is infaliable, I would guess that the arguement would be made that we can ignore his words from the old testament because god has changed and is a much nicer god in the NT. Of course this goes back to Jon’s statement about ignoring the parts of the holy book which you disapprove of.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Eric A 3:40 Thanks for the comment. Some of the other good folks who comment here take issue with the stoning of children because it is in the Old Testiment. The context of discussion is whether the Christian god and the faith projects something likeable, such as the Hindu god, Krishna. It’s my opinion the stoning, along with killing children and others in various ways for various purposes, does not make for a happy place.

            To me, the passage is relevant, whether it is in the Old Testiment, New Testiment or InBetween.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Mac; I specifically asked (Jon) for New Testament sources. Now that you bring up Matt. 15:4, Please read through verse nine, Better yet, read the whole chapter, then think about it. Anytime a vers or verses are used, the whole chapter, sometimes even the one before, and the one after should be read to understand the context. There are four kinds of contexts. 1.) Immediate,(the specific verse, 2.) the intermediate, (the verses around it), 3.) the broad, (the entire chapter in relation to the whole book; historical allegorical, and literal. Last is 4.) The context defined by the bias of the reader. (this happens way too often. (eisegesis, reading into, in oppositition to exegetics, reading from.)
            As for the Hebrew Bible, (Old Testament), The Old Covenant was a precurser to the New Covenant, and the Gospel had not yet been fulfilled.
            You need to read all of Deuteronomy chapter 22 to get the full sense of the text you quote. You may notice the “son”, (not a child), was a glutton and a drunkard. (not something a child would do). I”m my father’s son, yet I’m an old man. This was more a civil matter than a religious matter, however there are implications of affecting the whole society.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Still waiting for a New Testament verse using “STONES” on children. I emphasize stones, as stones was the word Jon, and others have used quite often here, and other places. A mere catchy one-liner that catches the ear without substance, and picked up and used by those who don’t have the ambition to verify.

          • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

            Wanna 4:16. I could not agree more. The reason I do this type of thing is because we have people in huge positions of power (specifically religious and political leaders) who use specific verses as moral justification for all kinds of awful things. I think it’s wrong.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon,Erik; Of course you can’t ignore parts of the Bible. You do have to consider the difference, seperation AND the connectiveness between the Hebrew Bible,(Old Test.) , and the New Testament. (the Old Covenent, and the New Covenent). Not to do so is inconsistent with the timelines presented.. Evidently your side of the argument considers the Old Testament should be applied today in it’s entirety. Some of the Fundamentalists attempt to do the same thing. Same methodology. Strange you should be in agreement. Not to recognize the differences in context, time, and Covenents is dishonest, ignorant, and conveniently dishonest. The Old Test. is probably 75% Law, and 25% Gospel. The New Test. is probably 75 %Gospel, and 25% Law. The emphasis in the OT, is prophesy, and the emphasis in the NT is the fulfillment of that prophesy. Until you take the time to study the distinction between Law, and Gospel, you will never understand the seperation, connection, and the relationship between the Old Test. and the New Test. Herein lies your contention.

          • entech says:

            Why all this fuss about demanding a reading from the New or Old Testament, surely it is all the word of the one true God. At least it was one until Saul of Tarsus invented a new version and the one miraculously turned into three.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 1:39 “..surely it is all the word of the one true God.” Yes, it continues to amuse how the OT was 75% laws, 25% theology and visa versa in the NT. So that was the “signal” from God we should pay more attention to the NT and ignore the stoning to death of children.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Three for the price of one, Zuch a good deal.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon: If that’s how you read it, feel free.
            Any more on the NT verses of “stoning children?”
            OK-OK, you got me there> it could have been an 80/20 ratio.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; I just caught it. You misquoted the % part.
            I said “75% law, and 25% Gospel /visa versa. You reported 75%law and 25% “THEOLOGY”. Now I see why it is so hard for you to understand anything. You can’t read, or remember. We have been here before, and you continue to rattle on in the same vein . Sudden onset? Hint; Don’t buy zipper overshoes, because when you take them off, you may piss in your pants. (smilie face) !!!!!!!

  3. Bob says:

    Do we really need to have an invisible all knowing all powerful being over us anyway? One that doesn’t bother to help cure cancer or give a little starving kid in African a meal? People are more caring than people’s gods and have more morals.

    Really, you really want that invisible god? Have you really, really thought about it?

    No, we don’t. We are all we have. And its hard but beautiful this one life.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      I take it you don’t go with the hairy Krishna either?
      Your “No, we don’t. We are all we have. And its hard but beautiful this one life.” Well–go for it. Nobody’s stopping you. Live long and prosper.

    • Henry says:

      “No, we don’t. We are all we have.”

      Speak for yourself. You are your own god.

  4. Bob says:

    Actually Henry, I’m a primate, not a god and you are a primate too.

    If I had to have a god, thank reason I don’t, I might prefer a beautiful goddess. Oh wait, that’s my wife.

    • Henry says:

      “Actually Henry, I’m a primate, not a god and you are a primate too.”

      If I am following your logic, being I am a primate, I can’t be a god. Therefore, being a primate, I can’t be a Pepsi truck driver or an IRS agent either. Obviously, I can’t fulfill two roles at the same time, just like you can’t be a primate and a self-appointed god.

  5. Bob says:

    Henry, keep it simple stupid. We are primates. Who cares.

  6. Avatar of Kay Syvrud Kay Syvrud says:

    I feel like I am hearing playground arguments today.
    I would like to know that scripture about “stoning children”too…..come on Jon..back up your statement with the chapter and verse(s).

    • entech says:

      Actually you are thinking of Shiva and the famous carving is the dance of Shiva. Can’t give a precise description as still on holiday – a week to go and back to the cold and damp. But you see an outer circle with the flames and the arms are holding things like a tambour (drum) use to beat the rhythm of the universe into life and symbols to signify the death and rebirth of the universe, you will see one leg is standing on a small hunched figure of a person – held down by ignorance, full of marvelous metaphor but incomprehensible to people blinded by a blind belief.

  7. Avatar of Kay Syvrud Kay Syvrud says:

    Is Krishna the one with all the arms and legs? I know I would not like a god who looks like a spider or a daddy longlegs.

  8. Wednesday August 24, 1:20 p.m.
    Just read (online) a most interesting article about a lawsuit being filed against the 9/11 Memorial the American Athiests organization.

    Google: “American Athests’ 9-11 lawsuit crosses the line of decency”
    by Douglas H. Napier, published Aug. 24, 2011.

  9. Bob says:

    Kay 6:29 I’m an atheist who like freethinker Susan Jacoby, disagrees with American Atheists just on this particular issue, which is the American Atheists bringing a law suit against the cross thing being there at the 9/11 museum. American Athiests should be picking their battles better. I personally don’t want there to be a cross there, but as Susan Jacoby states, it’s a frivolous law suit.
    To look up and read Susan Jacoby’s argument/article up, below is the title of it. I’m an atheist and I agree with her.

    “Atheist’s group’s frivolous law suit aims to bar ‘cross’ from 9/11 museum.”
    Added: Friday, 05 August 2011 at 8:53 AM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>