The Silly-Putty(r) Bible

[SkepticOfBible]

Site one post where I have dogmatically claimed that "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And no one may come to the Father BUT by Him."

 

Well you are certainly dogmatically claiming that Jesus will save everybody, and you are askig othe fundamentalist like daniel to align their dogmatic with yours.

 

What's your evidence for your claim.

 

By the way you never replied to my post

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=5018&st=240#

 

 

 

But, as with politics, can ANYONE declare that anyone's OPINION or IDEA is "WRONG"? Is the Democrat wrong? Is the Republican wrong?

 

Nope. Just different ideas. Some work. Some don't. It all depends on the situation.

 

But NO "idea" is ever "wrong". Just not desirable to all. Each person decides what is best for them.

 

I do know that I've been called "wrong" for having an opinion different from someone else.

That is a good point. However, I would say it depends on the beliefs. Do those beliefs lead to violence? If a belief in hating someone for being homosexual leads to killing homosexuals, I would say very much that that belief is wrong. I consider bigotry wrong for that reason, and did even when I was a liberal Christian. In that case, it's not just an opinion, but one that is harmful.

 

Before this I used to believe in Pluralism, and in the begining of my quest in christianity I used to be offended when Christians used to say "Muslims are wrong". I thought that they were being intolerant,.

 

Then I came across a video seminar Greg Koukl of str.org that actually showed me that I was too intolerant of his idea.

 

Somehow I linked plurism to Tolerance.

 

It was only when I went to religioustolerance.org that I finally understood the true meaning of tolerance.

 

"We should be tolerant of INTOLERANT IDEAS, but we should not tolerateINTOLEANT ACTIONS"

[Amethyst]

"We should be tolerant of INTOLERANT IDEAS, but we should not tolerateINTOLEANT ACTIONS"

 

Well, I certainly don't think we should be jailing people for thought crimes, but we should be trying to change the world so fewer people are bigoted. Does that make sense?

[Open_Minded]

Site one post where I have dogmatically claimed that "Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And no one may come to the Father BUT by Him."

 

Well you are certainly dogmatically claiming that Jesus will save everybody, and you are askig othe fundamentalist like daniel to align their dogmatic with yours.

 

What's your evidence for your claim.

 

By the way you never replied to my post

 

Pritishd:

 

The reason I never responded to your post is because you just went back to the Bible, got more verses to throw into the pot and as I've written before I will not get into a game of "I know the Bible better than you." So.... I will respond ONCE to a dueling Bible verse post - as I did bringing in the verses pointed out by the authors of If Grace is True. And I only do this to show how futile it is to get into the discussion. As this whole thread is pointing out - whether liberal or literal - any one can take any verse of the Bible, any story of the Bible and read into it what they want. That has always been the case, and always will be. So, when you responded with yet more verses, I just opted out of the conversation. Sorry....

 

And no... I did not claim that Jesus will save everyone. I said:

 

Mr. Grinch -

if

I were to say there were a "way, the truth and the life" I would say that this is

through infinite WISDOM

. As a Christian, I understand Jesus Christ as the WORD (WISDOM of God) made Flesh. I undestand Christ as other things as well, but for the purposes of this discussion - let us stay with the LOGOS of GOD made flesh.

 

There is a whole branch of Christianity that refers to this aspect of Jesus Christ as the Cosmic Chirst. The Alpha and the Omega - is the language most people are familiar with.

 

At any rate - when those of us from this perspective read passages like "I am the way the truth and the life." We are reading these passages in reference to the infinite and Divine WISDOM (or LOGOS). To us these passages are very real and very inclusive -

because Divine WISDOM is available to every human, within their souls

.

 

I DID NOT SAY...every person has to experience Divine Wisdom through Jesus in order to be "saved".

 

And in fact, in an even earlier post to Kryten, I wrote, "And for the record there are many, many Christians who question the whole literal concept of being 'saved'".

 

Again, Pritishd, and everyone else. I am not here to convince anyone they are wrong and I am right. I don't feel the need to save anyone and I've no argument with the spiritual life (or lack thereof) of you, or any ex-Christian, for that matter. (Thinking of you, Mythra)

 

Really, I truly feel as if this whole thread is going round in circles.

 

As I've already said, Mr. Grinch and I agree in many ways. I've never viewed the Bible as an end all and be all to the search for TRUTH. And I don't expect others to either.

 

Any other questions....

[Open_Minded]

An interesting profile as an ex-ex-Christian. I like to see your story but Anti-testimony area seems not appropriate. Perhaps the Off-topic area? If you have the time to write your story, or if you can PM me your story it would be appreciated.

 

Thanks...Scotter.

 

I really do appreciate your invitation. But right now I'm going to pass. Let me get a bit more comfortable with you all first

 

This is wearing me out, I just thought I'd post a few responses and now several days later I'm still answering questions

[SkepticOfBible]

As I've already said, Mr. Grinch and I agree in many ways. I've never viewed the Bible as an end all and be all to the search for TRUTH. And I don't expect others to either.

 

I thought you were a universalist.

 

Never the less, I need to ask, do you consider Jesus as the prophecies messiah?

 

Again, Pritishd, and everyone else. I am not here to convince anyone they are wrong and I am right.

Well you did ask Daniel to revaluate his beliefs.

[Open_Minded]

Never the less, I need to ask, do you consider Jesus as the prophecies messiah?

 

Hello Pritishd

 

A few points:

 

Again, I was not raised to read the Bible from a fundamentalist point of view. So I have no idea what all the loaded implications of your question are.

 

But, since you asked, on the whole that type of question is mute to me… I mean who knows, who cares, and why does it matter?

 

It’s like asking me how the world is going to end and what I think of revelations and the “rapture”. I don’t know, I don’t care and it has no real implications for my life, or the life of our world today.

 

The same with creation (I’m into quantum physics and so I do care about cosmology in the scientific sense of the question). But the fundamentalist’s fascination with picking apart the Bible to “prove” that God created the world in 7 literal days is a waste of time.

 

None of these things – Jesus as the “prophecies messiah”, the “rapture” and how the world came to be – have anything to do with how I view Jesus and why Jesus Christ is important for my own spiritual path.

 

I find all of these efforts in proving something that cannot be proven a waste of time and human energy, and quite frankly, destructive to our culture.

 

Also, there are most-likely many other theological issues the fundamentalists are willing to pick apart that I would also find a waste of time and energy. On the whole I don't know what these are, because I've never been involved in a fundamentalist church.

 

Well you did ask Daniel to revaluate his beliefs.

 

I asked Daniel to look deep in his heart and answer one question - How can a God that is good send people to hell?

 

It’s not a difficult question to answer and I’ve yet to receive a response, I probably never will.

[SkepticOfBible]

I asked Daniel to look deep in his heart and answer one question - How can a God that is good send people to hell?

 

It’s not a difficult question to answer and I’ve yet to receive a response, I probably never will.

 

But you also never answered one of my questions

 

On what basis are you calling Jesus/Christian God good?

[mwc]

Does this answer your questions?

Unfortunately, no. Maybe I'm slow but in your copied text you only mention a god but not jesus. I'm trying to understand your way of seeing things but I just can't seem to get my mind around it entirely. I understand the god as energy (truth, wisdom, the force, whatever, etc.) concept.

 

I just don't quite understand where jesus fits into all of this. You seem to indicate you believe that jesus, as logos, is god's word in human form. So in your view is jesus a man, god, both, something else entirely (and if the latter then what)? This would also indicate that god, to you, is the god of the bible. So would this mean that the god(s) of non-Jewish tradition are not god or do no exist or do you believe that there all books simply present their interpretation of god(s) and, if you could "sum up" all these concepts into one you would have a more "complete" picture of what God is?

 

The problem is that there are many god-men in other myths. There are many types of gods in other myths. There is a lot of wisdom and a lot of nonsense in all myths (including the bible). This last point is wht I wanted you to share those "threads of wisdom" with me. I'm trying to see, first, an example of something you perceive to be wisdom (this is tricky since it opens you up for possible ridicule so I understand your hesitation) and second, how you come to your decision(s) as to how you determine what is, and what is not, wisdom in the bible. Obviously some criteria must be met in order for you to call the text wisdom and not discard it.

 

So, I'm still stuck way back at the start. I can't seem to understand, if as you say, many ancient books contain wisdom why you feel the need to call yourself a Christian instead of choosing the label of another group? Why do you feel the god of the bible is truly God as opposed to the god(s) of the other texts? What criteria do you use to determine what is, and what is not, truth or wisdom? Could your version of truth (wisdom, etc.) vary from mine and yet we both be "right?" Can we have totally contradictory beliefs and still both be "saved?"

 

My questions aren't intended to force a fight (but you never know in an open forum) but to get at the heart of your beliefs and processes for said beliefs. I know that Grinch is a little upset over the hijacking of his thread (sorry) but unless I can understand where you're coming from I can't understand how to really debate anything with you (or anyone I might meet like you). You obviously believe something but, if the target is constantly in motion, I can't understand why you'd take a hard label like "Christian" or how you could even debate a position on anything related to religion (any religion since you seem to say they're all, at least partially true according to some criteria you have, and yet one, Christianity, has an edge on all of them based on the same criteria).

 

Hopefully I've voiced my confused position in such a way so that you can see what I'm looking for.

 

mwc

[Checkmate]

I know that Grinch is a little upset over the hijacking of his thread (sorry) but unless I can understand where you're coming from I can't understand how to really debate anything with you (or anyone I might meet like you).

Actually, MWC, I'm not upset in the least. You and Pritishd are definitely taking this topic to its logical conclusion, and I think you're correct in going there. Please, do continue.

[Open_Minded]

My questions aren't intended to force a fight (but you never know in an open forum) but to get at the heart of your beliefs and processes for said beliefs. I know that Grinch is a little upset over the hijacking of his thread (sorry) but unless I can understand where you're coming from I can't understand how to really debate anything with you (or anyone I might meet like you). You obviously believe something but, if the target is constantly in motion, I can't understand why you'd take a hard label like "Christian" or how you could even debate a position on anything related to religion (any religion since you seem to say they're all, at least partially true according to some criteria you have, and yet one, Christianity, has an edge on all of them based on the same criteria).

 

Hello MWC, your questions and concerns and Pritishd’s question are valid, and I will try the best that I can. But do bear with me, because as you said – “(this is tricky since it opens you up for possible ridicule so I understand your hesitation)”. I answer these questions – NOT in a spirit of debate and take you at your word that you do not intend to force a fight.

 

First understand that our spiritual experiences – although very real to us – are subjective. In my mind, it means it is fruitless to debate anyone’s individual experiences. We can only seek understanding and learn from each other. A few points before I begin:

 

Disclaimer: I do not, never have, and can’t imagine myself ever expecting anyone else to take the same spiritual path I have chosen for myself.

 

Condition: In discussing my own private spiritual path, it needs to be understood in advance that I am NOT willing to debate any of this. Share experiences, learn from your experiences yes… debate NO.

 

So… hesitantly… The answers to your questions follow in order that I can answer most efficiently:

 

 

1. Why do you feel the god of the bible is truly God as opposed to the god(s) of the other texts?

 

I don’t feel the god of the bible is truly God. I personally don’t believe anyone has a handle on this ONE sacredness that is called “God” in the west. I believe that there is a ONE Sacredness above all, through all, and in all. I believe that this sacredness is aware of itself and that which it pervades. I believe this sacredness is ONE, is infinite and is beyond complete human comprehension. I believe the search for this ONE sacredness is encompassed in the scientific arena as well as the spiritual arenas of the many world religions. I also believe the search for this ONE sacredness happens in our daily lives, in forums such as this. In conversations such as this, in music, in the arts, and in nature. In fact, if the heart is truly yearning for understanding of this infinite ONEness that is beyond full human understanding the heart is involved in the search.

 

2. Could your version of truth (wisdom, etc.) vary from mine and yet we both be "right?"

 

Let’s go with my version of wisdom, ok. Truth is too big for me, I won’t say I have a version of the truth. Yes, I do believe our understanding of wisdom can vary and yet we can both be “right”. My pastor (a pastor of a mainstream Lutheran church) often tells a Hindu story that addresses this issue. I’ve seen the story in writing once, and cannot find it to quote it here. So, I’m going from memory. If there is a Hindu out there, reading this, feel free to jump in and tell the story in full.

 

But in short, my understanding of the story is that 3-4 Hindu wise men find themselves in a dark cave with an elephant that they cannot see. They sense the presence of something else in the cave with them, it is alive and breathing but that is all they can tell. So they decide to explore this “something”. And using their hands they start to explore. One feels its trunk and proclaims this animal to be solid and wide. Another feels the tail and describes it as thin and spindly. Yet another wise man feels the huge rough sides of the elephant and claims that whatever it is they are exploring is very large and nondescript. The fourth wise man feels the ears and declares that this something they are feeling is quite floppy and flat. It is not until they light a lantern that they are able to see the whole picture. None of these wise men were wrong, they were experiencing different aspects of the same being, that is all.

 

3. Can we have totally contradictory beliefs and still both be "saved?"

 

Well first understand that I question (and completely disagree with) the fundamentalist concept of being “saved”. Having said that, my answer to your question would be, “yes”.

 

4. Why you feel the need to call yourself a Christian instead of choosing the label of another group?

 

This is the most difficult question for me to answer BECAUSE it is not my intent to offend anyone, or to suggest that since I experience things the way I do – you should as well. So PLEASE remember that I recognize the subjectivity of my own experiences.

 

Here goes – the concept of trinity is very real to me, it presents itself in nature, in life in general. As I experience the trinity (not as the fundamentalists choose to literalize it) the trinity is within all of life, all of creation.

 

How to explain this. It might help you to put this all in context if you know that I practice contemplative Christianity (this is the meditative branch of Christianity). I have also explored the eastern mystic traditions. But they never fit. In a concrete way I suppose I could say I call myself a Christian because the contemplative path of Christianity just “fits” better. I was raised Christian, it is easier for me to get my head around the literature and writings.

 

But, there is more… as I’ve said the concept of the trinity is very real to me. For me – subjectively – I see the trinity metaphysically defined in the first verses of John’s gospel. I won’t quote them all here, but John 1:14 is immediately applicable, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.

 

The three words “Word became flesh” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

Think about when an artist creates something. First – before anything – the artist has to have the idea. Or the first thought. Second – the idea must be acted upon – the artist takes a canvas and paint and expends energy (or the sacred spirit). Third – because the artist had the thought and because the artist expended energy from the thought – there is an end product, a painting (or the manifested result of the first thought). This whole process is trinitarian in the sense that the painting would never be without the original thought and the energy which proceeded out from that thought in order to produce a painting.

 

In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play. I can not work in my garden, walk in the woods, hold an infant and not see that first, before anything else there was an idea. (Not an idea in the limited sense that we humans think of) But a first intention, a first awareness that there could be something more. And then, there was spirit (energy) proceeding out from this first intention. Because that energy was expended we have life, glorious life. We have creation. I see this dynamic at play in science, and I accept that there are those who study science and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in math, and I accept that there are those who study math and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in the arts, and I accept that there are those who study the arts and do not see it.

 

And I recognize the validity of a dynamic that came to play earlier in this thread when Mythra, rightfully reminded me that in referring to others search for the truth I must be careful. So teasingly I rephrased my original statement to the following:

 

This forum has ex-christians who are pagan, deists, or any number of faith traditions. I wasn't taking into account the large numbers of atheists. So to rephrase:

 

"I am Christian - and I do not feel the need to be "right about everything". I've no argument with the spiritual life (or lack thereof) of you, or any ex-Christian, for that matter."

 

And he (I trust teasingly) responded –

 

That's much better.

 

And I can say truthfully that I have no problem with the spiritual life (or self-delusion of it) possessed by Christians and New Age bible buffet diners.

 

I fully understand that what I’ve just said above may seem like self-delusion. There was a time in my life where I would have labeled it that as well. As I said, I answer these questions not to try and prove anything or to debate. You said you wanted to understand me, and so here are your answers.

 

 

5. Pritishd: On what basis are you calling Jesus/Christian God good?

 

I hope by now you can see that my understanding of “God” is much bigger than the god of the Bible. But why is do I call Jesus/Christian God good? If you’ll read the posts in which I was using this language -–you will see that I was playing off of Daniel’s definition of God. He said “God is good” and I was using his phrase to get him to fully think through his words to other people.

 

I do believe God is good, but I also believe many other things about God. And to me God is beyond the confines of Christianity, any other religion, or any science. Quite frankly God is beyond the confines of the human capacity to define.

 

I look to Jesus as the word made flesh, he is the fulfillment of the trinity (in one sense) because I also see the trinity fulfilled in all of creation. Why is Jesus so important to me… because he is. Because the lessons of his life are important to me.

 

Objectively speaking it can not be proven he ever existed. But subjectively I can not get past the impact of this one we call Jesus. Some how, in a pre-scientific culture, before modern communication, before modern transportation, this one life was written about in many, many, gospels, gospels which did not get included in the final four. Something happened, objectively I can not tell you what happened. But something happened. Something happened to cause a man to sit down and write the first verses of John, something happened to bring about so many oral (and in time written) gospels about the life of one solitary man. And I can accept that, you don’t have to. You can call it “self-delusion” if you please. But, objectively speaking, something did occur and I choose to believe Jesus lived and had such a strong impact on people that one would later write:

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

 

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

 

For the record, and as I’ve said before, for my own beliefs, none of the things the fundamentalists what to pick apart and argue over - have any influence on the validity of Christian scripture or the validity of the life of Jesus, and that includes the virgin birth. So please don't ask, it's a mute discussion.

 

6. What criteria do you use to determine what is, and what is not, truth or wisdom?

 

Well I guess I’d say, something qualifies as “wisdom” to me if it fits other pieces of the larger puzzle. For instance I’ve already referred you to the World Scriptures website: http://www.unification.net/ws/. Many pieces of the larger puzzle can be found in other religions. Many pieces of the larger puzzle can be found in science and the arts.

 

As I’ve said before we are all on this search for the Sacred infinite. We are all working to find answers. And the wisdom is not in our individual answers, but in our collective search for the truth. To me this is where wisdom lies. So, when I am reading the Bible, or anything else for that matter. I want to know historical, cultural context. Literary context is also very important to me. But also – what I know of science (I am not a scientist, just an avid fan of quantum physics and environmental sciences) also plays into it. What I know of the world itself and human dynamics plays into it.

 

In the end the verses that qualify as wisdom, for me, in any sacred literature including the Bible, should lift humanity and creation up rather than drag it down, the verses should draw us closer to the sacred presence in life, not push us further away.

 

Now... have I answered all your questions

[scotter]

Quote Open Minded

Something happened to cause a man to sit down and write the first verses of John, something happened to bring about so many oral (and in time written) gospels about the life of one solitary man.

 

Thank you for sharing a lot of your theological thoughts. I like the thoughtful point "something happened".

[mwc]

Hello MWC, your questions and concerns and Pritishd’s question are valid, and I will try the best that I can. But do bear with me, because as you said – “(this is tricky since it opens you up for possible ridicule so I understand your hesitation)”. I answer these questions – NOT in a spirit of debate and take you at your word that you do not intend to force a fight.

 

...

 

Condition: In discussing my own private spiritual path, it needs to be understood in advance that I am NOT willing to debate any of this. Share experiences, learn from your experiences yes… debate NO.

Thanks for answering my questions and giving me a little insight into your view of things. I have to admit I still don't quite understand it all but it's getting more clear. I also intend to keep up my end of the deal and not choose a fight on what you've written here (if I cross the line say so and I'll back off...keep in mind if we meet up in another thread I'll likely end up on an opposing view but I'm sure you understand the difference).

 

From what I can see you don't really perceive god as a distinct entity but more in an abstract sort of way. Energy, truth, reason, etc. are all aspects of this god that we can "detect" but in sort of a limited way. If we could somehow perceive all "eminations" from god then we'd be able to finally "see" god. This sounds a lot like eastern philosophy/religions.

 

Well first understand that I question (and completely disagree with) the fundamentalist concept of being “saved”. Having said that, my answer to your question would be, “yes”.

What would your concept of "saved" entail? Is it an afterlife of some sort? Is it more along the lines of enlightenment (which may/may not involve an afterlife)? Obviously, we all know what the basics of xian version of "saved" is and since yours differs it would be interesting to know it what ways.

 

How to explain this. It might help you to put this all in context if you know that I practice contemplative Christianity (this is the meditative branch of Christianity). I have also explored the eastern mystic traditions. But they never fit. In a concrete way I suppose I could say I call myself a Christian because the contemplative path of Christianity just “fits” better. I was raised Christian, it is easier for me to get my head around the literature and writings.

I know absolutely nothing about contemplative xianity. I have some research to do.

 

When I first read your messages it seemed like you were universalist but now I know better. It seems there's some surface similarities but your take on things seems to be a little more...hmmm...new age. From what little I know of your beliefs I would say that you've taken your knowledge of xianity (something you were familiar and mostly comfortable with), left it (mainstream xianity concepts), found eastern philosophy (among others), while you liked the new philosophies you couldn't shake your xian roots so you found a way to integrate your new beliefs into your old beliefs by reinterpreting xianity to fit the new mold. Well, something like that.

 

This is, to a much greater degree, what my brother has done. He was studying to be a Lutheran minister and took a shine to world theologies. He quit that path after he decided that it was wrong for xianity to claim they've cornered the market on "truth" and adopted a "broad" view of things. He's mostly xian at heart though since it's he's more comfortable with it. He considers other aspects of god (sort of how you see it but less so) and kind of integrates them into his version of xianity (which he doesn't call xianity).

 

Personally, I think that he (and you possibly) only cling to xianity as you do since it's what you know. Had you never been involved I don't think that you'd place as much emphasis on it as you do now. My reasoning is that you place a lot of emphasis on the trinity. If you were not familiar with the concept you may not have seen this concept in your everyday life. What I mean is you saw patterns and attributed them to this trinitarian aspect of things (the brain is great at trying to fit what we see into what we know). This almost becomes a chicken and egg thing so there's really no answering it I guess.

 

The problem with your beliefs is not the beliefs themselves but rather the discussion of said beliefs. If we get into a thread about some aspect of the bible (I don't know...the flood maybe) and you give an interpreted view of the event and we take a literal view of the same event then no amount of bible verses, real world evidence or otherwise will have an impact. We'll always be discussing two different things and a meeting of the minds is impossible. Other times you might take a literal view but it's not possible for us to know that unless you tell us what you're arguing up front. If arguments are only "spiritual" or interpreted then debate is doomed so to argue that point is usually futile. This is one reason we try to deal in fact (or at least something that logic and reason can be applied to).

 

I don't mean this as a lecture (even though it sort of reads like one) but I think it's a main point of this thread. If we can't all decide (in general but really on a per thread basis) what the "base" elements are we're debating then you (or anyone else that has a liberal view) can alter widely/commonly accepted meanings and derail the discussion. I guess if we're discussing the flood (or whatever) it's important to nail down your view early on so at least everyone knows where you're coming from and can deal with it on that level (if they choose). I put this on you to define things since, as I stated, most everyone here takes the more literal (maybe traditional is a better word) view of things so you're the odd man out.

 

I now have a bunch of reading to do to see if I can get a better grasp of what kind of xian you really are and get a better idea of your beliefs (this isn't a slam but at this point, from a more fundie POV, I wouldn't call you a xian but I guess if you like the label who am I to tell you to drop it?).

 

mwc

[SkepticOfBible]

Objectively speaking it can not be proven he ever existed. But subjectively I can not get past the impact of this one we call Jesus. Some how, in a pre-scientific culture, before modern communication, before modern transportation, this one life was written about in many, many, gospels, gospels which did not get included in the final four.

 

Most of the Gospels don't even agree with each other

 

Well the other Gospel something totally different about Jesus Christ, eg the Gospel of Phillip says that Mary Magdelene was the companion of the saviour and Christ used to kiss her a lot on the mouth. It's pretty obvous why that didn't make to the bible

Something happened, objectively I can not tell you what happened. But something happened. Something happened to cause a man to sit down and write the first verses of John, something happened to bring about so many oral (and in time written) gospels about the life of one solitary man. And I can accept that, you don’t have to.

 

Well the Gospel of John was a second hand account. and so was the Gospel of Luke, so we have no way of knowing this was exaggerated or whether it actually happened. Also asfar most literary pieces goes, we don't know how much has been changed since the original were written.

 

 

6. What criteria do you use to determine what is, and what is not, truth or wisdom?

 

Well I guess I’d say, something qualifies as “wisdom” to me if it fits other pieces of the larger puzzle. For instance I’ve already referred you to the World Scriptures website: http://www.unification.net/ws/. Many pieces of the larger puzzle can be found in other religions. Many pieces of the larger puzzle can be found in science and the arts.

 

As I’ve said before we are all on this search for the Sacred infinite. We are all working to find answers. And the wisdom is not in our individual answers, but in our collective search for the truth. To me this is where wisdom lies. So, when I am reading the Bible, or anything else for that matter. I want to know historical, cultural context. Literary context is also very important to me. But also – what I know of science (I am not a scientist, just an avid fan of quantum physics and environmental sciences) also plays into it. What I know of the world itself and human dynamics plays into it.

 

Well I would not say that all the things that bible says is crap. There are many wisdom found in the bible, but the same goes for other sacred writing. But some of the stuff is just pure BS.

[Open_Minded]

Thanks for answering my questions and giving me a little insight into your view of things. I have to admit I still don't quite understand it all but it's getting more clear. I also intend to keep up my end of the deal and not choose a fight on what you've written here (if I cross the line say so and I'll back off...keep in mind if we meet up in another thread I'll likely end up on an opposing view but I'm sure you understand the difference).

 

Yes, I understand...

 

What would your concept of "saved" entail?

 

 

I do believe in some type of life beyond this life. Since it is impossible to know in any concrete way what waits us on the other side - I don't often feel it's worth the energy to discuss. But - I guess I do feel that there is something more than this life. I don't believe that anyone will be thrown into some kind of hell, in fact I don't believe in the typical western concept of "hell".

 

I do believe we all capable of creating our own hell right here and now, but anyone who has lived on this earth long enough generally finds that out for themselves. So I don't feel the need to "save" anyone from their own humanity. I have enough problems with my own humanity.

 

About the concept of being "saved". I do believe it is possible to feel "saved" in regards to one's spiritual (or seeking) life. But not in the literal way that fundamentalists grab onto. For me it is more like feeling peace where once I felt anxiety. Feeling joy where once I felt sorrow. But this inner peace and inner joy are universal experiences, not limited to the Christian experience.

 

 

I know absolutely nothing about contemplative xianity. I have some research to do.

 

 

If your serious - take a look at some of the books offered on this website: http://www.fourgates.com/contemplative.asp

 

Specifically: Fr. Thomas Keatings works .... he is a major leader in contemporary contemplative Christianity. He is also a major leader in contemporary interfaith dialog.

 

Also books by Neil Douglas-Klotz - right now the group I'm involved in is studying ORIGINAL PRAYER: Teachings and Meditations on the Aramaic Words of Jesus by Neil Douglas-Klotz. Neil Douglas-Klotz has been praised by sources ranging from The Catholic Times to Creation Spirituality magazine as one of today’s most visionary new voices in the revival of Christianity’s mystical roots.

 

Another good author is Wayne Teasdale - my best read for 2004 is his book called The Mystic Heart.

 

All three of these authors are actively involved in the interfaith movement. This is a very important dimension of the contemplative branches of all religions. Since meditation is by its very nature a prayer beyond language, it is easier for people who are disciplined in some form of contemplative spirituality to go beyond the theological and cultural differences between religions.

 

When I first read your messages it seemed like you were universalist but now I know better. It seems there's some surface similarities but your take on things seems to be a little more...hmmm...new age. From what little I know of your beliefs I would say that you've taken your knowledge of xianity (something you were familiar and mostly comfortable with), left it (mainstream xianity concepts), found eastern philosophy (among others), while you liked the new philosophies you couldn't shake your xian roots so you found a way to integrate your new beliefs into your old beliefs by reinterpreting xianity to fit the new mold. Well, something like that. ....

 

Something like that... and closer than you realize. Although I didn't so much reinterpret Christianity to fit the new mold as discover contemplative Christianity and felt comfortable in it. Contemplative Christianity accepts the vailidity of other faith traditions. And so, every Sunday at our contemplative service we read texts from other major world religions, as well as Christianity. For instance we take one theme... this month we've been focussing on the eternal soul... and we'll find readings from other religions around this theme and read them alongside the Christian text. This is a way of exploring the commonalities between different belief systems.

 

 

Personally, I think that he (and you possibly) only cling to xianity as you do since it's what you know. Had you never been involved I don't think that you'd place as much emphasis on it as you do now. My reasoning is that you place a lot of emphasis on the trinity. If you were not familiar with the concept you may not have seen this concept in your everyday life. What I mean is you saw patterns and attributed them to this trinitarian aspect of things (the brain is great at trying to fit what we see into what we know). This almost becomes a chicken and egg thing so there's really no answering it I guess.

 

Again, you are pretty much on track. Although I really don't "cling" to Christianity. Because I've found a place where I can be myself... I embrace contemplative Christianity. I feel at home in it. But, you are right, had I been born in an eastern culture my path would have been very different. I don't argue that. I feel at home in contemplative Christianity because I've grown up with it's literature... its understanding of spirituality... its theology. Had I grow up with a different religions literature, theology and understanding of spirituality... Christianity would seem odd.

 

 

I don't mean this as a lecture (even though it sort of reads like one) but I think it's a main point of this thread. If we can't all decide (in general but really on a per thread basis) what the "base" elements are we're debating then you (or anyone else that has a liberal view) can alter widely/commonly accepted meanings and derail the discussion. I guess if we're discussing the flood (or whatever) it's important to nail down your view early on so at least everyone knows where you're coming from and can deal with it on that level (if they choose). I put this on you to define things since, as I stated, most everyone here takes the more literal (maybe traditional is a better word) view of things so you're the odd man out.

 

Valid point, and it's not taken as a lecture. And you're right it would be upon me to define my approach to any particular Bible passage or story.

 

Thank you MWC for your patience with this discussion.

 

Pritishd - onto you

 

Most of the Gospels don't even agree with each other.... Well the Gospel of John was a second hand account. and so was the Gospel of Luke, so we have no way of knowing this was exaggerated or whether it actually happened. Also asfar most literary pieces goes, we don't know how much has been changed since the original were written.

 

I agree with you completely... and yet something happened. The gospels were written, many of them, over many years.... something happened to initiate this whole movement....

 

Well I would not say that all the things that bible says is crap. There are many wisdom found in the bible, but the same goes for other sacred writing. But some of the stuff is just pure BS.

 

Again... I agree with you

 

Now... I've something to ask of all of you. Not just Pritishd and MWC...

 

At one point MWC mentioned wanting to know my own perspective in part so that it would be easier to relate to people in his/her own life like myself. I'm sort of in the same position only reversed.

 

As I've mentioned... I've never been exposed to the literalist perspective. At least not in any real way. I grew up with open minded parents, with a father who discussed these things at the dinner table. By the time I was 15 years old I was well versed in Biblical mythology. So... this emphasis on literal interpretation is just downright confusing to me.

 

And I did not realize until I got into this discussion how deeply ingrained it was in peoples thinking. Going back several posts Hesitent brought up the possibility that Mr. Grinch was echoing his former literalism (even if on a subconscious level). I had mussed even earlier that maybe this whole line of discussion wasn't much of an issue for me because I'd never been taught to look at things literally.

 

All over this forum I see people referring to "deprogramming".

 

Pritishd's questions about considering "Jesus as the prophecies messiah", I swear to you, I've never even heard the term "Prophecies messiah". I have some idea of what it refers to. But, it is a mystery to me why people consider that important. Pritishd, I'm not trying to take a contradictory stand here with you.... I truly mean this when I say, "I don't get it".

 

Can all of you take the time to educate me a little bit, about this "deprogramming" and about reading the Bible literally in the first place, and why are things like the reading the Bible literally or the "prophecies messiah" or the "rapture" important to the literalist's faith. I am truly lost on all of this...

 

Thank you for your patience:

 

Open_Minded

[Checkmate]

...........

Can all of you take the time to educate me a little bit, about this "deprogramming" and about reading the Bible literally in the first place, and why are things like the reading the Bible literally or the "prophecies messiah" or the "rapture" important to the literalist's faith. I am truly lost on all of this...

 

Thank you for your patience:

 

Open_Minded

Open_Minded, again I would like to thank you for YOUR patience in clarifying your position vis-à-vis Christianity and your spiritual understanding. It has been an eye-opener. Much like our friend Amanda, I believe we now understand that yours is not the “typical” brand of Christianity. (For whatever THAT is worth. )

 

And now I would like to take a stab at answering YOUR question about “deprogramming” and the “literalist” point of view. (I doubt that I shall cover all the bases, so be patient as everyone else wades in and fills in any holes I leave.)

 

In the Christian world I’m familiar with, free thought and independent understanding is NOT encouraged. In fact it is severely frowned upon and considered dangerous to ye olde spiritual health. Oh sure, one will occasionally run across the encouragement to “be like a Berean”, as well as to “test the Spirits,” but these are empty pronouncements. The Church that I am familiar with despises the “Lone Ranger” Christian, and much prefers the lemming who keeps his nose tightly pressed into the butt of the preceding lemming as they are marched blithely over the cliff.

 

This attitude began, as I alluded before in another post, with Emperor Constantine and his council of Nicea in 325 CE. For approximately 200 years there were Christians, much like our friends Open_Minded and Amanda and diggin, who had the nerve to read and believe and receive whatever spiritual truths they desired from the multitude of teachings that littered the landscape. This free wheeling approach was culminated in Christian leaders such as Marcion and Arius. Marcion being more of a gnostic Christian ("heretic") and Arius, a leading bishop of Alexandria, who taught that the Son of Man was NOT of the same substance as the Father, AND that Jesus was a created being. (Source: A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, by David Bercot)

 

Well, for some reason these beliefs were considered “heretical” by the majority of presbyters and by Emperor Constantine. And thus began the move to standardize Christian thinking. It was Constantine’s greatest fear that his new God, who had led him into battle, would rescind His protection from the Roman empire if people were not compelled and conformed to worship IN THE SAME MANNER. Thus the Council of Nicea and the creation of the Nicene Creed. It was decided that everyone MUST conform and embrace this creed TO THE LETTER, or else one was counted a heretic and DAMNED.

 

No “free thinkers allowed”.

 

Arius, Marcion and subsequent “dissenters” of “standard” Christian thinking were forbidden to teach. Their works were burned, and if they did NOT stop teaching their “heresy”, THEY were burned as well. Thus was born the descent into “literalism”.

 

For over a thousand years the Roman Catholic church enforced “programming” by sword, the rack and the faggots. Reading the “Holy Scriptures” was jealously guarded by the church. The reason being? Even way back then the church KNEW the dangers of people reading the scriptures for themselves. The church has ALWAYS known how ridiculous the Bible was, and the ONLY way to keep people in line was to keep them in the dark and feed them lies.

 

This conspiracy of silence and ignorance was easily maintained as it was a superstitious time, and people were largely ignorant, incapable of reading even IF they had a bible, and possession of said bible was both expensive and a crime punishable by death.

 

This condition continued until two events conspired to overturn it. The invention of the Guttenberg printing press AND the Protestant Reformation.

 

With the invention of the press (the FIRST thing created was a Holy Bible®) the bible became massed produced. Cheaper and readily available to more people. Which meant the long cherished monopoly of the Catholics was at an end, AND people could now READ what the Church did not want them to read.

 

Minds were opened and shackles fell off. When one day this “mad monk” named Luther imperiously nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. Luther was incensed at this practice known as “indulgences”, and he boldly called his superiors on the carpet. This single act sparked what is today known as the Protestant Reformation.

 

Protestants (protesters of Roman Catholic authority) began whittling away at the doctrine of “church authority.” The idea behind Protestanism was to deliver the scriptures to the hearts and minds of the people, and to allow SCRIPTURE to be the Authority for what is or is NOT Christianity.

 

This sounded lovely in theory, but the Protestant apple did not fall far from the Catholic tree. For disputes began to emerge within the Protestant camp over what in scripture was true and what was false. How should THIS be interpreted, and how does THAT fall in line with this other “contradiction”? It was obvious that once again the church was facing the threat of INDIVIDUAL interpretations, thus splintering them even further (a la pre-Nicene Council days).

 

And so to combat this, the newly formed Protestant leadership ordered that all scripture could ONLY be interpreted by the church leaders. They would hand out the LITERAL meaning of the word of God. No individual, nor subjective interpretations would be allowed.

 

This led to VERY bad news for the more Radical wing of the Reformation. The Anabaptists. These German people saw themselves as “servants of the word”. They believed that the Holy Ghost spoke to people and that “The Word of God” was NOT ink and paper, but “Jesus” himself. And they would in fact be led by His Spirit and NOT by church councils.

 

To which end the Anabaptists became more zealous and loving followers of “Jesus” than were the Protestants and Catholics. The latter of whom obeyed the “scriptures” and subsequently BURNED Anabaptists for rejecting church authority.

 

I pointed out ALL of this history to demonstrate that for the most part the church has ALWAYS demanded a subservient, PROGRAMMED follower, who believed and obeyed the LITERAL interpretations, as handed down by church fiat. It has done so with the intent of maintaining STRICT control over the minds and actions of the flock, knowing that any other method would threaten church domination.

 

“Christianity”, strictly speaking, has ALWAYS been a mind-control CULT, and not this “haven of enlightenment” that a precious few of you have enjoyed.

 

The tools of the church/religion have ALWAYS been GULLIBILITY, FEAR, GUILT, and SELF-DECEPTION. Thinking for oneself has NEVER been encouraged nor tolerated. To do so would risk QUESTIONS and DOUBTS, and thus open the eyes of the blind sheep, who would swiftly see that he/she is being not only fleeced, but fattened up for the slaughter. Thus the “literal” and “narrow road” of bible thinking. No wiggle room for the sheep/lemmings to stray. MUCH more effective control this way.

 

Mainstream Christianity IS a cult. Precisely like all the other cults. And to escape it, one must be DE-programmed.

 

And THIS is what MOST of us have experienced within Christianity. Belief was NEVER an option for us. “Faith” and the loss of faith has ever been the Sword of Damacles hanging over our heads if we ever dared question our leaders.

 

This understanding of how Christianity truly is, is what prompts us to question if YOU more “liberal” people are in fact “Christians.” For I just KNOW that mainstream Christians consider people like Open_Minded, Amanda and diggin “heretics”, just as they consider me an “damnable apostate.”

 

Anyone who is NOT with THEM, is against THEM. “Free thought” is anathema!

 

Okay. That’s my two cents. Hope this helped a little bit. I’m fairly sure that MWC can shed even MORE light on this issue of “literalism.”

[All Gods Fail]

Excellent post, Mr. G! Perfectly sums up the whole problem w/the xtian cult.

 

It's also a great answer for the fundies who occasionally post the "Well, if you don't believe, why make a big deal out of it?" comment. Because we don't wand to wind up burning at the stake, that's why!

 

Non-believers are a huge threat to the church even if they never speak out - their very existence is a challenge to church dogma.

[blueheron]

Whew, I've had a time reading this thread! I agree with what you just wrote, Mr. Grinch, because my Christian experience was the same. The last so many months of being xtian, I got into Universalism and then the "contemplative", mystical type of xtianity as OM seems to be in, and I just couldn't logically hold onto that stuff. Once you see you don't HAVE to believe in literal hell and all that other dogmatic stuff, you are free to search and learn the truth. Then you are set free.

 

Someone else posted earlier: Good point. When I was in the process of deconverting, I realized that if I couldn't believe in hell, and that if I thought Jesus was most likely a myth, then I couldn't believe in any of it anymore.

 

Same for me. Once you realize the Bible was interpreted wrong (either knowlingly - most likely, or not), you wonder what ELSE is untrue in it? Pretty soon, you are learning the literal meanings of the Greek or Hebrew, and all that, and none of it really means what you were taught it does. You really can make the Bible go along with most anything you have in mind.

 

Once you start taking out what you were always taught was literal, then more and more crumbles away. Then you realize it is all based on myths, mystery religions, men wanting control, power and money, and you can't logically (or at least I couldn't) make yourself believe it anymore. Of course there are some good things in it, such as love people, but those aren't original to the bible or jesus anyway.

 

Two great books for me were The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy, and the Bible Fraud by Bushby.

[mwc]

I'd enjoy telling you why the literalist view is important but Grinch hit many of the high points already and I've been up for nearly two days so my mind isn't quite as focused as I'd like (although I'm sure I could kick out a long answer despite that ).

 

What I can do is share a real quick example of why literalism can be quite bad. My brother told me a story today. He and his daughter (she's 7 or 8 now and attends a Lutheran school and church) were watching a movie together (I can't recall the title but it's some new DVD). Ay one point the bad guys prayed to their god (maybe they were Muslim...these details really aren't that important...it wasn't the xian god). My niece then chimes in that the bad guys were obviously bad because they were worshipping a false god. My brother had not understood what I had told him about fundie views and judgement but he got it at that point. Despite his more liberal take on xianity the "church" had, through its literal and arrogant teachings of "truth" had made his daughter intolerant of other peoples beliefs. He corrected her and declined my offer to come over and really talk it out with her. The sad thing is that I was the same way. I never saw my judging as judging. I had the truth and the truth is not arrogance. It's arrogance to deny the truth. It's a sickness but you don't know you're sick. You're intolerant but don't even realize it and once you're intolerant of one thing it's really easy to let that branch out into other areas and justify it all.

 

The first step to getting "well" is to honestly accept that you just might be wrong. You just might not have the literal truth. The funny thing about that is that my first dose was a class in geology in junior college. I just could not rationalize what I *saw* with what I believed. That hurt and I modified my thinking to incorporate or ignore the facts. The literalist in me had earlier turned me away from astronomy. I *loved* astronomy until I got far enough into it to see that the universe was so much older than 6000 years. I could not accept that since the bible says it was 6-10 thousand years old and I totally stopped astronomy since it conflicted with my beliefs (to go into a field with such deception would surely be my undoing). I abandoned my dream for a myth. At the time I thought this was the best thing ever and now I could just kick myself. Had I a more liberal interpretation I would have probably pursued astronomy but literal views don't allow that latitude. So I gave up astronomy and yet geology (something I really had little interest in) was the thing that opened my eyes. I became kind of liberal at that point (a little tiny bit) and avoided reading the parts of the bible that conflicted with my new knowledge. I then used what I knew of the sciences and the bible and recreated parts of it in my own mind to "fit" what I needed to fit so I could remain a happy little (literal, except for a few key parts) xian for about another 15 years.

 

Okay, this was longer than I had wanted it to be. Maybe someone will take all my posts someday and edit them into a book of wisdom (ramblings?). They shall be called...ummm..."mwiceans."

 

mwc

[SkepticOfBible]

I agree with you completely... and yet something happened. The gospels were written, many of them, over many years.... something happened to initiate this whole movement....

 

Indeed something might have happened, but why do limit your judgement only to christianity.

 

Something happens all the time in the world, and there are various movements which takes place. That doesn't make them any more truer thatn christianity

 

Probably a your Muslim counterpart would be thinking the same about the quran, yet both of you cannot be right at the same time. Either the Christian event was a myth, or either the Muslim was. Or the way I see it. Both are.

As I've mentioned... I've never been exposed to the literalist perspective. At least not in any real way. I grew up with open minded parents, with a father who discussed these things at the dinner table. By the time I was 15 years old I was well versed in Biblical mythology. So... this emphasis on literal interpretation is just downright confusing to me.

 

Thank you so much for explaining your viewpoint. I used to think in a very similar manner about 10 months ago. Then I came across fundamentalist and then it ruined everything.

 

Literalist perpective is not so difficult to understand. What you call Biblical Mythology like the flood or Genesis Account, fundamentalist christians especially inerrantist believe that these things actually took place and are a fact of life.

 

If it's exposure that you are looking for then goto to any christian forum like christianforum.com, and just try to share your perspective your christianity with them. The result would be quite revealing to you.

I had mussed even earlier that maybe this whole line of discussion wasn't much of an issue for me because I'd never been taught to look at things literally.

And I am pretty you have not encountered fundamentalist the way I and others have on this board.

Pritishd's questions about considering "Jesus as the prophecies messiah", I swear to you, I've never even heard the term "Prophecies messiah". I have some idea of what it refers to. But, it is a mystery to me why people consider that important. Pritishd, I'm not trying to take a contradictory stand here with you.... I truly mean this when I say, "I don't get it".

 

You seem more like an agnostic to me rather than an christan.

Can all of you take the time to educate me a little bit, about this "deprogramming" and about reading the Bible literally in the first place, and why are things like the reading the Bible literally or the "prophecies messiah" or the "rapture" important to the literalist's faith. I am truly lost on all of this...

 

Well, one thing which I consider is a miracle, is the internet. No other time in our history, has information been readily available. For me, a hindu turned agnostic, the greatest unbiased teacher of christianaity the internet. When I mean unbiased, I mean you can actually have access to all opinion.

 

about reading the Bible literally in the first place,and why are things like the reading the Bible literally

 

Well OM, you do also take some parts of the bible literally, like the life of Jesus, otherwise you wouldn't be calling yourself a christian.

 

For a literatist(or the inerrantist), things become very black and white. In their viewpoint, If tsome elements of the bible are not 100% true, then other elements of the Holy Bible may not be true either.

They fear if they doubt that the Holy Bible is the "Word" of an infallible God, then that would destroy their faith. And if they go against god, they feel worse things in their life might happen to them. That is because this fear is enforced in many verses of the bible. The biblical story clearly show bad things happen to evil unbelievers of god, and good things happen to the believers. This is the main reason why they still hang on to their faith. That is why you will find many people around the world who think that all the events in the bible took place. And for many of them homosexuality /premarital sex is a sin because it is written in the bible

why are things like the reading the Bible literally or the "prophecies messiah" important

That is perhaps the easiest to find the answers. The most important claim for christianity is that Jesus is predicted in the Old Testament over 300 times and that jesus was the only person on this earth who could have done that.

Jesus is the Messiah

 

However on close examination it is found that many of these so called Prophecies are either

1)Manufactured by the NT writers example the one Matt 2:15 is supposed to be prophecy fulfillment of Hosea 1:1. However Hosea 1:1 is a historical record not a prophecy

2)Non existant. eg when Jesus says that it is written that the son will rise in 3 days

3)Already being fulfilled by someone else, eg the virgin birth prophecy

 

I highly recommend to you the following site

 

Agnostic Review of Christianity

The above site exams all the claims of christianity, and rebuts them using the bible itself. All the articles are short.

 

Messiah Truth

The above is a Jewish counter missionary site. Very good articles at rebutting the various claims but could be lengthy sometimes.

 

If you chat on MSN, I am willing to share more things in detail via chat. Please PM if you want to.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Everyone:

 

Thank you for all your thoughtful responses. Please bear with me as I try to work through all of this.

 

Mr. Grinch, I understand your points about the history of church violence and oppression. I've studied much of this in my own life and have had personal experiences with church oppression (as have all of you).

 

At one point - I was run out of a church for answering the questions of 12-13 year-old children. These kids wanted to learn about the religions of some of their public school classmates. So, with the support of the pastor, I did the research and developed Sunday school lessons around some of the other religions they were exposed to in our community. A few people in the church had a problem with this and to make a long story short, the pastor is no longer with that church, my family left and about 10 other families followed. All because I dared to answer the questions of some children instead of expecting them to keep their noses "tightly pressed into the butt of the preceding lemming as they are marched blithely over the cliff." Mr. Grinch you really do make me laugh, thank you

 

MWC, also I appreciate the dangers of fundamentalism. As you can imagine ... after reading the above experience .. that I can really relate to the situation your niece was put in - and your brother's concerns as a parent. Your own loss, in not pursuing astronomy is quite sad .... and to multiply that type of loss out over 1000s of years.... and billions of lives What a sad loss for humanity as a whole.

 

And All Gods Fail... you are right... if not for people like yourself holding all religions accountable there would still be burning at the stakes.

 

But these are all things that I'm already aware of ... please be patient with me as I try and figure this out. There is something different about the literalist approach. For now I'm just going to put it out there and feel free to poke holes in my thinking..

 

Here's the way I see it right now... and I'm open to changing my mind so feel free to tear my theory apart.

 

One thing that has always been offsetting to me (about fundamentalists) is this constant emphasis on a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". I guess I've always assumed that language was pointing to something they felt in their heart. That it was pointing to a inner knowing that there was something more - a searching and seeking heart. And so I just assumed that they were using different language to describe a spiritual seeking and an inner knowing that there is an ultimate Truth. And that they attached that truth to Jesus in the infinite sense - the Alpha and the Omega - or infinite I AM. (I'm seeing that this was a wrong assumption.) And you are all - most likely having a good laugh right now - how niave I've been

 

What I am now assuming - and this is where I need you to correct me if I'm wrong - is that this supposed "personal relationship with Jesus" is really a dependence on the Bible.

 

So... if this theory is correct ... and there is a real part of me that hopes I am wrong.... then what does one feel in ones heart when involved in fundamentalism... fear??? Is there no joy??? no peace??? from what you are all saying people stay with fundamentalism because of the oppression, the fear.

 

And then when they finally loosen themselves from the fetters of fear, and they realize the Bible is not all fact... there is nothing left. Because there was nothing in their hearts but fear in the first place.

 

I see this in all of your writing the most concise example coming from Pritishd:

 

For a literatist(or the inerrantist), things become very black and white. In their viewpoint, If tsome elements of the bible are not 100% true, then other elements of the Holy Bible may not be true either.

They fear if they doubt that the Holy Bible is the "Word" of an infallible God, then that would destroy their faith. And if they go against god, they feel worse things in their life might happen to them. That is because this fear is enforced in many verses of the bible. The biblical story clearly show bad things happen to evil unbelievers of god, and good things happen to the believers. This is the main reason why they still hang on to their faith. That is why you will find many people around the world who think that all the events in the bible took place. And for many of them homosexuality /premarital sex is a sin because it is written in the bible

 

As I said... feel free to poke holes in this theory all you want. There is a real part of me that wants to believe that the literalist's faith is NOT based on a book, on words on a page, that it goes deeper. That when they pound on their chests and claim a "personal relationship with the LORD Jesus Christ" they are pointing to something deeper within themselves... instead of a book...

 

And if my theory is for the most part correct, how utterly sad For all of us...

 

Well, that's a pretty sorry way to leave it, but I see no other way and am welcome to you all telling me I'm wrong...

[Checkmate]

So... if this theory is correct ... and there is a real part of me that hopes I am wrong.... then what does one feel in ones heart when involved in fundamentalism... fear??? Is there no joy??? no peace??? from what you are all saying people stay with fundamentalism because of the oppression, the fear.

 

And then when they finally loosen themselves from the fetters of fear, and they realize the Bible is not all fact... there is nothing left. Because there was nothing in their hearts but fear in the first place.

By Jove, I've think you've got it!

 

Seriously, though O_M, you have got your finger directly on the gushing arterial wound of Fundy Christianity. You are NOT wrong. Fundamentalism is indeed held together by FEAR. I can't speak for anyone else, but while I was involved with this virulent strain of Christianity ALL I EVER felt was FEAR. No "joy" or "peace" EVER entered the picture. Which was what caused me to question the beliefs being taught me. Religion should make you feel BETTER, not WORSE. Yet ill-feelings is the ONLY thing that Literalism can bring you.

 

Without the LITERAL belief in HELL, then how can "sinners" be frightened into "repentance"? How can "saints" be frightened to remain in the church?

 

Without the LITERAL interpretation of the scriptures, as pronounced "ex cathedra", if you will, then the church loses its primary weapon to keep and control the flock. And this FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real) is the holy cattle-prod used to drive believers.

 

Frankly, Fundamentalists of ANY religion, scare me to death. They are exceedingly dangerous creatures.

[All Gods Fail]

Hey Open_Minded!

 

Careful there - you're perilously close to the abyss! Keep up this line of questioning and you might find your faith has been replaced by logic...

 

Anyway, it's hard to paint all fundies with the same brush when it comes to what they feel about Jesus/biblegod. I think some of them do feel joy in their hearts at times, but I think always there's a sense of dread and fear. After all, their own god is trying to save them from Himself.

 

It's a real mind-fuck. Imagine if you had a dad that constantly threatened to kill you if you didn't love him. If you did love and obey him, he'd take you to Disneyworld - if not, he'd burn you alive. You'd probably feel great relief if you felt you got on his good side.

 

But you'd always be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[blueheron]

That when they pound on their chests and claim a "personal relationship with the LORD Jesus Christ" they are pointing to something deeper within themselves... instead of a book...

 

But without the Bible being literally true, how would one know about JC and God? There are no other documents from the time even somewhat close to when he supposedly lived (beside the noncanonical gospels, which have even worse rep than the accepted ones) that mention JC or that he is the Lord & Savior. Like it's been repeated over and over, if you can't trust all of the Bible, how do you know what is trustworthy and what is not? You had to learn from a Bible in the first place to know about JC, or whomever told you about him or wrote a book you read about him when you first learned, it all came from the bible. So you take parts of it non-literally, but can't know if you are missing something you SHOULD be taking literally!

 

And if you've honestly never heard about Jesus the Messiah and you've never encountered, read the writings of, or heard a fundamental Christian - then I want to move to where you live!

[NotBlinded]

I think that all religons derive from the same source and all were meant to be allegories. Since no description could ever describe what 'is', this way they were able to get others to understand. But the meanings of the stories were lost when people took control of the writtings (not all religions, I think India retains the knowledge) and promoted them as literal. This knowledge is ancient and was hidden because if anyone even spoke of this knowledge, they were executed as heretics (in the Christian circle).

 

All the world suffers because people have taken stories and made them real. Now...that is a nightmare indeed, but when taken as they are meant to be taken, they make sense (to me anyway!).

[blueheron]

I think that all religons derive from the same source and all were meant to be allegories. Since no description could ever describe what 'is', this way they were able to get others to understand. But the meanings of the stories were lost when people took control of the writtings (not all religions, I think India retains the knowledge) and promoted them as literal. This knowledge is ancient and was hidden because if anyone even spoke of this knowledge, they were executed as heretics (in the Christian circle).

 

All the world suffers because people have taken stories and made them real. Now...that is a nightmare indeed, but when taken as they are meant to be taken, they make sense (to me anyway!).

 

That goes along with The Jesus Mysteries book I read. It talks about how the mystery religion of christ was copied after the other mystery religion (having an outer court of knowledge which anyone can know) and an inner court (you get the true meaning here). And how Paul wrote before New Testament xtianity was even around, because he was a part of these christian mysteries. I won't read what he wrote in the same way again! The same for what the "gospel" writers had Jesus saying. Mystery Religion. And xtianity was called a poor copy of these religions. Others were actually more exciting, fulfulling, etc. Really this book is so interesting that if you get the chance to read it, go for it. It blows me away sometimes.