Alice Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I know there are a variety of views as to whether there is anything of value in the teachings of Jesus over all and not all of us by any means think that there are - although I would be one who would see value in many aspects of the teachings attributed to him (in line with several other enlightenment figures in various religions) But it really REALLY bugs me when some Christians need advising as to how un Christlike their behaviour is. Some of those that visit here don't even seem to have a basic grasp! (not all of course) If Christians are supposed to follow his example then they shouldn't really talking about spiritual matters until they can astound the religious leaders of the day with their spiritual knowledge. If they were following the example of Jesus they would live life quietly until the were in their thirties before embarking on any kind of mission and they would LOVE people. People would flock to hear them - if they were Christlike. Their anger and criticism would be reserved for religious bigots and bigotry in religious institutions, they would understand the importance of keeping Church and State separate, they would be radical not conservative ... they would LOVE people. They would promote non violent resistence, they would turn the other cheek, they would settle out of court, and they would LOVE people. They would own only one coat and they would LOVE people. AAAAAHHHHH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 ...If they would only read what Jesus allegedly said... The problem, as I have said many times, is that the foundation is flawed. If people simply stuck to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I think Christianity by and large would be much more "friendly" and consistent. Unfortunately, you take the rest of it -- the OT, Paul's writings, etc. and you get a contradictory mess that's easy to exploit. When I was in the early stages of deconversion, that's exactly what I did. I decided Paul was an idiot, the OT was irrelevant, and I stuck pretty much to the NT "gospels." It was the only way to make it palatable at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Yes Alice I find it infuriating in the extreme. Most of the time I cope by blocking it out of my mind. It's the only way I have enough energy to cope with the rest of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Thats a beautiful post Alice! I am convinced a label means little. True spirituality cant be contained in religions, books, buildings and labels. Love and Life are languages we all can understand and we know if we have been touched by them and heard them or not once we actually experience the real the counterfeits dont stand a chance. I dont know that I would ever have anything really worth saying that crowds would gravitate too and dont even have a desire for such but I do desire to be able to love without bounderies and labels. To just have a kind word for those I come in contact with. Sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I answered several biblical questions that came up over the holidays for my wife's family. I found it hysterical that the atheist had the answers that the xtians couldn't come up with. As my wife said, "he knows it, he just doesn't believe it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Actually, Alice, probably some of these people come out of the type of christianity I was raised in -- it didn't really matter how a person behaved as long as they BELIEVED rightly. God would always forgive them for their actions, but if they didn't believe the correct dogma, the literal truth of the Bible, they were damned. Of course there was some stuff about "fruits of the spirit" but that was never of most importance. The good behavior was "supposed" to follow salvation, but if it didn't, hey, ask god to forgive you, and the ledger was clean, it was all wiped away. I think that is why so many christians minimize the importance of behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted December 30, 2007 Author Share Posted December 30, 2007 I dont know that I would ever have anything really worth saying that crowds would gravitate too and dont even have a desire for such but I do desire to be able to love without bounderies and labels. To just have a kind word for those I come in contact with. Sojourner I know you don't do it for the praise Sojourner - but it shows. Actually, Alice, probably some of these people come out of the type of christianity I was raised in -- it didn't really matter how a person behaved as long as they BELIEVED rightly. God would always forgive them for their actions, but if they didn't believe the correct dogma, the literal truth of the Bible, they were damned. Of course there was some stuff about "fruits of the spirit" but that was never of most importance. The good behavior was "supposed" to follow salvation, but if it didn't, hey, ask god to forgive you, and the ledger was clean, it was all wiped away. I think that is why so many christians minimize the importance of behavior. I encountered similar, I can remember that people who talked about 'just following the example of Jesus' were regarded having copped out in some way. As I look back now, the Christians who took this approach were the one's who became loving and were lovely to have around. Dogma is the death of love and the temple is still full of pharisees squeezing the life blood out of spirituality. Some friends of ours ran a christian bookshop, one of the little side lines was a rack of beaded 'fruits of the spirit' bracelets, each one spelt out a different 'fruit' - 'joy' and 'peace' used to sell out really quickly, a moderate number of 'patience' and 'love' would sell - but no one seemed to buy 'goodness', 'kindness', 'gentleness', 'faithfulness' or 'self-control'. I thought it interesting that the fruits that benefit self first - peace and joy, sold like hot cakes and that the ones that are about self development in terms of relationships with others - hardly sold at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Quote Alice: Dogma is the death of love and the temple is still full of pharisees squeezing the life blood out of spirituality. Powerful statement. Very much what Jesus said too when he told the pharisees they wouldnt enter the kingdom and blocked the way for others! I sincerely dont think I even became aware of what real love is till I got alone with this Love and Life growing within me away from religions confining doctrines and men. I had to get sick for that to happen as I am married to a guy in ministry. As I found myself housebound I became much more aware of the life inside me and with that awareness came the conflict that it looked little like what I was seeing in the church but could be found in certain individuals writings I was led to read. That began my journey of discovery and I actually began to see growth of that same love. Quote Alice: Some friends of ours ran a christian bookshop, one of the little side lines was a rack of beaded 'fruits of the spirit' bracelets, each one spelt out a different 'fruit' - 'joy' and 'peace' used to sell out really quickly, a moderate number of 'patience' and 'love' would sell - but no one seemed to buy 'goodness', 'kindness', 'gentleness', 'faithfulness' or 'self-control'. I thought it interesting that the fruits that benefit self first - peace and joy, sold like hot cakes and that the ones that are about self development in terms of relationships with others - hardly sold at all. Very insightful and sobering. sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I encountered similar, I can remember that people who talked about 'just following the example of Jesus' were regarded having copped out in some way. Yes, it would be considered a cop out or at very least a suspect statement. Some friends of ours ran a christian bookshop, one of the little side lines was a rack of beaded 'fruits of the spirit' bracelets, each one spelt out a different 'fruit' - 'joy' and 'peace' used to sell out really quickly, a moderate number of 'patience' and 'love' would sell - but no one seemed to buy 'goodness', 'kindness', 'gentleness', 'faithfulness' or 'self-control'. I thought it interesting that the fruits that benefit self first - peace and joy, sold like hot cakes and that the ones that are about self development in terms of relationships with others - hardly sold at all. That is very interesting. It doesn't surprise me, though. The state of one's own soul, of one's own salvation, was the only thing that mattered---it was entirely selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I would teach the lessons Jesus supposedly taught IF someone can prove to me they actually were taught by him and not made up off the top of the head of whoever is in charge of the Christifascist church at large. Christianity spews so much BS that it is impossible to know what Jesus actually taught about anything. Look at American History for example. There is so much crap being taught about our fore fathers establishing this nation, what they said, what they believed, and everything else, that is fiction. George Washington story about him cutting down a cherry tree was false. Other stories that are taught in school as truth are far from being true yet they deliver a moral message. Tell the people the stories are moral fiction and I would have a better attitude towards them. To teach the stories of Jesus as truths taught by Christ? No way! If a person wants to preach Jesus, then they should go back to church where everyone still lives in Never Never Land and be happy. I came out of Christianity to escape the barrage of BS being taught as truth. I have no desire to preach any more it in any shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Quote Alice: But it really REALLY bugs me when some Christians need advising as to how un Christlike their behaviour is. Some of those that visit here don't even seem to have a basic grasp! (not all of course) Alice I was out tonight but I was thinking some on this and before I went to bed wanted to tell you what occured to me as I mediatated on it in case I forget. I dont think there is much honesty in churches. I know for instance, it really doesnt matter in many of them if you can actually sing as to whether or not you are on a microphone. lol Stuff like that. And no one tells folks they cant sing even if they really suck badly. Everyone just claps and says nice things and the poor thing ends up thinking they have a real gift and as one in our church goes to audition for American Idol and gets crushed by reality. Thats one example but really, just made me think that there is so little true honesty. How many times do you ever hear a preacher get told the truth if he is a lousy preacher? And everyone just overlooks the lack of maturity to peoples faces and reserves that for beind their back gossip. Sad but truly the norm. sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Their anger and criticism would be reserved for religious bigots and bigotry in religious institutions..... ....and fig trees. You post is beautiful Alice, so long as certain portions of the gospels are convieniently ignored. The Jesus depicted in the gospels is not the Love Everyone person you describe (I genuinely wish he was). How do you love everyone, yet hate your own family at the same time? Or advocate self-mutilation? http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ethics.html#repugnant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted December 31, 2007 Author Share Posted December 31, 2007 Hi White Raven, my own view is that they don't necessarily need to be conveniently ignored - sometimes they require understanding in context - other times they may need challenging. This of course is where I part company with Christianity altogether because I don't see the teachings of Jesus as a magical infallible system - I see them as the teachings of a particular philosophical approach - open to challenge and tweaking, and no more superiour than various other approaches to life. I do wish some of the verses had been worded differently for my western mind - in much the same way that the saying 'if you meet Buddha on the road - kill him' used to make me cringe. I now feel that I understand the meaning that this intends to convey ... although it may not be language I would choose myself. In my family we have a thing about exaggerated and often gruesome metaphors to convey meaning ... for example 'you'd be wiser to jab your own eye with a cocktail stick, flick it out, roll it in vinegar and garnish it with freshly ground sea salt than pass up on such and such opportunity.' If we then pass up on the opportunity no one expects the eye plucking and seasoning to commence. I see verses that refer to self mutilation in the same light. To do anything but makes no sense in context of the wider teaching. The difference between the use of such verses in Buddhism and Christianity is that Christianity has collided with literalism and for the most part been swallowed up by this type of thinking. Neither of the concepts you mention let any Christian off the hook in the terms of the way they behave to non-believers in the wider world. And the fig trees - that belongs with the face packs, water walking and fish sarnies doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 You post is beautiful Alice, so long as certain portions of the gospels are convieniently ignored. The Jesus depicted in the gospels is not the Love Everyone person you describe (I genuinely wish he was). How do you love everyone, yet hate your own family at the same time? Or advocate self-mutilation?The excuse I was always given was that Jesus didn't literally mean to hate your family but that we were supposed to put God above everything else. But then even if you accept that piss poor excuse, if God is supposed to be all-knowing, wouldn't he have realized ahead of time when the bible was written that we would have such difficulty understanding that scripture about hating family? If he really wanted us to understand his message, wouldn't he have left it behind in a way that it was impossible for it to be misinterpeted? The bible itself says that there is no scripture left open to personal interpation but then this just proves that people just interpet the scriptures to mean whatever they feel like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 And the fig trees - that belongs with the face packs, water walking and fish sarnies doesn't it? So....cherry-picking the gospels is okay? Filtering out the stuff that is mythological brings one closer to that which may be closer to a "real person" the gospels are based on? And it's really easy to assume the "pluck out thine own eyes" stuff as being metaphor now. Doing such a thing literally seems obviously absolutely insane. But as the site I posted points out in it's notes, people DO take that kind of thing literally. That kind of "scripture" reinforces and supports brutally unstable people in their quest to punish themselves AND others. And what about the part about the love message being unoriginal to Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted December 31, 2007 Author Share Posted December 31, 2007 Ths is tricky to reply to ... my rant was about Christians who behave in unChristlike ways - we are now straying into the rather different topic of 'what Alice makes of the Jesus teachings'. I recognise that I may seem a little confusing here. I don't care whether there is a 'real' person or not behind the myths and I'm quite happy to pick and choose from the 'sayings' those I think useful for collection, the same way I do with any book of philosophy or other suggestions for 'how one might to live'. Isn't this the way to approach a teacher? One wouldn't drop out of a class if you disagreed with one aspect, or throw out the self help book completely if there is a chapter or paragraph you don't like? I don't expect any teacher to be perfect or to have all the right answers but I value the bits that speak to me. It doesn't bother me if the Love part is original or not, I doubt there are many parts that are original if indeed there is anything to be original to. But for me, there is a lot of good stuff in the teachings. I happen to really like Tolstoy's 'gospel in brief' and 'the kindgdom of god is within you' - the books that so heavily influenced Martin Luther King and Gandhi. So stripped of the myth bits - I think there is some sense there. All this is separate to the issue of badly behaved chrsitians who absolutely think the love part is original but don't demonstrate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Those type of "Christians" really piss me off. It's the ultimate hypocritical act. Really, it was that type of Christian who first turned on the light to reality for me. I saw what a jerk he was and how nice my non-believing co-worker was. I couldn't understand it at the time. I suppose I should thank him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Maybe some have just started down the path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share Posted January 1, 2008 And it's really easy to assume the "pluck out thine own eyes" stuff as being metaphor now. Doing such a thing literally seems obviously absolutely insane. But as the site I posted points out in it's notes, people DO take that kind of thing literally. That kind of "scripture" reinforces and supports brutally unstable people in their quest to punish themselves AND others. And what about the part about the love message being unoriginal to Jesus? I just wanted to elaborate a little on my previous post but too long has gone by to add it in as an edit ... When you say 'now' - do you mean as opposed to 'then' - with 'then' being at the time of Jesus may have walked the earth? If so - I'm not aware of anything that suggests that these verses were being taken more literally then than now? The early christians weren't a group of 'one-eyed-one-armed-water-walking-fig-tree-cursers ... one-eyed-one-armed ....' OK so that's my sense of humour, feel free to cringe I think the arguments that much of the teaching we attribute to Jesus is not 'unique' is only an argument against 'Jesus teaching is unique' or 'Jesus was god and had idea's only god could come up with'. But these are not arguments against his suggestions for 'how life can be lived'. I'm sure if Jesus was speaking today and earning a living from his words, many sugestions would carry a 'These statements are metaphors and are not intended for literal appliction' as litigation protection but to claim that Jesus should not have used metaphors because some people would be stupid enough to apply them literally is to assume he had some superhuman knowledge and insight that he didn't exercise and discount his teaching on this basis. It's OK not to appreciate the teachings of Jesus because the content makes no sense to you, (just as some don't find value in Socrates or Schopenhauer or Gothe or Nietchze ....) but can one really decide the worth of his teachings based on either the responses of some foolish people or the fact that other people have had similar ideas? I love Shakespeare. Some people really don't get him and that's OK. If information comes to light that Shakespeare was a fraudulent plagariser or didn't even really exist - maybe it will be uncovered that the plays were penned by a writers co-operative. Maybe Ann Hathaway wrote them. If any of this was ever found to be the case it wouldn't change my appreciation of the words of the plays one little bit. Of course there are some people who love Shakespeare because they believe he was the greatest English playwright who ever lived and they have an image in their head of how they think he looked and they are attached to this picture. If this is the basis of their 'love' of his plays, they are likely to 'go off them' if any part of their belief is found to be untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 On of the issues I have withthe Emerging church movement is their assertion they are getting back to 'early christianity' like they have any idea what that entails... Everything points to the early 'church' being no more an entity than the Illuminatii or the Round Table... they were at best a bunch of anarchists who sold a communist ideal while trying to engender the end of the world (and even then I'm just guessing) Where the 'early Christians' are there is a gaping hole... there were numerous sects who spent a lot of time denouncing each other and fighting for supremacy, and generally being a pain in the arse. To try and place any meaning of their writings is simply Rorschachery... it's like seeing a Don Quixote on a horse in ink blot, or a dragon singing in a withered tree when it's a windblown sack caught in foliage on a winter's evening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share Posted January 1, 2008 it's like seeing a Don Quixote on a horse in ink blot, or a dragon singing in a withered tree when it's a windblown sack caught in foliage on a winter's evening... I love the sound of dragon's in full chorus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts