Calling All Liberal Christians

[Antlerman]

God is up there in his heaven, and all is not well on this earth. Men and women reach out to the Energy. They write stories and letters about their experiences. These stories and letters get collected. The collection is deemed holy, perfect, inerrant, etc., etc. The collection is worshiped. That's a serious form of idolatry, in my view. While we are shown God more fully in Jesus and we learn of him in the gospels, as I see it, even post-Jesus we "see through a glass darkly." There is much to learn. We know so little, really, so very little.

I really like the way you think CC, along with what is in you that drives you to look upward as you do. What your beliefs mean to you and how they positively affect you comes across in how you communicate to others. I recognize and respect this in you. You're quite open-minded, and as such are an equal rather than a judge. I appreciate that.

 

I'll want to engage you more in discussion about some thoughts of mine about neo-orthodoxy, but you have enough on your plate for now. Hoping you'll stick around and we can get to them later.

[Guest xyz3]

 

But that is not possible for God to be "all" good if he orders the killings of so many people. He can not also be all good if he sends people to hell for not believing.

 

Don't try to dodge the question , you know what I mean. If God is all good that means Hitler is all good. You must be thinking "what am I trying to get at?" If God is all good that means what Hitler did is OK. Because in the end Hitler NEVER killed anyone, he ordered those mass murders. Just like God does in the Bible. But you say Hitler is not good , so neither is God then because they DO THE SAME exact thing.

100% agreed, if God actually did those things.

 

 

Of course you don't approve it but it is in the Bible. God orders the killings of little children. So if you don't defend that even THOUGH God orders it. Jesus is not the point of this story, I am talking about God not Jesus. For me now I see them as two different things now you have to understand that. So those verses I showed you earlier in the thread you disapprove them. That means God can't be ALL good.

 

So I basically see the same arguments getting repeated again and again on this thread. If you see my post in the rants section, you'll see that my own religious views are in flux right now. But I think that 'liberal Christianity' and 'universalism', which for me are the things that make Christianity something that still seems of great worth and and a beautiful thing to hope in, even if I have major intellectual problems with much of what is traditionally considered Christianity, are really getting a bad rap here, so I'm going to put on my Christian hat, and try to defend some of these ideas.

 

First of all, Jesus is the heart and soul of Christianity. We aren't Jews. Yes, Christianity started as a Jewish movement, and we use the hebrew scriptures and have a similar monotheistic understanding of God. But few people are Christians because they came to believe in creationism, or the exodus, or the exile etc... people are Christians because of what they see in Christ. If following Christ means abandoning something in the OT, then so be it. Belief in all the old testament is not a requirement for Christianity. Christ was very critical of the judaism of his day, and although classical apologetics would hold that he endorsed the whole OT as the Word of God b/c he utilized some of the prophecies and such from the OT and said they applied to him, and he was Jewish. Then there's the bit where he's all "not a jot or tittle shall perish" and "I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them"

 

I used to accept all of this the way I was told to growing up. As proof that the OT was the inspired, literal word-a-God. But I don't know if it's really true. Because in the exact same chapter Jesus says the "woot ot" bit, he also says things like ""You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' BUT I SAY TO YOU..." and ""You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' BUT I TELL YOU Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" and "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32BUT I TELL YOU" You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39BUT I TELL YOU

 

BUT I TELL YOU... what is he responding to everytime he says this? Where is he gettting these ideas from? The OT that just a few passages ago he supposedly told us were the infallible word of God... or did he? It seems to me that if that's what he was really saying, then Mathew is one of the worst writers and rhetoricians ever to live, since he's contradicting himself in the same passage. Which may have been true... but let's assume for a moment that he actually knew how to put a piece of persuasive writing together...

 

and look at what Jesus is saying in verses 17-20 again in light of what he says in the rest of the passage. He's talking to a Jewish crowd that feels rather threatened by the way Jesus keeps thinking he can just toss Jewish law and custom aside when he feels like it. This bit seems like what happens when a liberal politician gets up to speak today "don't think that I don't support our troops. Don't think that I don't love freedom and the flag and respect the office of the presidency... but" in Jesus case the 'but' comes in the word "fulfill."

 

There are some important things to note here. The people are scared that Jesus is trying to abolish the OT. Whatever it is he's doing and saying seems to seriously jeaporadize their worldview and culture. It certainly seems like an abolishment to them. But Jesus says it's not. It's a fulfillment. He then starts pulling things out of the OT and showing how they point toward his 'new' message of the Kingdom.

 

Whatever it is Jesus is doing and saying in his life, it stands in such contrast to what the OT seems to be about, that people thought he was abolishing it. But he's not. Jesus seems to think that the things in the OT point to his kingdom. Yet he also seems to almost directly contradict a lot of them. His entire emphasis when he talks about the OT is 'fulfillment'. All the scriptures there are pointing towards something, and he thinks that something is himself and his way of doing judaism.

 

Note that he DOESN'T say that all the OT testament scriptures are historically accurate. He doesn't say that everything God is said to have said in the OT is what God actually said or did or thought (ie the "kill all the babies" type quotes). He doesn't say that the OT contains any kind of scientific truth (personally, I think creationism is junk science.) What he does say is that the OT point towards something, and since most of the rabbis of the day wouldn't have agreed with his interpretations, he doesn't seem to think that what it's pointing toward should necessarily be obvious to everyone on a cursary reading. It's all useful for two reasons: it's role in preparing people for the 'fulfillment' in Christ, and for the 'law' which everyone should strive to keep forever, not in the literal sense of the jewish tradition, but in the new kind of way that he explains in the rest of the chapter.

 

So it seems to me that it makes sense for a Christian standpoint, where Jesus is the center of the faith and NOT the torah, that it is entirely reasonable to "cherry-pick" the OT when it seems to contradict Christ, since one of the main points of his message was fulfilling and reinterpreting the law and the prophets, at times seeming to directly contradict the Yahweh character of the OT. It's also perfectly reasonable to even still hold a doctrine of inspiration in regards to the OT seeing some of the 'out of character for God, if he is really best revealed in Christ' moments as being included in the Bible to make a point about people co-opting God for their own purposes and some of the more unpleasant parts of human nature.

 

 

Just because you want to cherry pick or re word a passage does not mean it does not exisist. You are just saying it is a metahpor does not make it dissappear. But I will show you a couple of more verses to clerify the hell fire. Hell is the point of Christianity and you reject it and make it seem not that big of a deal.

 

The "lake of fire" burns with brimstone (sulfur.) (Rev 19:20)

It is a place of torment "day and night forever"(Rev 20:10)

Going there is "the second death" (Rev 20:14)

Anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life goes there!!!! (Rev 20:15)

Those who commit bad sins go there, but then so do the cowardly and unbelieving! (Rev 21:8)

 

Matt 5:22 (NASB) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty [enough to go] into the fiery hell.

Matt 5:29 "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matt 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matt 18:8 "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell.

Matt 23:15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Matt 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?

Mark 9:43 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

Mark 9:45 "And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell...47 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell,

Luke 12:4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, the [very] world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of [our] life, and is set on fire by hell.

Hell is fiery (Mt 5:22)

The fire is "eternal" and it is "hell". It is so bad that it would be better to cut off a part of your body to avoid going there. (Mt 5:29-30; 18:8-9; Mk 9:43-48) Does that sound like "the grave" to you?

Hell is for the soul as well as the body. (Mt 10:28)

Some people are sentenced to hell (Mt 23:33)

They are then cast into hell. (Mk 9:45,47)

Those who only kill the body do not cast anyone into hell; they merely cast someone into their grave. Only the Lord has the authority to cast a person into hell. (Luke 12:4)

 

The hellfire does exsist in the Bible I have more than enough verses to back that up. You can't say it is all a metaphor.

 

Ok. So here I totally disagree with you. This thread is really bizarre to me, because agnostics and atheists are all thinking like fundamentalists. Everyone except the Christians keeps insisting that there are only three ways to read the bible. The first is where every single word is the inspired breath of God, and the other is to simply pick which verses you like and disregard the rest (cherry picking). The third way is to simply say "screw it" and toss the whole thing out the window.

 

To insist these are the only three ways to read the Bible seems really strange to me. I'm a history major. If I am reading any non-religious book, I will ask questions like "why did she choose to include this detail instead of another? Is the motivation she gives for her behavior really what motivated her, or is there a possible other motive? What's up with this kind of abrupt shift of theme? I see no reason why we can't just read the Bible like we would any other historical book. If you rule out the possibility of the supernatural off the bat, then you will read it one way. If you don't, you will read it another. But other than that I see no reason why Christians have to have doctrines like 'infallability' and such, or why atheists have to rule out the idea that any kind of historical information about Jesus exists in the gospels. Whenever you read any text, you will usually end up accepting and rejecting some parts of the narrative as having really happened, and others as not.

 

This nonesene that the only way to reasonably read the bible is either as a fundamentalist or a feelings-guided "cherry picker" isn't really helping anyone make any progress in understanding each other in this thread.

 

It's perfectly possible to approach the Bible using the reason-driven tools of literary and historical interpretation. Now, of course, these are not precise fields. But I think absolute certainty about things is overrated a lot anyhow. A lot of times we grow a lot more through questioning and uncertainty and constantly debating about and being willing to re-avaluate what it is we believe and why.

[Guest xyz3]

aaargh! I can't figure out how to edit posts on these boards! Therefore, pardon some of the horrible spelling errors in the above post.

 

Also, I just realized I never made my last point above... here goes

 

Jesus actually never said anything about hell, as far as we can tell. Many of our english translations translate what he said that way, but in reality although other NT characters use the word "hell," Jesus talked about "gehenna." He was addressing the Jewish nation as an OT prophet (OT prophets were usually talking to the corporate nation, addressing issues of social injustice and sin, and warning of the consequences to come if the nation continued to do things like sacrifice their kids to idols, oppress the poor, and abuse the earth), and warning that if they continued on the path they were on, the Roman Empire would come down on them, hard.

 

Gehenna was seen as a place of national judgement, where Israels enemies had killed many of their people in the past. Mentioning Gehenna would be like mentioning Pearl Harbor or the WTC to people today.

 

Interestingly enough, an argument for Christian pacifism actually comes out of this kind of understanding of what Jesus is talking about. This argument notes how the zealots were trying to defeat Rome by the sword, and Jesus is saying that if they don't repent from the path they are on, they will suffer national tragedy symbolized by Gehenna once again. Violence begets more violence. Jesus way of nonviolence and active love is the solution, not a violent insurrection.

 

As for the other verses in the NT that talk about hell, they need to be understood in the context of other verses that make it quite clear that everyone will ultimately be reconciled to God in Christ. I'd go into all the arguments and justifications for these ideas here, but I'd type the rest of the afternoon away.

 

This website has tons of articles explaining the subject: http://www.tentmaker.org/

 

ok I've got to go do other things

 

peace

[currentchristian]

If you were the representation of Christianity, I would probably still be a Christian...well with a few changes.

 

Dear notblindedbytheblight, you are very kind to write such complimentary words. Very kind, indeed. I try to be open minded. I try to see all sides. I try to be reasonable. For me, the fruits of the spirit are not only love, joy, peace, etc., but open-mindedness, fair-mindedness, moderation, reasonableness. But I do fail often to live up to these ideals. Often I'm impatient and sometimes I'm unkind, and as we know these violate the definition of love found in I Cor. 13: "Love is patient, love is kind." But thank you for what I take to be a compliment. May we both grow from each other's insights!

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[dibby]

Xyx and Current. I like what you are saying and am glad you are questioning much of the Christianity that we have today.

 

The problem, as I understand it, is that we have been bequeathed a form of christianity that has come to us through the Roman church. The doctrines, creeds and the beginnings of the Bible itself has come to us because a politicized, religious authority in the 4th century CE. Before this era there was no consensus of what constituted christian doctrine. There were many disparate groups: some with a very jewish flavour, some with a very pagan flavour (alot of these guys wanted to ditch Jehovah and the Old Testament altogether!). There were many christian writings and gospels around at this time being written by the various groups. Some condemned each other viciously for being a church of anti christ. We even see this in the time of the apostle Paul where the more jewish believers want the gentiles to follow the law and get circumcised.

 

I think the Jesus of the gospels is a creation of a certain group of mystically minded, hellenistic jews. The main message seems to be don,t accept the status quo, think for yourselves and go below the surface of things to the truth. He was made to condemn the religious authorities because they had missed the whole point of the spiritual journey. It is a writing very much of its day

 

 

This Roman church won the day...thanks to the Emperor. And so we still largely accept its creeds and bible even today.

 

I feel that if christianity is to have any hope of a future at all it needs to break out of its 2000 year strait jacket. So I think what you are doing as christians makes sense for you. You may be just starting on your voyage of reclaiming something meaningful from the debris of church dogma. Form your own bible if you like, why keep the one handed down by the roman empire??....there are a great many texts, writings and thoughts out there.

 

Good luck....I think you will need it!

[currentchristian]

And many of us understood that God was what the bible said God to be. It is hard to understand that God doesn't belong to a certain religion when what you have been taught is that all other's understandings are false leading them to worship false gods. I know it was a moment I will never forget when I realized that God doesn't belong to a description or book. A way to experience God can be found in the pages of many books, but God is not in the description.

 

It's something that you would have to experience to understand. Many here reject God when they reject the bible because of the mindset they believed. I did too at first. I kept looking for God in the religions of the world. I thought that God belonged to someone's description. I couldn't have been more wrong.

 

You are right. We have tied God to a book. Imagine how little God is if God can be contained in a small book written in human words! While we can catch a glimpse of God in the Bible or the other books of the various wisdom traditions, and most clearly (seems to this Christian) in Jesus, God exceeds all of these media.

 

In the case of Jesus, consider this: He spoke in Aramaic; his words were written first in Greek; and we read them in 17th-century English (when most of us on this forum believed the KJV was the Bible Paul carried around! ha). Not only is written language limited, we are three languages removed from the original. It's miraculous that we are able to glean from these pages as much as we do. I look forward so seeing the Source "face to face."

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[currentchristian]

I really like the way you think CC, along with what is in you that drives you to look upward as you do. What your beliefs mean to you and how they positively affect you comes across in how you communicate to others. I recognize and respect this in you. You're quite open-minded, and as such are an equal rather than a judge. I appreciate that.

 

I'll want to engage you more in discussion about some thoughts of mine about neo-orthodoxy, but you have enough on your plate for now. Hoping you'll stick around and we can get to them later.

 

Very kind of you, Antlerman. I have felt similarly impressed with your posts. I will hang out a while and post in "General Theological Issues." As this is a forum for "ex-Christians" I'm not going to snoop around in other places where I don't fit the criterion.

 

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts and insights. I have already grown from these discussions the past several days.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

It's perfectly possible to approach the Bible using the reason-driven tools of literary and historical interpretation. Now, of course, these are not precise fields. But I think absolute certainty about things is overrated a lot anyhow. A lot of times we grow a lot more through questioning and uncertainty and constantly debating about and being willing to re-avaluate what it is we believe and why.

 

This entire post is teeming with wisdom and insight, xyz3. You have said a lot and most of it made a lot of sense to me. I especially appreciate how you ended your post -- what I've quoted above. (By the way, speaking of how to quote, I was lost, too, until Antlerman showed me the light. I'll look up that post and send it to you.)

 

I grow when I speak to those who see things differently much more than when I speak to those who are on the same page with me. Granted, there are times I want to spend an evening with those who see things just as I do (to chill out with them, and maybe that's why so many go to church on Sunday mornings or synagogue on Saturdays or mosques on Fridays or bars on Saturday nights!), but usually I want to be challenged and I want to be made to think about something in a new way.

 

One of the reasons I love to study Judaism is because Jews are not afraid to challenge God! They are not afraid to argue with God. They are not afraid to talk back. I like that. And I have a suspicion God likes that, too.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

aaargh! I can't figure out how to edit posts on these boards! Therefore, pardon some of the horrible spelling errors in the above post.

 

There are the words of Antlerman on quoting someone - posted a few days ago for me:

 

If you want nothing to quote, then just hit the straight "AddReply" button at the bottom of the page, and not the user's post. Otherwise use the "reply" button at the bottom of the post if you wish to quote something from that post.

 

After hitting the "reply" button which brings the person's post into the window for you to type in, I just do it manually in the text body by copying and pasting the first enclosed [q u o t e = username and date] line (I'm leaving spaces in the word "quote" so it doesn't actually format it here. Then I insert at the end of what I want inside the quote with the / switch like this [/q u o t e] (minus the spaces).

 

There is a limit of 10 quotes allowed per post. You need to pay attention that the open quotes and close quote switch are matched. If there is one mismatch in there, they all break. It makes it much easier for people to follow using that feature.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

I used to accept all of this the way I was told to growing up. As proof that the OT was the inspired, literal word-a-God. But I don't know if it's really true. Because in the exact same chapter Jesus says the "woot ot" bit, he also says things like ""You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' BUT I SAY TO YOU..." and ""You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' BUT I TELL YOU Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" and "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32BUT I TELL YOU" You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39BUT I TELL YOU

 

BUT I TELL YOU... what is he responding to everytime he says this? Where is he gettting these ideas from? The OT that just a few passages ago he supposedly told us were the infallible word of God... or did he? It seems to me that if that's what he was really saying, then Mathew is one of the worst writers and rhetoricians ever to live, since he's contradicting himself in the same passage. Which may have been true... but let's assume for a moment that he actually knew how to put a piece of persuasive writing together...

 

I love these "but I tell you's" as they demonstrate that a new era has arrived; in this ministry we have one who speaks with authority and clarifies many issues. I was reading in the gospel of Mark today (I'm taking an English literature class in which we are going through the Bible and tomorrow's lecture is on Mark), and at one point Jesus quoted Moses (i.e., "Moses said....") when actually these words were allegedly God's (as the scripture passage places them on God's lips). That's interesting, and might be some "evidence" that not everything God is said to have said was actually said by God.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

The main message [of the ministry of Jesus] seems to be don,t accept the status quo, think for yourselves and go below the surface of things to the truth. He was made to condemn the religious authorities because they had missed the whole point of the spiritual journey. It is a writing very much of its day

 

Very true, and a writing very much of our own. In reading Mark today I wondered, "When was the last time a religious leader read these words?" Jesus represents liberty from old ways, old habits, old ideas, old rituals, old rules. That spirit of liberty should not be confined to what the Council of Nicea in 325 CE determined as the end of it. The spirit is alive and well. The Bible can be a foundation, expecially as it reveals God through Jesus, but we need shelter from 21st century storms! A Jesus who said he was always with us is still there. (Remember, I'm speaking as a Christian.)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

Interestingly enough, an argument for Christian pacifism actually comes out of this kind of understanding of what Jesus is talking about. This argument notes how the zealots were trying to defeat Rome by the sword, and Jesus is saying that if they don't repent from the path they are on, they will suffer national tragedy symbolized by Gehenna once again. Violence begets more violence. Jesus way of nonviolence and active love is the solution, not a violent insurrection.

 

I've long held the view that followers of Jesus should be pacifists. I'm not saying that if one is not a pacifist one can't be a follower of Jesus; I'm saying that pacifism seems to me to be the way of the cross.

 

If one believes in a universal spiritual kingdom, how can one fight against others? (Of course there's always the Hitler and WWII example of the necessity of waging war??)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[currentchristian]

Have you read any of the gnostic gospels?

 

I have and enjoyed them. My partner, who's a skeptic about all things religious, enjoys the "other" gospels more than the canonical ones. The Gospel of Thomas is very nice. So is the Gospel of Truth.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Ramen666]

I'm sorry, Ramen666, but for me it is a gift, and -- as you know -- I don't think anyone is in hellfire. We simply see these things differently. And that's okay!

 

Teaching math the other day, I said to my students as I have said to them many times, "While there is only one right answer in mathematics, there are many ways to get to that one answer." At that point, I drew a mountain. I wrote "Correct Answer" at the peak, then demonstrated the many, many ways to reach the "truth." There are many ways and, for me, all of them are Christ -- even if the name Christ is never used.

 

That's just me, Ramen666. I've been on the earth almost 42 years; I've always been interested in religion; I "came to Jesus" (I'd never put it that way these days) at age 16. All my years of thinking about this and studying this and praying about this, and here's where I'm at.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

I am sorry if I am overreacting in these posts but I don't think hell is fair either. ( I just get all heated up in good debates and I love debating) I know no one is hellfire because I don't think heaven or hell do exsist. You have a new approach on these concepts which I never heard before. I do find them quite interesting, if I was a Christian I would be probably going nuts over your way of thinking.( I was once a conservative Christian) Remember I am just throwing out ideas on the table for you since you feel like hearing our ideas. I like hearing your ideas also because some of them our quite deep and knowlegable.

 

The Bible I know has a lot of metaphors and junk in that. I understand that but when do you get to choose what is a metaphor and what is not a metaphor. I see the Creation story just as a Fable or whatnot or a myth, I do not take that as fact at all (well of course not thats why I am here) The people who wrote the Bible were just trying to think how the world was created. That is a no brainer and they used their primiative ways and said God did it.

 

Continue being open minded that is something that is rare in Christians.

[currentchristian]

I am sorry if I am overreacting in these posts but I don't think hell is fair either. ( I just get all heated up in good debates and I love debating) I know no one is hellfire because I don't think heaven or hell do exsist. You have a new approach on these concepts which I never heard before. I do find them quite interesting, if I was a Christian I would be probably going nuts over your way of thinking.( I was once a conservative Christian) Remember I am just throwing out ideas on the table for you since you feel like hearing our ideas. I like hearing your ideas also because some of them our quite deep and knowlegable.

 

The Bible I know has a lot of metaphors and junk in that. I understand that but when do you get to choose what is a metaphor and what is not a metaphor. I see the Creation story just as a Fable or whatnot or a myth, I do not take that as fact at all (well of course not thats why I am here) The people who wrote the Bible were just trying to think how the world was created. That is a no brainer and they used their primiative ways and said God did it.

 

Continue being open minded that is something that is rare in Christians.

 

Like you, I like good debates. Like iron sharpening iron, so one person sharpens another, it says somewhere in Proverbs. I think that saying is very true.

 

Your question about how to "rightly dividing the word of truth" (as St. Paul instructed Timothy) is a hard one, I think. Each person must do his/her best. What is literal? What is metaphor? What is allegory? What really, really happened, in history? What happened only in this story to make a point? Not easy questions, for sure.

 

I know what you mean, too, ramen666, about the fact that some Christians would be going crazy with some of the ideas we float out here. I was thinking today that no one on this forum blinked an eyelid when I said I'm gay. Do you know how refreshing that is? Some Christians, sad to say, very sad to say, would write me off right there. "Oh, he's one of those, poor thing." How sad. (And we must put part of the responsibility for that reaction on that book I do love, the Bible.)

 

So the open-mindedness here is a very good thing! May we see more of it all over the place.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Guest xyz3]

I've long held the view that followers of Jesus should be pacifists. I'm not saying that if one is not a pacifist one can't be a follower of Jesus; I'm saying that pacifism seems to me to be the way of the cross.

 

If one believes in a universal spiritual kingdom, how can one fight against others? (Of course there's always the Hitler and WWII example of the necessity of waging war??)

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

Thanks for the kind words

 

I'd love to talk to you more about pacifism later... I was starting to compose a reply but realized that it would just take the thread way off topic... but yeah, in short I pretty much agree with you, but share your struggle in thinking about things like Hitler et al

[currentchristian]

Just wanted to provide a link to this terrific essay (my opinion) that appeared at beliefnet.com this morning. It reminded me of much we have been discussing recently on this forum:

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20369_1.html

 

Someone on here asked about the Gnostic gospels yesterday. Last evening I found this terrific website from the Gnostic Society Library. Excellent information about the Nag Hammadi Library and the Gnostic writings:

 

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html

 

-currentchristian in massachustts

[NotBlinded]

If you were the representation of Christianity, I would probably still be a Christian...well with a few changes.

 

Dear notblindedbytheblight, you are very kind to write such complimentary words. Very kind, indeed. I try to be open minded. I try to see all sides. I try to be reasonable. For me, the fruits of the spirit are not only love, joy, peace, etc., but open-mindedness, fair-mindedness, moderation, reasonableness. But I do fail often to live up to these ideals. Often I'm impatient and sometimes I'm unkind, and as we know these violate the definition of love found in I Cor. 13: "Love is patient, love is kind." But thank you for what I take to be a compliment. May we both grow from each other's insights!

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

You are very welcome and it is refreshing to see you on here. I look forward to reading more from you. Your understanding is something that I never saw until many years after I rejected the Christian relgion, so post on.

 

 

 

 

Wonderful posts xyz3 and welcome.

[dibby]

Someone on here asked about the Gnostic gospels yesterday. Last evening I found this terrific website from the Gnostic Society Library.

 

Hey current christian. I have a copy of the Nag Hammadi scriptures at home. Alot I find incomprehensible....but there are some that I just love. The Gospel of Truth is a favourite(one of the most popular gospels in the early christian movement...."Before the dark times. Before the

empire")

 

But the one I love the most at the moment is The Exegesis on the Soul. Breathtakingly poignant to me. There is a great passage about what it means to be "born again". Nothing like what the fundamentalists say with their sinners prayer and all.

 

How different christianity would have been if these books had been left in I wonder?

 

The gnostic society website is a great resource...and I would encourage any christian to look and learn. I have heard many of the lectures by Dr, Stefan Hoeller, and while not agreeing with everything he says, I find them brilliant and have learned much from them. He is very erudite and a great ambassador for christianity.

Hearing people like him and Archbishop Desmond Tutu gives me some hope for christianity.......maybe the fundamentalists just make the most noise!

[currentchristian]

But the one I love the most at the moment is The Exegesis on the Soul. Breathtakingly poignant to me. There is a great passage about what it means to be "born again". Nothing like what the fundamentalists say with their sinners prayer and all.

 

How different christianity would have been if these books had been left in I wonder?

 

The gnostic society website is a great resource...and I would encourage any christian to look and learn. I have heard many of the lectures by Dr, Stefan Hoeller, and while not agreeing with everything he says, I find them brilliant and have learned much from them. He is very erudite and a great ambassador for christianity.

 

Hearing people like him and Archbishop Desmond Tutu gives me some hope for christianity.......maybe the fundamentalists just make the most noise!

 

I have not read The Exegesis on the Soul, but I shall do so right away! I'm with you on "The Sinner's Prayer." It's rather silly. Can you see St. Paul leading a congregation in "The Sinner's Prayer" as "Just as I Am" is sung by the choir? Come on. The Jesus movement should be alive, powerful, connected to Energy. Not a "say this prayer and sign this card and you're all set and you now know more than anyone else are are closer to God than anyone else" movement.

 

Your unanswerable question about where the Jesus movement would be if the Gnostics had not been eliminated is a great one. Very interesting that finally, after 1900 years, these texts were found.

 

I think you are right. Those we call fundamentalist make a lot of noise and the media is very eager to hear from them so they can have a shouting match.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[NotBlinded]

Your unanswerable question about where the Jesus movement would be if the Gnostics had not been eliminated is a great one. Very interesting that finally, after 1900 years, these texts were found.

Maybe this is the 2nd coming of Christ?

[currentchristian]

Your unanswerable question about where the Jesus movement would be if the Gnostics had not been eliminated is a great one. Very interesting that finally, after 1900 years, these texts were found.

Maybe this is the 2nd coming of Christ?

 

 

I guess you never know! But I'm hoping for a more traditional return: the end of war, famine, disease, death, corruption, pain, suffering...

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts