Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[Mythra]

What is meant by "it [the Bible] is not historically accurate"? Can one glean even one "historically accurate" account from the Bible -- from your perspective?

 

A few of the characters are historically accurate: Pilate, Herod, and possibly John the Baptist.

A few of the places are historically accurate: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Bethsaida.

 

But, let's say the whole thing is accurate - minus the people flying through the air and cadavers re-animating. Let's say Jesus was a guy who wandered around living off of other people and preaching the kingdom of god. He pissed off the wrong people and got nailed for it. (dumb pun, I know)

 

Do you have any IDEA what kind of a leap that is from accepting that story to thinking he now is an omnipresent GOD who is capable of hearing billions of prayers all at the same time? Not to mention that he is personally involved with each and every christian - all the way down to knowing the numbers of hairs on their heads???

 

Give me a freakin break. What drivel.

 

Sorry, CC. But, you aren't gonna come on to an ex-christian site and spout jesus without getting called on it.

[currentchristian]

It's an anthology of the history, poetry, wisdom literature, prophecy and theology of the Hebrews-Israelites-Judeans-Jews-Christians over a period of a thousand years.

 

More like a gory horror novel.

 

A badly-written one, at that.

 

 

 

I don't agree with you, but you made me smile anyway!!

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

A few of the characters are historically accurate: Pilate, Herod, and possibly John the Baptist.

A few of the places are historically accurate: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Bethsaida.

 

And they even got some of those wrong. Isn't there some major question about Bethlehem, or some other city, not being anything more than a camp with a few tents at the time of the alleged events? Those cities and people could have been added at a later date. The whole thing has been edited so much there is no way to tell what is original and what is not. Sure, there are some old versions, but how well to they match up? And what about all that they left out?

 

But, let's say the whole thing is accurate - minus the people flying through the air and cadavers re-animating. ....

 

I guess that's why it's a religion based on beliefs and not reality.

[currentchristian]

Or the wearing of rose colored glasses.

 

...

 

A good example of finding what you're seeking. If one wants to bad enough they'll find what they want - even if it isn't there.

 

We all wear glasses, Dave, of one shade or another. All of us -- because we truly are so much alike!

 

I agree with you that there is a tendency to see what one wants to see. To complete the circle or reasoning, there also is a tendency to not see what one does not want to see. We must be careful of these two missteps.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

What is meant by "it [the Bible] is not historically accurate"? Can one glean even one "historically accurate" account from the Bible -- from your perspective?

 

I used plain English. I don't understand how it was not understood? Just because they got the name of some well known city, or the name of some well known historical person right, does not mean that everything else in there is historically accurate. As to what this Jesus character is CLAIMED to have said; there is nothing what so ever to back up any of those claims. The claims are based on, AT BEST, 3rd hand hearsay. There are no extrabiblical sources to verify any of the claims in the NT. By any, honest, scholarly reading; the bible is not at all historically accurate.

 

 

Yes, Dave, you used plain English. But you generalized, in my view, by saying that "the Bible is not historically accurate." Unless, of course, you are indeed saying that there is absolutley not one shred of reliable history to be found in the entire book. That's fine, if that is what you are saying. It seems to me that you are instead theorizing that there might be some "true" history in the Bible, but very little or next to none?

 

There is no evidence that would prove that the writers of the gospels (save Luke) did not witness the life of Jesus. No evidence. Those who wrote the gospels may in fact have not been eyewitnesses and were recording the eyewitness accounts of others (as Luke says he is doing).

 

We really don't know. Anyone who says they know for certain the provenance of the gospels or the epistles or Acts is definitely not to be believed. No one knows for certain. Just as no one knows for certain what Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg or what Thomas Jefferson thought about Sally Hemings.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

We all wear glasses, Dave, of one shade or another. All of us -- because we truly are so much alike!

 

No, we are not alike. I wear glasses only because of presbyopia, not as blinders to block out what I don't want to see.

 

I agree with you that there is a tendency to see what one wants to see. To complete the circle or reasoning, there also is a tendency to not see what one does not want to see. We must be careful of these two missteps.

 

Christians are good at twisting things to support what they want to believe. I have this bad habit of following the evidence instead of twisting it. Believers are experts at seeing only what they want and disregarding anything they don't want to see. Anyone believing any part of the bible is guilty of that. You even admit to extracting certain parts and believing only those and saying the rest is only a "guide." (The uselessness of the bible as a guide in modern society is great material for another thread.) Why bother then? Do you only pick the parts that "feel" right and ignore any logical fallacies that goes along with them?

[currentchristian]

What is meant by "it [the Bible] is not historically accurate"? Can one glean even one "historically accurate" account from the Bible -- from your perspective?

 

A few of the characters are historically accurate: Pilate, Herod, and possibly John the Baptist.

A few of the places are historically accurate: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Bethsaida.

 

But, let's say the whole thing is accurate - minus the people flying through the air and cadavers re-animating. Let's say Jesus was a guy who wandered around living off of other people and preaching the kingdom of god. He pissed off the wrong people and got nailed for it. (dumb pun, I know)

 

Do you have any IDEA what kind of a leap that is from accepting that story to thinking he now is an omnipresent GOD who is capable of hearing billions of prayers all at the same time? Not to mention that he is personally involved with each and every christian - all the way down to knowing the numbers of hairs on their heads???

 

Give me a freakin break. What drivel.

 

Sorry, CC. But, you aren't gonna come on to an ex-christian site and spout jesus without getting called on it.

 

Fair enough, Mythra. You have my respect. I hope I have yours. Truly.

 

A couple of things.

 

1. Your "got nailed for it" pun was a good one.

 

2. I would agree with you that it is "drivel" that Jesus is "an omnipresent God" capable of "hearing billions of prayers at the same time" and is "personally involved with each and every Christian." I don't see Jesus this way.

 

3. Why would God or Jesus want to know how much hair we had, anyway? And if they really do care about hair and they know how many hairs I have, I'd like them to double the number, please. These are symbols of a bigger truth that is so far beyond our minds to get that we don't even get the symbols seven-eights of time. As I see it.

 

4. Finally, please know that I do not care that anyone "accept Jesus." It might make me a very bad follower of Jesus, but the Great Commission has expired, in my view. I do enjoy, however, discussing these details with all of you.

 

 

-CC in MA

[Lycorth]

There is no evidence that would prove that the writers of the gospels (save Luke) did not witness the life of Jesus. No evidence. Those who wrote the gospels may in fact have not been eyewitnesses and were recording the eyewitness accounts of others (as Luke says he is doing).

 

The fact that there no extra-babblical sources to back up the claims, or the existence of, Jebus or of Luke, despite the great body of knowledge we have regarding the history of the Middle-east is in fact the "evidence" that Jebus of Nazareth never existed.

 

We have much knowledge about this region, going back many thousands of years before the events of the Babble. Yet absolutely nothing to corroborate the existence of the life of Jebus. Big problem there. If he ever lived, and was what Xians claim he was, there should be something to back it up. But there isn't.

 

Again, no smoke means no fire.

 

We really don't know. Anyone who says they know for certain the provenance of the gospels or the epistles or Acts is definitely not to be believed. No one knows for certain. Just as no one knows for certain what Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg or what Thomas Jefferson thought about Sally Hemings.

 

But we have writings that confirm Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address, and much evidence that a man named Abraham Lincoln lived and did the things he is said to have done. Same goes for Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemmings or no. There is also proof that Sally Hemmings existed.

 

There is none of that for Jebus.

 

Apples and oranges, no?

[currentchristian]

...

No, we are not alike. I wear glasses only because of presbyopia, not as blinders to block out what I don't want to see.

...

Christians are good at twisting things to support what they want to believe. I have this bad habit of following the evidence instead of twisting it. Believers are experts at seeing only what they want and disregarding anything they don't want to see. Anyone believing any part of the bible is guilty of that. You even admit to extracting certain parts and believing only those and saying the rest is only a "guide." (The uselessness of the bible as a guide in modern society is great material for another thread.) Why bother then? Do you only pick the parts that "feel" right and ignore any logical fallacies that goes along with them?

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, Dave, because I believe that you and I have a lot more in common than we have that separates us. I think this is true for everyone.

 

I agree that "Christians are good at twisting things to support what they want to believe." I believe this is true because Christians are human creatures like everyone else. We all have the same basic tendencies. Seems to me.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

Yes, Dave, you used plain English. But you generalized, in my view, by saying that "the Bible is not historically accurate." Unless, of course, you are indeed saying that there is absolutley not one shred of reliable history to be found in the entire book. That's fine, if that is what you are saying. It seems to me that you are instead theorizing that there might be some "true" history in the Bible, but very little or next to none?

 

The bible is useless as a historical text. It is nothing more than a book containing the religious BELIEFS of one group of people. The main stories in the book, Genesis, all the wars in Numbers, King David, the Exodus, the whole jesus thing, and so on, never happened. They are not historical.

 

There is no evidence that would prove that the writers of the gospels (save Luke) did not witness the life of Jesus. No evidence. Those who wrote the gospels may in fact have not been eyewitnesses and were recording the eyewitness accounts of others (as Luke says he is doing).

There is evidence to prove they were not eye witnesses; they were not alive at the time. Come on, give me a break, you could at least read the history of the book. They were recording stories people heard from other people. Some weren't even doing that - they were copying, and embellishing stories written by the other authors.

 

We really don't know. Anyone who says they know for certain the provenance of the gospels or the epistles or Acts is definitely not to be believed. No one knows for certain.

 

Yet you want to base your life on it anyway. That makes no sense to me.

 

Just as no one knows for certain what Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg or what Thomas Jefferson thought about Sally Hemings.

 

Nice try, but it won't work. There many contemporary ccounts from eyewitnesses at Gettysburg that agree. The stories in the NT do not agree with each other. We have copies of the original speech that Lincoln gave. We have some of the speech in Lincoln own hand writing. All you have for the NT are stories that have gone through several retellings long after the fact and not even a hint that there might be any original writings from jesus.

 

No, there is no comparison.

[mwc]

Well, mwc, it depends on how you read 'em.

 

My reading of the gospels, Acts, and epistles finds great merit in their historicity -- in terms of the overall account of the life of Jesus and the early years of the Jesus movement.

Ahhh...but how can this be? They are the ONLY documents to even discuss these things. They vouch for themselves anonymously? If I strip Melville's name from Moby Dick does it become a historical narrative? Does Ahab become a real person being discussed by an anonymous author? Does he if someone else "borrows" 80% of the novel and integrates it into their own retelling of the story?

 

If you can see that the story of Moby Dick, anonymous or not, does not place Ahab into the land of the living with the rest of us then certainly you can see the reasoning as to why the anonymous tellings and retelling of a story placed in the first half of the 1st century CE does not make a carpenter and his followers likewise real without further evidence.

 

If we accept that they aren't historical documents but theological and/or political statements containing historical elements then at least we're a little closer to the truth.

 

One's "educated guess" might be different from that of another, of course, but I see no reason at all to dismiss that Luke and Acts, for example, were written by the companion of Paul. It seems quite reasonable to me. In fact, the other hypotheses seem quite unreasonable.

There is little reason to assume that Luke, the one who knew Paul, wrote anything. It's really that simple. Paul never claims it. So where is the evidence? As I said before, we're left with Iraneous, who says that Papias said that Luke did it.

 

And what more did Papias believe? That Judas bloated up to the size of a chariot, was then crushed by a chariot and his guts spilled out. This contradicts Luke in Acts. So who to believe? Luke...who we don't know...or Papias...who we don't know. We're asked to believe both on very weighty matters but they disagree on something very important. So let's look deeper. Papias further believes in the literal existence of the Phoenix bird. He believes it goes through a death cycle every 500 years. Pure nonsense. It shows a lack of research on his part and makes him a bit less trust worthy even for a 1st century man. I could go on and on showing Papias to be quite, let's just say, ignorant. But if he's ignorant then he can't be trusted to name the sources for the authors of these books. If he can't name the authors then he can't name Luke.

 

Now Luke is off the list. Bye, bye Luke. So where's the connection? We'd have to show Luke wrote the text, and was named the author, independent of Papias' influence. Seeing how these early church leaders wrote these letters, and repeated them (noting the quotes nearly a century later), it seems that might prove a difficult task.

 

Like beauty, much is in the eye of the beholder. Methinks.

And if you were told, at some point, that Eenie, Meenie, Minie and Moe had written the gospels then we'd be arguing that those were the wonderful, or should I say, beautiful, names of the authors. The names are arbitrary until an actual, real, connection can be established. But until that point, the authors are anonymous, and we have no idea who they are or what they were about.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

The fact that there no extra-babblical sources to back up the claims, or the existence of, Jebus or of Luke, despite the great body of knowledge we have regarding the history of the Middle-east is in fact the "evidence" that Jebus of Nazareth never existed.

 

We have much knowledge about this region, going back many thousands of years before the events of the Babble. Yet absolutely nothing to corroborate the existence of the life of Jebus. Big problem there. If he ever lived, and was what Xians claim he was, there should be something to back it up. But there isn't.

 

Again, no smoke means no fire.

 

Please refer to the "Did Jesus Exist" topic!! I laid out all the evidence there for anyone with eyes to see. Just kidding. You have your view. I have mine. My view is that it is absolutely certain that Jesus existed and that he did great things. This I believe looking at the evidence. The "other stuff" I believe about Jesus is a result not of evidence, but of feeling, of faith, of feels-rightness.

 

But we have writings that confirm Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address, and much evidence that a man named Abraham Lincoln lived and did the things he is said to have done. Same goes for Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemmings or no. There is also proof that Sally Hemmings existed.

 

There is none of that for Jebus.

 

Apples and oranges, no?

 

Indeed. Apples and oranges.

 

Jefferson was founder of the University of Virginia, author of the Declaration of Independence, first Secretary of State, third U.S. president ... in his lifetime. He died less than 200 years ago. Of course, we know a ton about Jefferson. He also wrote thousands of letters and used a "copying machine" to keep all of them in his files. See this little device here.

 

Same with Lincoln. He was president during his lifetime. He died just 142 years ago. We know so very much about him. Naturally.

 

Jesus is an entirely different figure.

 

He lived 2000 years ago. He did not write a word down, as far as we know. There were no newspapers or printing presses. He made a little stir in Judea and Jerusalem, but that's about it. There is no reason at all to suspect that he would have made the media of the day pay any mind to his teachings. He was one of many reformers and one of many crucified.

 

It was only after his life and the (for Christians) power of the resurrection that his name was proclaimed to "the ends of the earth." I see no reason at all to expect anyone outside the fold of his followers to have recorded anything about his existence during his lifetime and not until the Way was no longer a small sect of Jews.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

...

The bible is useless as a historical text. It is nothing more than a book containing the religious BELIEFS of one group of people. The main stories in the book, Genesis, all the wars in Numbers, King David, the Exodus, the whole jesus thing, and so on, never happened. They are not historical.

 

As you see it. Remember, others see things differently.

 

There is evidence to prove they were not eye witnesses; they were not alive at the time. Come on, give me a break, you could at least read the history of the book. They were recording stories people heard from other people. Some weren't even doing that - they were copying, and embellishing stories written by the other authors.

 

Where is this evidence? There is none. Just as there is none to prove that they were eyewitnesses. We simply do not know. This is unknowable to us.

 

Nice try, but it won't work. There many contemporary ccounts from eyewitnesses at Gettysburg that agree. The stories in the NT do not agree with each other. We have copies of the original speech that Lincoln gave. We have some of the speech in Lincoln own hand writing. All you have for the NT are stories that have gone through several retellings long after the fact and not even a hint that there might be any original writings from jesus.

 

No, there is no comparison.

 

Oh, no. While we have copies of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand, we have no evidence that these are the words, precisely, used that day and, in fact, there are minor variations even between copies in his hand. Two great books I'll recommend: The Gettysburg Gospel and Lincoln at Gettysburg.

 

-CC in MA

[Mythra]

So, what exactly does the Current Christian creed look like? I'm not jerkin your chain here, CC. I really want to know. Hard to figure out exactly where you're coming from. Whatever Jesus you worship is not the one I knew. Have you already posted this somewhere? If so, point me in the right direction.

 

If you haven't posted it and don't care to, I understand. Pug made the mistake of telling us about his monkey-god and caught all kinds of rude shit over it.

[Dave]

...

The bible is useless as a historical text. It is nothing more than a book containing the religious BELIEFS of one group of people. The main stories in the book, Genesis, all the wars in Numbers, King David, the Exodus, the whole jesus thing, and so on, never happened. They are not historical.

 

As you see it. Remember, others see things differently.

 

That is not "how I see it", those are facts. Those events did not occur.

 

There is evidence to prove they were not eye witnesses; they were not alive at the time. Come on, give me a break, you could at least read the history of the book. They were recording stories people heard from other people. Some weren't even doing that - they were copying, and embellishing stories written by the other authors.

 

Where is this evidence? There is none. Just as there is none to prove that they were eyewitnesses. We simply do not know. This is unknowable to us.

 

That's right, there is no evidence to support the bible. We do know many things that christian believers adamantly refuse, in spite of the evidence, to accept. Your slippery, double speak, here is absolute proof of that.

 

Oh, no. While we have copies of the Gettysburg Address in Lincoln's hand, we have no evidence that these are the words, precisely, used that day ....

 

Irrelevant derailing. The bible is in question here, not Lincoln. Your attempts at disputing known history but blindly believing obviously false history is very revealing. I guess that's why they call christianity a religion instead of reality.

[currentchristian]

That is not "how I see it", those are facts. Those events did not occur.

 

As you see the facts, yes.

 

That's right, there is no evidence to support the bible. We do know many things that christian believers adamantly refuse, in spite of the evidence, to accept. Your slippery, double speak, here is absolute proof of that.

There is much evidence to support much of the Bible. There is some evidence to disprove some of the Bible. There is no evidence that would cause one to throw out the general story of the New Testament, in terms of the human characters involved and the basic outline of the story sans miracles. Miracles, without CNN cameras and a medical staff there with MRI's and patient records, are faith.

 

 

 

Irrelevant derailing. The bible is in question here, not Lincoln. Your attempts at disputing known history but blindly believing obviously false history is very revealing. I guess that's why they call christianity a religion instead of reality.

 

Actually, not irrelevant derailing. I was simply correcting your error in which you seemed to think that we know precisely what Lincoln said at Gettysburg. We have a very good knowledge of what was spoken. But we do not have an exact knowledge. And we only have one photo of Lincoln there, by the way, and it's very blurry and you can't really make him out for sure, so I think that he wasn't there after all. Someone stood in for him. He actually died in 1862, not his son Willie. It was an imposter Lincoln running things until his alleged "assassination" in April 1865. And...and...

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

My view is that it is absolutely certain that Jesus existed and that he did great things. This I believe looking at the evidence. The "other stuff" I believe about Jesus is a result not of evidence, but of feeling, of faith, of feels-rightness.

 

 

CC, you know we like you and all, so please take this in this context. You are trying to put your position on the same ground as ours when you say that "you have your views and I have mine." This is just not the case though. We are not making the claim that Jesus did not exist, but rather claim that there is not enough valid evidence to know. MWC has laid out some very compelling arguments that challenge your position that I don't believe you have even come close to addressing. You on the other hand make a rather bold claim that you are certain that Jesus existed and did great things.

 

I won't cede you equal ground here and I don't think others participating in this thread will either. As Mythra so poignantly put it yesterday, what you know about Jesus comes from what you admit is a falible book. Your position is one built on faith, not evidence. It has to be.

 

Now, just because I don't cede you equal ground in your claims does not mean that I don't cede you equal ground as a human being with the right to believe that which he chooses.

[Vigile]

Jefferson was founder of the University of Virginia, author of the Declaration of Independence, first Secretary of State, third U.S. president ... in his lifetime. He died less than 200 years ago. Of course, we know a ton about Jefferson. He also wrote thousands of letters and used a "copying machine" to keep all of them in his files. See this little device here.

 

Same with Lincoln. He was president during his lifetime. He died just 142 years ago. We know so very much about him. Naturally.

 

And yet I have never met one person who refers to themself as Current Lincolnian or Current Jeffersonian. Why do you design your life around a psuedo-historical figure?

[Dave]

That is not "how I see it", those are facts. Those events did not occur.

 

As you see the facts, yes.

 

You're purposely missing the point. It's not how I see the facts, it's how historians, and open minded people see the facts, the reality of the situation. When you get past your dishonest position, we can continue.

[Dave]

...I won't cede you equal ground here and I don't think others participating in this thread will either....

 

That's exactly what he is trying to do and I won't give in to it either. Of course his position does not merit equal status since it is not based on the facts, but on a belief held in spite of the facts. He has the right to hold that belief if he so chooses, but I do not have to agree with his beliefs.

[Open_Minded]

Ahhemmm...... (cough... cough)

 

Has anyone - by chance - seen kriscmh around???????

[currentchristian]

CC, you know we like you and all, so please take this in this context. You are trying to put your position on the same ground as ours when you say that "you have your views and I have mine." This is just not the case though. We are not making the claim that Jesus did not exist, but rather claim that there is not enough valid evidence to know. MWC has laid out some very compelling arguments that challenge your position that I don't believe you have even come close to addressing. You on the other hand make a rather bold claim that you are certain that Jesus existed and did great things.

 

I won't cede you equal ground here and I don't think others participating in this thread will either. As Mythra so poignantly put it yesterday, what you know about Jesus comes from what you admit is a falible book. Your position is one built on faith, not evidence. It has to be.

 

Now, just because I don't cede you equal ground in your claims does not mean that I don't cede you equal ground as a human being with the right to believe that which he chooses.

 

We understand each other. No worry.

 

My training in history leads me to confidently assert that a man named Jesus lived during the timeframe of the first three decades of the first millennium CE. He was an extraordinary individual. He was a reformer, not unlike many others. He was assassinated. A religion evolved out of his teachings, primarily a result of the work of one named Paul. These statements of fact have nothing to do with faith. Nothing. They are reasonable conclusions from the record of history. Others can view the record otherwise, of course.

 

That Jesus was a miracle-worker, a healer, the son of God, resurrected, etc., one cannot prove by means of historical methods. It can only be stated that many of the first century of the first millennium CE held these views, as literal historical events. But one cannot, as a historian, affirm that the resurrection happened. Only as a matter of faith or belief or religion, can one make such claims.

 

We wear many hats in life: that of parents, children, uncles-aunts, historians, scientists, teachers, people of faith, etc. All modes of being and methods of inquiry are used at different times in different circumstances.

 

CC the historian asserts the existence of a human Jesus. CC the Christian asserts the existence of the son of God "dwelling among us."

 

CC the historian asserts the existence of Paul. CC the Christian embraces Paul as a "brother" and embraces as correct must of his understanding of the Jesus event.

 

Seems to me this is allowable.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

You're purposely missing the point. It's not how I see the facts, it's how historians, and open minded people see the facts, the reality of the situation. When you get past your dishonest position, we can continue.

 

I assert the following:

• I am not purposely missing any point.
  
• I am not dishonest.
  
• I am open minded.
  
• I'm not a historian, but I did earn an MA in history, and I have an understanding of the historical method.
  
• You are engaging in the locial fallacy called argumentum ad hominem.
  

Sorry for all those assertions, but that's how I see it, from my point of view, my perspective and my analysis of the facts at hand!!

 

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

And yet I have never met one person who refers to themself as Current Lincolnian or Current Jeffersonian. Why do you design your life around a psuedo-historical figure?

 

Oh, goodness yes, there are indeed Lincolnian ideas and philosophies. We have a Jeffersonian democracy. The Republican party is the "party of Lincoln." The Democrats trace their heritage to Jefferson.

 

These men are enshrined in bronze and marble and on canvas and on our money and in our hearts as Americans. We all look to the saints, however defined, to give us light along our path and courage in our walk.

 

We all do this. This is normal.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

So, what exactly does the Current Christian creed look like? I'm not jerkin your chain here, CC. I really want to know. Hard to figure out exactly where you're coming from. Whatever Jesus you worship is not the one I knew. Have you already posted this somewhere? If so, point me in the right direction.

 

If you haven't posted it and don't care to, I understand. Pug made the mistake of telling us about his monkey-god and caught all kinds of rude shit over it.

 

I find it interesting how the UU's claim to be a non-creedal group, when in fact their creed is: We have no creed. Except for......justice.......and.......peace.......and.......gay rights.......and.......and.......and........

 

We all have creeds.

 

The skeleton of mine is simple:

 

There is a Higher Power/Energy/God "in whom we move and have our being." We know little about this God, really, as he is, after all, God. He loves us and cares for us, but does seem to get a bit tense from time to time.

 

He best expressed himself in the avatar of Jesus of Nazareth. God/Energy/Force was "in Jesus" in a way we don't really understand for all the millions of words that have been written about it. Jesus is the "savior" (whatever that means) and the "resurrection and life" (whatever those mean).

 

Jesus was full of grace and truth and power. He was assassinated. But God/Force/Energy/Father had other plans and brought him back. He is the way to the Father, and we don't really understand what that means, either. One day, we'll be shown everything as it really is/was/will be. We will "know fully, just as we are now fully known."

 

 

-CC in MA