Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Christian In Name Only (why The Charade?)


Checkmate

Recommended Posts

This thread topic is SIMILAR to TexasFreethinker's “Why Do You Remain A Christian?,” yet I think it’s different enough in tone and substance that it warrants it’s own space.

 

My question is not “Why do you remain a Christian?,” but rather “Why do you insist on trying to pass yourself off as a Christian?” (When it’s painfully obvious that you aren’t any sort of “Christian.”)

 

As I learned back when I was a Christian, just because you park your bed in the garage that doesn’t make it a car. You can put a cat in the oven, but that doesn’t make it a biscuit. And just because you park your butt in a church pew, or wear a cross around your neck, or you live in a predominately “Christian” culture, or you think good thoughts about humanity, and are a "nice person" -- THAT doesn’t make you a “Christian.”

 

For many decades, both as an atheist and Christian, I’ve come across people who identify themselves as “Christian,” while simultaneously deploring and rejecting anywhere from 60 to 98 percent of the Christian doctrines. To hear their (anti) theology is almost like hearing the words of an unbelieving atheist or at least a deist. [Let the astute reader reflect and note those amongst us whose feet fit this shoe. I can think of at least FIVE off the top of my head.]

 

They regard most of the Bible as myth (particularly the Old Testament), they disagree with most (if not all) orthodox and fundamentalist teachings, they don’t believe in sin, nor hell, and they have a big problem accepting the cosmic ogre (God) they’re supposed to worship.

 

In fact, the ONLY thing they’re managed to hold onto during this religious purge, is “gentle Jesus, meek and mild.” (Even though many of them are familiar with the common origins “Jesus” shares with all the OTHER “crucified saviors” of myth and legend, they still pretend that they’ve got something unique and “real.”)

 

By their own admission these Modern Christians don’t consider themselves very “Christian,” nor are they even accepted by OTHER Christians. Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Presbyterians and Pentecostals consider these New Christians to be heretics, apostates, even atheists. Hell, by my reading, these Christians In Name Only don’t even make good Gnostics or Mormons.

 

So the question (rant?) of the day is: WHY BOTHER TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A “CHRISTIAN,” WHEN IT’S SO PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THAT YOU AREN’T ONE?!?!?

 

No one here is demanding that you become an atheist, just please stop the silly pretense of calling yourself “Christian.” It’s disingenuous and a bald-faced lie.

 

It’s also self-deprecating. The fact that you disagree with and reject Christian doctrines is a testament to your decency, goodness and un-common sense. Why, then slander/libel yourself with the insulting label of cretin/Christian? Why debase your good name by identifying yourself with a brain dead, religious cult? You’re obviously much better than that. [Note for the record: I just snuck in a COMPLIMENT!]

 

In summary,

 

1. “Christians” don’t think you’re a “Christian.”

2. Unbelievers don’t think you’re a “Christian.”

3. Even YOU don’t think you’re much of a “Christian.” (At least, not without drastically changing the definition of "Christian" to mean whatever YOU want it to mean.)

 

So…Why bother identifying yourself as a “Christian”? You’re not fooling anyone. For what gullible audience are you performing? Why continue with the charade when the cat is so clearly out of the bag? Is there some benefit or punishment of which I’m unaware that makes this continued pretense necessary? :twitch::shrug:

 

Edited to add:

 

“If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be... a Christian.” -- Mark Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks,

 

Total Edit.. There is now a Peanus, err, Peanut Gallery in which any of the ExC and non-sectarian folks can participate and comment in.

 

Please refrain from commenting in this threadline, I will be judicious and nuke those posts high enough to use as clays.

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summary,

 

1. “Christians” don’t think you’re a “Christian.”

2. Unbelievers don’t think you’re a “Christian.”

3. Even YOU don’t think you’re much of a “Christian.” (At least, not without drastically changing the definition of "Christian" to mean whatever YOU want it to mean.)

 

So…Why bother identifying yourself as a “Christian”? You’re not fooling anyone. For what gullible audience are you performing? Why continue with the charade when the cat is so clearly out of the bag? Is there some benefit or punishment of which I’m unaware that makes this continued pretense necessary? :twitch::shrug:

 

Edited to add:

 

“If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be... a Christian.” -- Mark Twain

Hello Mr. Grinch (Sorry - couldn't resist - it's Christmas time you know).

 

I'm not sure if I'm ..... :grin:

 

[Let the astute reader reflect and note those amongst us whose feet fit this shoe. I can think of at least FIVE off the top of my head.]

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that you would include me in that category .... ;)

 

But, I'm just checking in first, before I answer. If you do include me in that category - just let me know and I'll chime in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Im sure Im included in that post category and I do feel rather like one that has no real place to lay my head so to speak and call 'home' right now as so much has been challanged in me lately.

 

This has happened before in my life when 'universalism' became my belief as so much that I believed was knocked down and basically blown away.

 

I am right now in that season again where I feel much is being challanged and much is being revealed.

 

I have no idea what I will end up with at this point

 

and Im sure I do appear quite a mess and in fact in some ways I am.

 

I wanted you to know I saw this, read it and intend on giving you a much more detailed post in a bit. As Arnold says 'I will be baaack'

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open_Minded, how have you been, my dear? It's been a while since we've crossed theological swords, hasn't it?

 

Of course I don't mind being called Grinch. Everybody does it. It's who I am at heart anyway.

 

And to answer your query, YES, you're on my "short list" of "Christians In Name Only" (CINO). In fact YOURS was the first name to pop into my head when I was thinking of this thread and I was hoping you'd stop by for a chit chat. You're WAY too intelligent and decent to be sullied with the epithet "Christian" and frankly it pisses me off that you waste your time with such idiocy.

 

But that's enough from me. Enlighten me, o "rabble, rousing heretic" of the forum! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sojourner, greetings. This will be our first confrontation, but I've been keeping an eye upon your musings, so I feel I "know" you somewhat. Like my old nemesis, Open_Minded, I was indeed counting you in my list of CINOs. You seem like a decent sort and I find myself flabbergasted by decent, intelligent people who waste time with absolute nonsense (of ANY sort).

 

I look forward to reading what you have to say in defense of your position. I most assuredly won't agree with it, and will probably tear it to shreds, but I'll make every effort to NOT be abusive in the process. (I usually behave myself with Open_Minded around. She has some weird calming effect on me. :shrug: )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Where the hell is Amanda hiding?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open_Minded, how have you been, my dear? It's been a while since we've crossed theological swords, hasn't it?
Yes - Yes - Indeed --- :wicked: I'm looking forward to our conversation.

 

And to answer your query, YES, you're on my "short list" of "Christians In Name Only" (CINO). In fact YOURS was the first name to pop into my head when I was thinking of this thread and I was hoping you'd stop by for a chit chat.
WOW - I am honored to be the first on your short list - really - it is an honor. :)

 

You're WAY too intelligent and decent to be sullied with the epithet "Christian" and frankly it pisses me off that you waste your time with such idiocy.

 

But that's enough from me. Enlighten me, o "rabble, rousing heretic" of the forum! :HaHa:

Well... Mr. Grinch - thank you - but I wear the "Christian" label with more comfort these days than I ever have before. I do want to "enlighten" you and look forward to our discussion. But, tonight I must spend my time baking Christmas cookies. :grin:

 

But, I will be thinking of your questions the whole time and planning my response - and will have a first response for you within a day, or two.

 

In Peace:

 

O_M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi checkmate,

 

If the term christian is defined by fundamentalist beliefs I would not be able to wear the name. There are many things that I dont agree with as you have pointed out. Penal substitutional theory of the cross, eternal torment, the devil is basically the owner of all men but the select few or the ones smart enough to choose God, all the above I do not believe.

 

However, to be a christian you must believe in Jesus Christ, correct? And he is still a very real part of my life. Not just as a man that lived 2000 years ago, died and was resurrected but as a reality that incorporates all life. He to me is more than just a man but a Way, a Truth and Life. He is the living breathing logos that permeates all life to me and connects all things. He is the leaven that leavened the whole lump if you will.

 

Here is why I still call myself 'christian universalist' as far as bible verses are concerned:

 

1) Eph 1:11.....God works all after the counsel of His will

 

2) Jn 8:29.....Jesus always does which pleases His Father

 

3) 1Tim 2:4.....God will have all to be saved

 

4) 1Jn4:14.....Jesus sent to be the Savior of the World

 

5) Jn 12:47.....Jesus came to save all

 

6) 1Tim 2:6.....Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all

 

7) Jn5:36.....He'll finish the works He was sent to do

 

8) Jn 4:42.....Jesus is the Savior of the world

 

9) Jn 12:32.....Jesus will draw all to Himself

 

10) Heb 7:25.....Jesus is able to save to the uttermost

 

11) Col 1:15.....Jesus the first born of all creation

 

12) Col 1:16.....By Him all things were created

 

13) Rm 5:15-21.....In Adam all condemned, in Christ all live

 

14) 1Cor 15:22.....In Adam all die, in Christ All live

 

15) Eph 1:10.....All come into Him at the fullness of times

 

16) 1Cor 15:26.....Last enemy, death, will be destroyed

 

17) Phl 2:9-11.....Every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord

 

18) 1Cor 12:3......Cannot confess except by the Holy Ghost

 

19) Rm 11:26.....All Israel shall be saved

 

20) Acts 3:20-21.....Restitution (reconstitution) of all

 

21) Lk 2:10.....Jesus will be the joy to all people

 

22) Eph 2:7.....His grace to be shown in the ages to come

 

23) Heb 8:11-12.....All will know God

 

24) Lk 3:6.....All flesh shall see the salvation of God

 

25) Titus 2:11.....Grace has appeared to all

 

26) Rm 8:19-21.....Creation freed from corruption

 

27) Col 1:20.....All reconciled unto God

 

28) 1Cor 4:5.....All will have praise of God

 

29) Jms 5:11.....End of the Lord is full of mercy

 

30) Rev 15:4.....All nations worship when judgments seen

 

31) 11Cor 5:17.....New creation in Christ (eph1:10)

 

32) Rm 11:32.....All subjected to unbelief, mercy on all

 

33) Rm 11:36.....All out of God, thru Him, and into Him

 

34) Eph 4:10.....Jesus will fill all things

 

35) Rev 5:13.....All creation seen praising God36) 1Cor 15:28.....God will be all in all

 

37) Rev 21:4-5.....No more tears, all things made new

 

38) Jn 5:28.....All dead who hear will live

 

39) Jn 5:28.....All in the grave will hear and come forth

 

40) 1Cor 3:15.....All saved, yet so as by fire

 

41) Mk 9:49.....Everyone will be salted with fire

 

42) Rm 11:15.....Reconciliation of the world

 

43) 11Cor 5:15.....Jesus died for all

 

44) Heb 2:2.....He is the heir of all things

 

45) Jn 3:35.....All has been given into His hand

 

46) Jn 17:2.....Jesus will give eternal life to all

 

47) Jn 6:44-45.....All to be taught of God and will come

 

48) 1Tim 4:9-11.....Jesus is the Savior of all

 

49) Acts 13:47.....Salvation unto the ends of the earth

 

Therefore, I see all men in belong to God and all men will know this at some point whether on this side of the grave or beyond it.

 

However, my life as a 'christian universalist' is not merely defined by these bible verses but by inner experience.

 

In 2000 in the middle of the night after 17 years as a church going christian as I was awake and alone in my living room I became overwhelmed by the presence of God and suddenly it was as if my whole being was consumed with a knowing and intimacy with all mankind, that ALL creation began and ended with God. That every man belonged to God and even if they didn’t know this it wouldn’t change the fact that they belong to God and will one day come to know that.

 

For a couple of months I lived and breathed a different realm. Everywhere I looked there was life and light as I could not see the old realm if you will. I looked on every man I came upon with a love that would often bring me to my knees with tears and just thankfulness that Id never known. Everyone was suddenly precious to me from the hardened criminal that seemed beyond hope to the most innocent child. I could hug them all with a real love that I could not claim before that visitation. I still do see all mankind as my family, my relations and I truly feel connected to people everywhere I go. I so believed my new knowing that I decided I would search and see if this knowing had a name and could at all be biblical as I was after all a christian, and it did ‘Christian Universalism’ or ‘Ultimate Reconciliation’. I began to study it and found much that agreed with what I felt was living and breathing inside my own spirit and heart. I knew from that night that eternal torment was a lie but had no idea there were actually christians that also believed it was a lie. So I have since 2000 lived my life as a christian universalist.

 

I don’t understand the mystery of Jesus Christ fully but I do still believe that he lived, died and rose from the dead. The reason I believe this is not so much based on history but is the same inner witness within me of how the word operates within. Over and over the Logos, the word, manifests the same way in my life, it comes to me in a twinkling if you will of greater knowing, it dies as I try and grasp it with my own understanding but then suddenly it is raised up within me and it becomes life and understanding in me. This is the process that witnesses his life to me within me. It is how I experience life. I see this Logos, this living word in all existence. I feel one with it in the center of my being. This oneness is so real to me that I believe all Gods creation exists thru this Logos or Word. I feel connected to this life, this word is like the leaven that leavened the whole lump to me.

 

I do not and can not reconcile an angry vengeful God with the God that lives in my life. Therefore, not only do I not believe in eternal torment but also I do not believe in penal substitution. Where there is an angry God that is so ticked off at mankind for sin that He must take out His anger on the innocent and will not be satisfied till He beats His own son and kills him, then can now accept the rest of mankind because His holy justice and wrathful anger has now been satisfied. To me that is a false gospel and is just as false as eternal torment.

 

I am not a jew either so I don’t relate to the whole blood sacrificing and the cross does not speak to me on that level although I understand that view.

 

I am coming to the cross if you will as a gentile.

 

I see two men in the bible metaphorically, the first Adam and the last Adam and their respective members. The first Adam took all men into death (death being cut off from this wonderful knowing and connectedness to Life and God.) and Jesus as the second man and last Adam taking all men THRU death and coming out the other side to resurrection life. I see the cross metaphorically as a worm to butterfly aspect. Just as the tomb would be the cocoon if you will. Just as I described how this inner knowing of life or logos works within me. I believe in resurrection. I believe that in Christ my old life the one where I was so blind to good, to life, to real love, to the connectedness to all life that I now have, that blindness died with him and I am now on the other side of that death of mind that unconnectedness to Life and God and will come all the way thru death to immortality. But more than waiting on some immortality, I see life all around and in me. I feel very much a part of this life and it speaks to me constantly. I don’t just find this life in the bible alone but in all kinds of books, philosophies, movies, nature and for that matter creation.

 

I have no idea where I will be a year from now in my beliefs as I feel I don’t know much more than I do know. I feel as if I can find this living word being spoken in the oldest writings we have. It seems to me the same story has been told over and over, names changing and such since the beginning. The story of a Savior, death, resurrection into immortality. It’s seen over and over again thru the stories of many religions. Why is that? Now you hear folks say that is because Christianity is a rip off, just a religion that plagiarized its way to the top of the heap. But I don’t see it that way at all but rather that everything tells the same heroic story that is also seen in the life of Jesus Christ because it is the truth.

 

When I stumbled on this site it was over a search on something to do with eternal torment or hell. I dont really recall but I began reading the thread that popped up from my search. In it I found a whole lot I agreed with so I began to investigate further and found a lot more that I agreed with. Basically I do agree with quite a lot that I read here but, I also dont agree with a lot as well.

 

I remain here now mainly because I really do feel a love for the people here, I enjoy being with you all and I can relate to your distaste for much of what is taught in christianity.

 

but I am a christian universalist at this time in my life

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sojourner,

 

That was quite the lengthy reply. Kudos for the sincere effort, but shame on you for making me read a novel. Now my eyes hurt. :vent::HaHa:

 

I will reply in BRIEF (yeah, right!) to what I perceived to be the overall theme of your missive, and return another time in an attempt to deal with other assorted single issues you've raised. (Or maybe not. They may not be relevant.)

 

In essence, you received some sort of epiphany -- understanding that all mankind is worthy of your love and you've decided to treat everyone with respect. Goodie for you. One problem: Why did you ASSUME and INSIST that this revelation moment HAD to be "god"/"Jesus's" doing? What you've just described is simply humanism with a side dish of religious hokum. Totally unnecessary.

 

You describe yourself as a "Christian universalist." (You remind me of Open_Minded and her "Contemplative Christian" jive.) You're both playing fast and loose with the adjective "Christian" -- adjusting the word "Christian" to fit your particular mold -- when there is NO REASON to do so.

 

If your great love for mankind transcends ALL, then why must you alienate everyone with the pejorative "Christian"? Why isn't universalism a suitable stand-alone doctrine? The belief in a deity and the fellowship of man, without all the divisive and confusing baggage of "Christianity" (or any other religious handicaps).

 

In fact, isn't "Christian Universalist" a contradiction of terms? How can your "universalism" be so myopically MONOtheistic? In an effort to bring credibility to your position, you've only made it more absurd.

 

I don't want to get into any discussion of what makes a True Christian. It's evident that after 2,000 years and 34,000 denominations and sects later that you people are VERY confused on the issue. (Y'see THEY didn't like "Christianity" either, and THEY decided to change it, too.) My question, which has yet to be answered, is a separate issue.

 

Why bother with "Christianity"? The feelings, experiences and impressions you've described are not unique to "Christianity." Nor even to religion. Meditation, drugs, therapy, good music, movies and comic book reading have been known to elicit the exact same reaction of fellowship for mankind. Why go out of your way to label your experiences "Christian"? I don't think it helps at all.

 

If you were to introduce yourself as a "Univeralist", then I'd say "Hi, pleased to meet you." Toss that word "Christian" in front of it, and I'll say, "What the hell are you babbling about?" Then we'd spend endless hours (much like we're doing now) arguing and haggling about the retarded religion of Christianity -- when neither one of us believes in it -- instead of celebrating the oneness of Mankind that your Universalism proposes.

 

Okay, that's it. I wanted to be "brief," not write a counter-novel. I'll return tomorrow and look over your words again with fresh eyes. Maybe I'll need to add to or adjust my response accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summary,

 

1. “Christians” don’t think you’re a “Christian.”

2. Unbelievers don’t think you’re a “Christian.”

3. Even YOU don’t think you’re much of a “Christian.” (At least, not without drastically changing the definition of "Christian" to mean whatever YOU want it to mean.)

 

So…Why bother identifying yourself as a “Christian”? You’re not fooling anyone. For what gullible audience are you performing? Why continue with the charade when the cat is so clearly out of the bag? Is there some benefit or punishment of which I’m unaware that makes this continued pretense necessary?

 

1. “Christians” don’t think you’re a “Christian.”

 

Well – not all Christians think I am a TRUE Christian, that’s for sure. But, there are many Christians who consider themselves Universalist. As my signature states – “Reading the Bible literally is NOT a requirement of Christianity”.

 

2. Unbelievers don’t think you’re a “Christian”

 

Again – I suppose that depends on the definition of “Christian”. I suppose if one has only been exposed to a fundamentalist, rigid form of Christianity – then unbelievers certainly would not consider me Christian.

 

But, I know many unbelievers who call me Christian – some in my own family. :grin:

 

My upbringing exposed me to many things from rigid and fundamentalist Catholicism to more mainstream beliefs all the way to liberal Christianity as well as a father gravitating between Agnosticism and Atheism for many years. (He considers himself liberal Christian now). So – again – if a non-believer understands that “Reading the Bible literally is NOT a requirement of Christianity” then that non-believer would be able to call me a Christian with a straight face. ;)

 

3. Even YOU don’t think you’re much of a “Christian.” (At least, not without drastically changing the definition of "Christian" to mean whatever YOU want it to mean.)

 

Well –what – exactly - is the definition of “Christian”? As many have pointed out on this very board – there are as many ways of being Christian, as many ways of reading the Bible, as many ways of understanding Jesus as there are Christians. There are very few things most (maybe all) Christians would agree on.

 

Sojourner mentioned the Logos. I think that most (if not all) Christians would agree that a central premise of their faith is that Jesus Christ is the Logos – the Word made Flesh. I spoke to this in one of our earliest sparring matches. You may remember the The Silly-Putty® Bible… thread?

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=108991

 

I’ll quote for purposes of this thread – but reading the context of this quote may shed light on my approach to Christianity.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 
3. Can we have totally contradictory beliefs and still both be "saved?"
Well first understand that I question (and completely disagree with) the fundamentalist concept of being “saved”. Having said that, my answer to your question would be, “yes”.

 

 
4. Why you feel the need to call yourself a Christian instead of choosing the label of another group?
This is the most difficult question for me to answer BECAUSE it is not my intent to offend anyone, or to suggest that since I experience things the way I do you should as well. So PLEASE remember that I recognize the subjectivity of my own experiences.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So…Why bother identifying yourself as a “Christian”? You’re not fooling anyone. For what gullible audience are you performing? Why continue with the charade when the cat is so clearly out of the bag? Is there some benefit or punishment of which I’m unaware that makes this continued pretense necessary?

 

Mr. Grinch – I hope the above has helped answer some of your questions. But, it seems you’re looking for something more elusive than a theological reason…..

 

1st – I don’t feel it is a charade at all. There was a time in my life where I did not consider myself Christian. I do now. The journey back has not always been easy. But, as I said earlier, I am more comfortable claiming the title “Christian” now than I ever have been. And – part of the reason I am more comfortable in my own skin as a Christian – is this board and all of you. :grin:

 

All of you have taught me so much. I’ve learned so much on this board – even life with my Father and all his questioning in my earlier years – even all my intentional association with people of different faiths, even with all of that – you have still all taught me so much. And – now after exposure to so many views different from my own – I still feel comfortable as Christian.

 

I write these things after a very difficult year on a personal level – if a year in my life could cause me to question my self-identity as a Christian – this year certainly could have. And, yet, during the most wearing and tragic personal experiences what has given me strength and comfort is the awareness that we are all part of a ONEness which both transcends and infuses us. Like Sojourner – “This oneness is so real to me that I believe all Gods creation exists thru this Logos or Word.”

 

For me this LOGOS is intimately connected with Christ – and there is great comfort in being aware of WISDOM/LOVE within all – through all – beyond all.

 

Even the staunchest Atheist scientist acknowledges the ultimate ONEness of all that is. The difference is that in ONEness I see intent and awareness and consciousness. The Atheist does not – this part of the reason he/she considers him/herself Atheist.

 

But, for me, this is the LOGOS. For, me (I suppose because I was raised with the language and tradition of Christianity) I see this LOGOS infleshed in all of creation – and Christ is how I connect with this. So – exactly what should I call myself?

 

What should I call myself when I pray and affirm that we ALL live and breathe and have our being IN Christ?

 

What should I call myself when I am sitting in a room and become inwardly - and very concretely - aware of infinite LOVE/WISDOM infused in all of creation and the first words that enter my mind are Christ and Logos?

 

What should I call myself when I am fretting over my young adult children and my very first response is to affirm that the Wisdom and Love of Christ lives within them – that they have all the infinite strength and wisdom and grace and love they need to meet the requirements? :shrug:

 

In short - I don't know what else to call myself besides "Christian". For me - it is the only label that "fits".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O_M and sojourner:

 

I read though your posts (again), and I’m prepared to make a statement.

 

So many thoughtful replies. It’s unfortunate that none of them are on point. Maybe it’s my fault for being unclear. Doubtful, but I’ll try again. This time I’ll use an analogy. It’s TOTALLY unfair and over the top, but it gets my point across.

 

I’ll assume for the sake of argument that we are all familiar with Nazi Germany and the Swastika? Goodie.

 

What if today there were some Germans who sought to rehabilitate the image of the German people by having a Nazi revival? Using all sorts of humanistic themes and promoting health, welfare and understanding, these Modern Nazis try to unite the world under the banner of the swastika.

 

How do you think the watching world would respond?

 

Now, these New Nazis aren’t violent. In fact, they are totally pleasant. They don’t endorse crossbreeding, but they aren’t into extermination of the races any longer. And this is a good thing. But still, do you think anyone will accept them under the moniker of “Nazi”?

 

Hell no. In fact, it will be most sternly suggested that they find another name and banner to rally under, since the name Nazi and the swastika have a HUGE PR problem.

 

You see, the problem is NOT their attitude, but the confusion and anger that is attached to the name and symbol.

 

Likewise is the hurdle that faces Christianity, the cross, the Bible and yes, Jesus.

 

O_M, you asked what should you call yourself? What “label” fits you? What about HUMAN? That works for me. Or how about simply “contemplative” or “gnostic”? You’d be doing the EXACT same things, only without confusing people with the god-man on the stick fable that ISN’T RELEVANT TO YOUR GOALS and only gets in the way. (Want proof? Just look around.)

 

Why are people, who claim to be for integration and universalism, so keen on adopting LABELS that cause division and strife?

 

Personally, I dislike the term “atheist.” I think it’s confusing, divisive and a conversation stopper. I don’t believe in LOTS of things, but I’m not referred to as, say, “a-unicornist”, or “a-lepracaunist”, or “a-ghostist.” I’m a human (sometimes) and you’re a human and we all want peace and goodwill.

 

Why can’t we leave it at that? Why adopt LABELS that merely serve to confuse and set up barriers to communication? Identifying oneself a “Christian” anything is as much a buzz kill as identifying oneself as an atheist. Both ideologies represent extremism, and they are NOT conducive to establishing a middle ground of tolerance or acceptance.

 

I don’t see anything wrong with either of you being “gnostics,” “universalists” or “humanists.” Bringing mankind together, promoting acceptance and tolerance is The Dream. Your ideals and practices aren’t all that different than those of skeptics.

 

O_M, you mentioned your belief in the Logos, which means “wisdom”. What you have hold of there is a kind of GNOSTICISM. (Formerly known as Gnostic “Christianity” ironically.) From what I know of them and from what I’ve read of you, you’re in the same ballpark as the Gnostics. They were all about bringing wisdom and unity to mankind THROUGH the Logos. Not through “Jesus”, but through WISDOM. The Wisdom (Logos) of God was to bring “salvation” (saved from self-destructive stupidity mostly) to mankind through TEACHINGS, not by believing by faith in Christ and him crucified. "The Word made flesh" was insanity to the Gnostics.

 

They didn’t believe all of this virgin birth, sacrificial atonement, death on the cross and resurrection BS, which is what got them burned by the orthodox assholes. If I were to have remained a god-believer, I’d be a Gnostic. It dovetails neatly with humanism. So, you see, I don’t have any problem with most of what you believe, per se. (Just leave the dead Jew on a stick fetish outside with the dogs, okay? THAT is an Orthodox Catholic add-on and a perversion of Gnosticism.)

 

So now…Why do you insist on further confusing the landscape by identifying yourself with the unnecessary adjective “Christian”? Particularly when, as we all agree, “Christian” can mean at least 35,000 different things. You aren’t exactly using clear speech when you say “I’m a Christian,” as we’ve amply demonstrated. It only raises eyebrows and puts people on the defensive. You wind up defending a whole host of ideas that you don’t even embrace. You could have avoided this train wreck simply by leaving “Christian” off your letter head.

 

Why isn’t being a “contemplative” or a “universalist” good enough for you? Why screw with a good thing? Why add a (discredited) label that will only inflame passions and cause unneeded confusion and strife between you and those you’re trying to reach? (And yes, the counter argument can be made against “atheist,” but that’s a battle that me and Sam Harris are fighting. Not your problem.)

 

So…clear as mud, now? Or should I call in Alice to translate? She’s so very good at translating “Grinch” into English. :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now…Why do you insist on further confusing the landscape by identifying yourself with the unnecessary adjective “Christian”? Particularly when, as we all agree, “Christian” can mean at least 35,000 different things. You aren’t exactly using clear speech when you say “I’m a Christian,” as we’ve amply demonstrated. It only raises eyebrows and puts people on the defensive. You wind up defending a whole host of ideas that you don’t even embrace. You could have avoided this train wreck simply by leaving “Christian” off your letter head.

 

Why isn’t being a “contemplative” or a “universalist” good enough for you? Why screw with a good thing? Why add a (discredited) label that will only inflame passions and cause unneeded confusion and strife between you and those you’re trying to reach? (And yes, the counter argument can be made against “atheist,” but that’s a battle that me and Sam Harris are fighting. Not your problem.)

 

So…clear as mud, now? Or should I call in Alice to translate? She’s so very good at translating “Grinch” into English. :lmao:

 

Hello Mr. Grinch .... as always you get right to the point. :grin:

 

As much as I admire Alice - and her gracious way with words - I think I can handle this one.

 

As - you mention (and we all agree) "Christian" can mean at least 35,000 different things. You're right - you know - that I'm not exactly using clear speech when I say, "I'm a Christian".

 

But, hey, it makes one think, doesn't it??? If someone asks me, and I say, "I'm Christian" - then sometimes we have a discussion (like you and I are having now) and both of us are required to think - to get out of our respective boxes, are we not? And if they don't ask, and choose only to let it go in one ear and out the other - then they know Christianity through me - through my actions. And that is a requirement to think, as well ... to get out of one's usual way of framing things.

 

And if I run into other Christians, and their views are different than mine - well - then they have to grapple with me. They have to grapple with my presence and the presence of others like myself within their midst. And that is work - it is work for both of us - and the work isn't all bad either, sometimes we grow from the work. Like my sister always says of the Catholic church that she goes to, "I'm not going to make it easy on them and leave". In part she stays because her presence there makes them uncomfortable, and a few of them may just become uncomfortable enough to think - to question and to grow.

 

But, hey - to summarize -

 

Top 10 Reasons to Label Oneself Liberal Christian:

 

10. I can put up a manger and Christmas tree in the living room, play Christmas music, bake Christmas cookies and honor the idea that within every human heart dwells the infinite possibility of a virgin birth of love and wisdom.

 

9. I get to go to church every Sunday - yes - for me this is a good thing - I like the people at my church and they like me. :)

 

8. I get to participate in interfaith dialog (as a Christian) and represent an branch of Christianity that is more open and very beautiful.

 

7. Because I really do think that Jesus is the Word made Flesh.

 

6. Because I really do find comfort in much of the gospel message - the sermon on the Mount for one.

 

5. Because I really do look at the cross and see a vicarious suffering - not all that different from vicarious suffering in other traditions. What Gandhi did in India was vicarious suffering. Buddhists also have a tradition of vicarious suffering, if memory serves me correctly, one of the highest calls within Buddhism is to continue re-incarnating to ease the suffering of other sentient beings.

 

4. Because Christianity is more than most people give it credit for, or think of it.

 

For example: A poll done by the Pew Forum shows that -
An overwhelming majority (75%) say that many religions can lead to eternal life, compared with only 18% who regard their own religion as the “one true faith.”
Those with a high level of religious commitment are more likely to see their own faith as the only path to eternal life.
Still, nearly half of highly committed white evangelical Protestants (48%) say many religions can lead to eternal life
. -
http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/religion.pdf

 

3. Because calling myself Christian and taking the stands that I take makes me part of the solution - part of dragging the fundy doctrines out in the open and exposing them for what they are.

 

2. Because the Fundy Christians have to deal with me :wicked:

 

And.... the NUMBER ONE REASON for calling myself a liberal Christian......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Because it pisses Mr. Grinch off. :lol:Just kidding - I was calling myself "Christian" long before I met you. But, it is a nice bonus - don't you think? ;)

_______________________________________

Do these points answer your questions Mr. Grinch ???

 

 

Oh... I almost forgot.... one other thing.... you said:

 

Personally, I dislike the term “atheist.” I think it’s confusing, divisive and a conversation stopper.

 

and

 

Why screw with a good thing? Why add a (discredited) label that will only inflame passions and cause unneeded confusion and strife between you and those you’re trying to reach? (And yes, the counter argument can be made against “atheist,” but that’s a battle that me and Sam Harris are fighting. Not your problem.)

You're right - not my problem - but I have this great story - just bear with me..... ok........

 

 

My folks both come from devout, fundy Catholic families. You know their whole story - I'm sure - I've told it many times on this board. But, to make a long story short - they both left the Catholic church when I was a young teen. And - as so many of you know on this board - paid a price with their respective families.

 

My mom considers herself more of a Deist now but also a Christian. My Dad is a Christian in the sense that I am. But, he wavered for many years between agnosticism and atheism.

 

Well.... anyway... Mom's very strict Catholic sister died some months ago. Mom went to the funeral and ran into relatives she'd not seen in decades. One of those relatives was a distant cousin of hers whom the last Mom knew had been a nun - and very fundy to boot.

 

So... anyway... this woman isn't a nun anymore. And everyone is going through the food line. Mom is across the buffet table from this cousin of hers and several other relatives. And everyone is making conversation as they move through the food line. Mom - is uncomfortable - it's in a Catholic church - she's surrounded by fundy, rigid Catholics, her only comrades are my father, my sister and one of my cousins. Otherwise - they're pretty much out numbered. So, all of them are just making small talk, moving through the line and listening to others converse. And across the table is this distant cousin of Mom's who is no longer a nun. And one of Mom's rigidly Catholic sisters is making small talk and asking this former nun about the last 20-30 years of her life. At one point my Mom's sister says to this former nun, "So, after you left the convent, what did you do.... are you still Catholic or did you join a different church????"

 

And this former nun says something like, "I'm not Catholic, or even Christian, I'm Atheist"..... :funny:

 

Talk about a conversation stopper - needless to say my folks joined the former nun for lunch... :wicked: And you didn't think there were any advantages to labeling oneself Atheist or Liberal Christian...... :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, lots o' words, O_M. Allow me to take out my machete and cut through the vines to get to The Point...

 

You seem to delight in causing people to think. THAT appears to be your overarching goal for using "Christian." Well, THAT is simply nonsense. By introducing yourself as a "contemplative", or "gnostic", or "universalist", OR "atheist" (as you noted) you will achieve those same ends. People will be FORCED to question and engage their brains. So what purpose does it TRULY serve to add the word "Christian"? From my vantage point, you've only added confusion.

 

For example...You (and sojourner) keep reminding us that you aren't like those wacky fundies, who believe in the "penal substitutionary" message of the cross. You don't believe in hell and god's judgment, etc., etc. HOWEVER, you DO claim to believe in Jesus' virgin birth, his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven.

 

:twitch:

 

Um...excuse me, but what IS the "message of the cross" if NOT all that? YOU said you believe that Jesus is the Word made flesh. (An orthodox church doctrine. I thought you were trying to distinguish yourself from THOSE people?) Well, how can you believe that AND disregard what it means?!? The entire message of the orthodox church teachings of the cross, Jesus, salvation, atonement, death, hell and heaven is an all-in-one package! It makes ZERO sense to claim that YOU believe in Jesus' crucifixion, BUT you don't believe in what it means. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too!

 

It's like saying that you believe in democracy, but you don't think voting is wise. Or it's like saying that you love hamburger, but you're against killing cows.

 

You can't separate the two! Nor can you divorce yourself from FUNDY (orthodox) doctrine, whilst holding aloft Jesus on his cross. They go hand in glove, and to claim anything different is simply being disingenuous. This isn't an example of "cherry picking", but of psychosis!

 

You want to call yourself a "Christian"? Fine. Do so. Just don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining. "The message of the cross" is the SAME for you, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps AND the Pope. When you take on the doctrine of "Christ crucified", then you are saying that you buy into ALL the same INSANE stuff as the rest. If you don't like that? Then DON'T CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN! ("A believer in Christ AND his crucifixion, i.e. the ATONEMENT/substitutionary death to keep man from going to hell.")

 

Oh, and as for your "Top 10 Reasons"? :twitch: Makes ZERO sense. As an ATHEIST I can do all those things, too. And I don't need to lie to myself and others in the process. And as a "contemplative", so could you.

 

I'm gonna stop now, because I'm typing in anger, and I don't want to be angry with you. I'll be back later, after I've calmed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi checkmate and OpenMinded,

 

I am not abandoning this thread but I am getting ready to receive company today! I am very excited as my Dad is coming to visit from out of state. So I will be very busy. I will come back to this when I have time to give it the proper attention.

 

I thank you and will return to pop in and out and read bits as I can but wait to respond till I have enough time to do so.

 

Sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example...You (and sojourner) keep reminding us that you aren't like those wacky fundies, who believe in the "penal substitutionary" message of the cross. You don't believe in hell and god's judgment, etc., etc. HOWEVER, you DO claim to believe in Jesus' virgin birth, his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven.

 

WHOA... Mr. Grinch - I do NOT believe in Jesus' virgin birth. I (subjectively) "see" in Jesus the WORD/LOGOS made flesh. There is a difference. :angry:

 

 

I'm going to slow down here and think before I type as well, Mr. Grinch - because I do like you.

 

But, for the record, I don't go around on the street advertising that I am Christian. I go to church on Sundays, that is about all my friends and neighbors know of my spiritual life. That - and my name is occasionally in the paper affiliated with interfaith activities.

 

I don't have one of those stupid fish on my car.

 

I don't wear a cross - not because the cross means nothing to me (it does) but because I don't generally feel the need to advertise my beliefs.

 

I don't have Christian bumper stickers - I don't have ANY bumper stickers - as I don't feel the need to advertise my beliefs political, religious or otherwise. If I did have a bumper sticker - it wouldn't be Christian - it would be one I saw ages ago and chuckled at: "Condalisa Rice: Proof that the world wouldn't operate any better run by a woman".

 

I AM Christian - I do NOT advertise and WEAR a damn label. There is a difference. You see me labeled as Christian because that is part and partial of the particular forum we know each other on.

 

You may not like the fact that I consider myself Christian, but don't mistake wearing a label and broadcasting ones beliefs with actually being something. You - yourself have said there are thousands of ways to be a Christian, the way I am a Christian is shared by many.

 

You ask "why the charade"? It's not a charade to me - not at all. I'm generally not the type of person to put on a show. It took me years to come back to Christianity and I've not always felt comfortable in the skin of Christianity - but here I am Mr. Grinch - still calling myself Christian.

 

You said -

 

You're WAY too intelligent and decent to be sullied with the epithet "Christian" and frankly it pisses me off that you waste your time with such idiocy.
Why does it piss you off so much Mr. Grinch?

 

Why should it impact you one way or another how I (or anyone else) self-identifies. Notice I said "self-identifies" not "labels" there is a difference. I don't advertise what/or who I am - I live it (political beliefs, religious beliefs, parenting beliefs, etc....) people know these things about me because they see them play out in my life - not because I have a label and push it under people's noses. And - if occasionally - someone figures out I'm liberal Christian and they happen to be a fundy and are forced to deal with my presence then - there is learning in that (for both of us) and that's o.k. with me.

 

I do have more to say - but it can wait until we've both had time to think things through.

 

In Peace:

 

O_M

 

P.S.

 

Mr. Grinch - you wrote:

 

HOWEVER, you DO claim to believe in Jesus' virgin birth, his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven.

 

Again - I don't believe in the literal virgin birth - I recognize the mythology around these stories.

 

2nd - you may want to refresh your memory on the way I view the crucifixion, resurrection, etc....

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=126800

 

Well.... let me start by saying that literalism really got in the way for me, for a very long time. But, as I studied other world religions in conjunction with the Christian scriptures I began to see commonalities. For instance... the literalists interpretation of the cross and resurrection. I hate the way it this is all so concrete in the church, still in 2005. But, it is and I could never reconcile a God of Love needing a blood sacrifice to compensate for all the "sins" in the world.

 

But as I studied other world religions I began to see that every tradition recognizes human suffering in one way or another. Buddhism, for example, has the �Four Noble Truths� � (1) There is pain and suffering in the world. (2) Attachment causes suffering. (3) The suffering will cease when a person can rid him/her self of all desires. (4) The extinguishing of all desires.

 

And as I began to read writings from the liberal end of Christianity, as well as writings from Christian contemplatives I began to see that there was another way to view the cross and the resurrection. The cross can be looked at as a dying to one's "false self" and the resurrection as new life within as the "true self" rises up from within. Over time Easter has become a very important time of year for me, lent is a time of spiritual/meditative disciplines. I think, in general, humans have ritualized and moved to religions and dogma because of some inate need to have patterns in their life and world. The religious holidays, if released from literal interpretation, can take on great significance to a contemplative. They are times of renewal and refreshing of common disciplines.

 

See... when one really embarks on a meditative journey, there are other disciplines as well as daily meditation. The belief that pain comes from physical attachments, the idea of a "false self" can be found in all meditative traditions. In earlier centuries these beliefs led to excesses in releasing oneself from physical attachments and ridding oneself of the "false self". But, overall the human meditative traditions have matured enough to recognize the legitimacy of "attachment" without going to the extremes seen in earlier centuries.

 

Anyway the lenten season and Easter are times of returning to and analyzing ones efforts throughout the year to be less attached, less involved with the emotional swings that come with viewing reality through the "false self".

 

And .....

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=127441

To make a long story short... as an adult.... when I found myself connecting with Christianity again the hardest part for me was the cross. It still is, and in many ways I don't know if I will ever come to complete terms with it. But, I can tell you what my own path has been like.

 

Very early I had to make a decision for myself whether Jesus really did live, really did die on the cross, etc... Since I had studied - in depth - the archealogical history of the New Testament I've known for years that an objective person could look at the New Testament stories and go many ways. They could be written off as an oral tradition of stories, not fact. They could be accepted as literal - and one could write off the archealogy. Or they could be viewed as an oral tradition around a concrete figure in history named Jesus.

 

I chose the third option. In my mind Jesus did live and he did die on the cross. That made it almost harder Antlerman, because then I couldn't write off the cross as a myth - I had to deal with it up front. In the end - I landed back where I had as a teenager. If people in the 1st century after Christ chose to interpret the cross as a blood sacrifice - that is their choice. In this century it does not have to be my choice. Again context is so very important - Jesus died on a cross at a time in history where people regularly made blood sacrifices to their gods. It would only make sense that his followers would see his death as the ultimate blood sacrifice.

 

Over time the cross has taken on more depth to me. As I said earlier - I really do believe there is an interconnectedness at the core of creation. And I have come to believe that we are all interconnected; that we participate in each others Isness, or Being. This means we can be aware, on very subtle levels, of the joy in creation as well as the suffering in creation. We don't get to choose the joy in creation and leave the suffering. They are two sides to the experience of interconnectedness. In the end I've come to see the cross experience as a vicarious suffering experience. And my study of other world traditions and inter-faith dialogs have taught me that Christianity is not the only religion to acknowledge vicarious suffering.

 

And.....

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=128579

 

So, as to my beliefs. They are not that straight-forward. My user name - Open_Minded - describes my approach to these issues. Since - objectively speaking - it is impossible to know 1. whether Jesus lived, 2. if Jesus did die on a cross, and 3. what his thoughts were - one NEEDS to keep an open mind.

 

Because of these objective facts the best one can do is look at context.

 

Jesus was a man of his time and place - seeing himself as a "blood sacrifice" would have been in line with cultural thinking. But "blood sacrifice" for all of humanity's sins? I can't see any merit to that position. ......

 

Anyway - going with this contextual information, and also looking at normal human responses to a situation such as Jesus found himself in - it seems reasonable that Jesus may have viewed his sacrifice for the human suffering he lived his life trying to ease.

 

When I said in an earlier post that I saw his death as a vicarious suffering, I meant that his life was lived is such a way as to help ease the suffering of his fellow Jews. Not only in concrete ways, by healing and such, but in ways such as teaching them how to live under the rule of the Roman government. His commands such as loving ones enemies, or the sermon on the mount, or to turn the other cheek. If "sin" was looked at more as "missing the mark" in his culture, then it would be my opinion that he viewed the cultural situation as one of missing the mark, much in the same way that America "missed the mark" during the Civil Rights Era when Martin Luther King gave his life for that "sin".

 

Jesus consistently taught his followers to live peacefully under Roman occupation. But he was also put to death in a way that Rome would put a resistence fighter to death. So, and I'm only asking, could Jesus have been a non-violent resister? We'll never know.... Easily I could be reading 21st century mindset into the situation. Obviously Martin Luther King and Ghandi are two men that I admire a great deal, and the Sermon on the Mount influenced them both.

 

So... getting back to your question. No I do not believe Jesus would have viewed his death as a blood sacrifice for all of humanity's sinful nature. I don't think his culture viewed "sin" the way we do, post-Augustine.

 

His followers certainly took up Jesus' sacrifice as one for all of humanity. But even that is different from the western/Augustine approach. His disciples were first out of a Hebrew/Aramaic mindset. They saw "sin" as missing the mark - not linked to a fallen "evil" nature at it is so often seen in the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Raven:

 

You cannot compare the type of thoughtful conversation you have between x-ians and non x-ians (like the one going on now) to interactions with the dominant culture (particularlly in America). That is NOT how the conversation happens.

 

If a christian asks you about your religion, and you say "I'm a christian" they do NOT in turn say "Oh? Which of the 35,000 kinds of christianity are you?" Get real. That is the kind of response you may get HERE, but in Real Life, the chirstian is satisfied by your answer and feels a smug kinship with you under the automatic assumption that you believe as they do. And they go on to discuss other things.

 

There is NO discussion on religion. It does not happen. Now...maybe well down the road...well....WELL down the road, they may asky you about an action you take that they view as "not-christian". You explain. They say "I see." (they don't really, they just don't want to discuss it, maybe they aren't in the mood to debate) And life resumes. No one is "made to think", no one is "challenged to look at new ideas".

 

It would be more honest to say you claim christianity because you DON'T want to get into those kinds of discussions in Real Life. You don't want to debate theology with the Baker when all you want is your jelly doughnut and to go peacefully on your way through life unaccosted.

 

OK - White Raven - to review - I thought this was pretty common knowledge - but I guess not....

 

I'm involved in interfaith dialog, my name is commonly associated with interfaith dialog in my local community. Not just my own suburb but also in the larger metro area's paper. So.... when I get into discussions with fellow Christians it is most often about interfaith dialog. And - yes - there is a discussion about my beliefs as compared to theirs.

 

In fact - within my interfaith work - it is pretty routine for me to have conversations with fellow Christians about what interfaith dialog is and how my beliefs in interfaith dialog and universalism "fit" within my Christian faith. In January I've an appointment with the Bishop of our ELCA Synod to set up a more organized way to go out to church congregations and formally talk about these issues - on a more regular basis.

 

So... you see ... it isn't as simple as not wanting to "debate theology with the Baker when I want is my jelly doughnut and to go peacefully on my way through life unaccosted".

 

And - to review further - in the past I've mentioned this on the board - but I can see where it may have gotten lost in history. I have been run out of one church for my views. It is not my style to push my views on people within my daily life, but within my church life I am anything but shy and diminishing. People at my present church are well acquainted with my views - I would not have been able to lead a meditative/interfaith service every Sunday for over 2 years if they weren't. My church is an average mainstream Lutheran church in a suburb. The traditional service has very traditional people. The contemporary service isn't so traditional and I'm more comfortable in it. But, truth be told, I enjoy going to a church with diverse views it helps me to grow - and I hope my presence helps others to grow. I enjoy being in a church which houses both more traditional as well as liberal views - just as much as I enjoy being on this board for the diverse views represented here. :shrug:

 

This Christmas Eve I will attend candle-light service with my family and friends. It's my favorite Christmas tradition and I always feel a sense of peace and healing in that service. And - you know what - that service is one of the services where everyone from the congregation comes together. The people in the pew ahead of me could regularly attend traditional - where I attend contemporary. And we enjoy each other - they know who I am and I know who they are and we still participate in service together and affirm the birth of Christ - and that is important to me. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I will cut right to the point as I have very little time

 

ty for your reply checkmate

 

For the record, I dont go around calling myself anything. I dont tell people I meet, 'Hi, Im a christian universalist, what are you?'

 

I have used the lable on this forum so you all have some idea of what I believe. I am not here under false pretenses and to not tell you all that while Im here to me would be rude and insensitive. Afterall, christianity is what you all dont believe in and have left behind. To me it was and is important you know these things so that if you dont want to fellowship with a 'christian' Im out in the open if you will and you can ignore or avoid having a conversation with me.

 

I dont understand why you would want me to not use that label here and if I understand you , you are inferring it would help communication since I dont seem to meet certain qualifications to bear the name. But to me it would be dishonest and even if it did inhibit our conversations some and have me seem your enemy or an undesirable, at least Ive been honest and been me as best I can.

 

Im like OM, I dont wear crosses, have christian clothing or stickers and fish on my car. Im just not that way.

 

What you describe and call humanism in your post I call spiritual. Just as you are satisfied with leaving God out of the picture I am satisfied leaving God in the picture. Im cool with that, I dont feel I need to change you or others that speak to me what I would term spiritual things without labeling them that. I dont feel that you need to change your language or your not being honest. You are where you are, believe like you do. So am I and yet we can touch the same things but speak differently of them. I am ok with that.

 

 

 

Have a great evening

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open_Minded,

 

I apologize for my unresponsive hiatus, but know that our discussion has not been far from my twisted mind. Several times within the past two days I made ready to respond, but I didn’t like the content or tone of any of my prospective posts (about 20), and so I decided to back away from my keyboard, deal with other shit that annoys me (Life) and then return with fresh eyes.

 

You asked a question of me that gave me more cause to think than even your explanation of your beliefs. You asked me why I get pissed off at you for calling yourself “Christian.” Damned good question. I THOUGHT I had made my position clear, but in retrospect I confess that for once I may have been obtuse in speech. Allow me to remedy this.

 

EVIL beliefs deserve an angry response. Goofy beliefs deserve either pity or laughter. Sensible beliefs merit respect.

 

Your beliefs aren’t “evil.” You are about as far away from evil Fred Phelps as the Sun is from plankton. (Phelps will receive a shot gun enema if I ever see him, but not you.)

 

You’re also too firmly grounded and intelligent for me to pity. No one has taken advantage of you and your eyes are wide open.

 

Nor are your particular beliefs, as I have read them, particularly goofy. They remind me of the Gnostics, and I respect the Gnostics above all the religious groups.

 

So what option does that leave me?

 

Well, as much as it pains my overtly evil heart, I must confess that I respect you and your position. I don’t AGREE with it -- but I do respect it. You make a helluva lot more sense than your idiotic “Christian” brethren.

 

Which is why I posed the question to begin with. Being a CINO isn’t an accusation of YOU being a fraud, per se. I’m not implying that YOU aren’t worthy of the nom de voyage “Christian” -- I AM stating that the other jackdaws are idiots! (Do you REALLY want to be counted in the same group as Fred Phelps?!?) And since they’re busy fucking it up, giving “Christ” a black eye, so to speak, why do you bother to associate with them? (DON’T ANSWER THAT! It was rhetorical. I’ve already read your answers above.)

 

Still, to me, it makes more sense to refer to yourself ONLY as a “contemplative.” Or, my personal favorite, “Gnostic.” Why give the OTHER “Christians” any good press by lending them YOUR good name?

 

You are too good for ‘em, I say! And it “pisses me off” because you’re with *them*, looking retarded by association. :vent:

 

Now…HOPEFULLY, my time off has allowed me to more accurately phrase my position. If not, I can try again. I know around a billion words (some even in Klingon), so I’ve got plenty of “ammo.”

 

 

(P.S. - You can call yourself “Christian” until the cows come home, but to me you’ll always be a “gnostic heretic”! :HaHa: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why I posed the question to begin with. Being a CINO isn’t an accusation of YOU being a fraud, per se. I’m not implying that YOU aren’t worthy of the nom de voyage “Christian” -- I AM stating that the other jackdaws are idiots!
Thank you for clarifying.

 

To be honest - not just this thread - but the sister peanut gallery thread - brought up feelings that I've not felt since being run out of a church - because the "Christians" there didn't think I was a "TRUE" Christian. Your clarification of what you mean by CINO helps - it really does.

 

Still, to me, it makes more sense to refer to yourself ONLY as a “contemplative.” Or, my personal favorite, “Gnostic.” Why give the OTHER “Christians” any good press by lending them YOUR good name?
Mr. Grinch - I assume you're pretty familiar with Gnosticism as it is your "personal favorite"? If you're as familiar with Gnosticism as it seems you are then you must be aware of all the mythology in Gnosticism. ....

 

Don't get me wrong - I too have a fondness from the Gnostics. But, in reality, if the Gnostic branch of earlier Christianity had won the political battle for control of "orthodox" Christianity - don't you see - some literalist idiots would have taken the Gnostic literature and done the same damned thing with it as they've done with the Bible as we know it today? :shrug:

 

Gnosticism is romantic - on a certain level - because it was hidden away for so long and we've found the "dirty little secret" that early orthodox Christianity never wanted us to find. We've found out - what many have intuited all along - that the earliest "Christian" movement was very diverse - and that there were many, many early understandings of Jesus and the cross. This is a wonderful thing, it forces Christians today, to take a second look at how "orthodox" Christianity came to be. But, the reality is, that human beings are just as capable of fucking up Gnostic literature as they are the Bible, or any other sacred literature for that matter.

 

You are too good for ‘em, I say! And it “pisses me off” because you’re with *them*, looking retarded by association. :vent:
Well thanks.... Mr. Grinch..... but let me tell you a story - maybe it'll explain my position better than anything else.

 

First of all - please understand my reasons for calling myself Christian run very deep and I have had to grapple with many things on my route back to Christianity - many of those inner struggles have been described above or elsewhere on this board.

 

Having said that, over the years I've come to realize that my particular expression of Christianity has value within the Christian community. And now... for my story. :)

 

As I mentioned earlier - folks at my current church are well acquainted with my views. In order to lead the meditative/interfaith service that I was involved in for over 2 years - I had to talk with people in the congregation about my views. This entailed a lot of things - meeting with different committees, casual conversations in the Narthex after church, formal discussions with the Synod staff, etc....

 

Over the years I had many, many conversations about my views of other religions and why I felt that other religious traditions were also valid. These were not always easy discussions and often I wondered if these conversations were having any real impact on the people in my church, especially the more conservative folks from first service. Sometimes I felt they allowed the meditative/interfaith service to happen merely because they were too gracious and polite to want conflict within their congregation. I didn't feel they were moving their traditional service to make room for the meditative/interfaith service out of any real acknowledgment of what I was trying to teach them.

 

Then about a year ago, something happened to make me realize my presence there and those conversations had impact on a very deep personal level, the more conservative folks just didn't know how to express it.

 

One woman, whom I've considered a friend for many years, but who is also much more conservative than I am pulled me aside one day to thank me. She told me, in that conversation, about her teenage granddaughter. This girl's parents take her to a very conservative fundy church in town. Well the young girl had gotten into some pretty serious trouble at school for harassment of another student for religious reasons. Long and short of it is that the girl was on some kind of suspension for harassing another student who she didn't feel was "saved". In our community the other student could have been anything from liberal Christian, to Wiccan, to Agnostic, to Atheist &/or Buddhist.

 

Well - the long and short of it is that the grandmother wanted to thank me because my presence in our congregation gave her the tools she needed to talk with her granddaughter about her behavior and why it was wrong and hurtful and - in the grandmother's words not mine - "unchristian".

 

Our personal conversations, and the educational efforts I'd made in the larger community gave this grandmother the theological tools to sit down with her granddaughter and talk with her about universalism and what she was being taught in her fundy church and all sorts of other things. Now, I don't know if that young girl is still involved in the fundy church. If her parents are typical fundies they probably interpreted the actions of our school administrators as "persecution" of their "Christian" daughter. And the young girl probably received accolades at home for the way she treated her "unsaved" classmate.

 

But.... I also know ... that because I made a concentrated effort to educate the more conservative members of our mainstream congregation one grandmother had a very long talk with one grand-daughter about what it means to be "Christian" and how hurtful her behavior towards another student had been. And, maybe, just maybe... someday this girl will question and learn from that incident.

 

I don't know.... :shrug: there are no easy answers. But, Christianity is like anything else - it evolves over time and changes along with the times and the cultures which express it. Liberal Christians, are playing their own role in bringing Christianity out of the modern fundy dark ages.

 

(P.S. - You can call yourself “Christian” until the cows come home, but to me you’ll always be a “gnostic heretic”! :HaHa: )

 

Thanks Checkmate - and you'll always be "Mr. Grinch" to me... :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Raven:

 

*Info redacted by Royal Order of Fatmen in Spandex Tights*

 

You caportant to me. :shrug:

 

Friendly reminder that in this discussion *outside comments* from Peanut Gallery are not "fair game" to respond to. Please, in this thread, those actively involved are asked to concentrate on subject matter at hand.

 

kL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Raven:

 

*Info redacted by Royal Order of Fatmen in Spandex Tights*

 

You caportant to me. :shrug:

 

Friendly reminder that in this discussion *outside comments* from Peanut Gallery are not "fair game" to respond to. Please, in this thread, those actively involved are asked to concentrate on subject matter at hand.

 

kL

 

Thanks- Skip N. Church - I hadn't realized.....So.... I took my "outside comments" to a more appropriate thread and will confine them there. :)

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=331156

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.