Peanus, Err, Peanut Gallery For Checkmate's Cino

[♦ nivek ♦]

Don't!

 

 

I'd like that anyone who is an ExC or non-sectarian to stay the hell out of Checkmate's thread while serious work being done there.

 

Here is pinned thread in which you can comment and cackle to heart's content.

 

kFL

[Deva]

This is my reaction to Sojourner's response on Checkmate's thread. I can't help but be impressed despite what I see as the tremendous contradictions between what her understanding of the verses she quoted were, and what I see the plain meaning of them as being.

 

The resurrection I can see metaphorically with no problem, and there are certainly aspects of the "savior" idea that I can see metaphorically.

 

But with respect, I say that this metaphorical understanding of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the thing I just don't understand. I feel like beating my own head against a wall when I read this reinterpretation that has nothing to do with the historical Christian understanding. I admit I JUST DON'T GET IT, but am envious in a way, because if I could see the Christ event in the same way she does, I could go back to a liberal church and be OK, whereas now its a lonely life.

 

I cannot possibly just dismiss or somehow reinterpret the parts of the Bible (like Paul's letters) that talk about the depravity and sin in man and forget the hopeless contradictions in the Bible. To me, that would be fundamentally dishonest.

 

I distrust subjective, personal experiences also, maybe that is why I have never had one like what she describes. Her experience and her understanding has nothing to do with the intellect, the way I see it. Having never had an experience like hers, I cannot have anything to say about it except it was obviously real for her.

[Taphophilia]

I think Open Minded is just taunting us with her homemade baked goods.

 

But, tonight I must spend my time baking Christmas cookies.

 

I bet she won't even offer us any.

 

Taph

[R. S. Martin]

Haven't been on here a lot today. What is this about? I looked in Arena and didn't see anything by Checkmate. I don't want to stumble into whatever it is I'm supposed to stay out of....but it might be helpful to know exactly what that is.

 

EDIT: Okay, I found it.

[R. S. Martin]

In Post 10 Open_Minded said:

 

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.

 

I think she's right.

 

This is the reason (one of them) I deconverted. I could not verify that there really was a consciousness in this "Oneness." It takes too much energy to relate to an imperceptible and invisible being whose very existence is questionable. I'm better off not trying.

 

However, that is God--one version of God as understood by some Christians. This concept of God is present in the KJV Bible. That is where I learned it. It is in the mystical parts of the psalms that focus on nature. It is esp. present in the Gospel of John. It is also in parts of Paul.

FROM PS. 23: The Lord is my shepherd...Thou makest me to lie down in green pastures...He leadeth me beside still waters...Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me...

The parts about the terrible things happening to enemies grate against the sublime mystical parts and I don't know how to reconcile that the two are sometimes in the same verse, and very often in the same psalm.

I agree with Checkmate that what Open_Minded and Sojourner describe is not specifically Christian. It is human. I also understand OM's point that the Christian story is the only story she knows. I have a Chrisian friend who speaks a great deal like OM speaks and she says the exact same thing. For some time I was at the same place; I identified as Chrisian because it was the only thing I knew.

 

Maybe some people want to stay there. I couldn't. I was on another forum where we explored liberal Christianity fairly thoroughly. I was seriously seeking. It was a last-ditch attempt on my part to find some way to retain my Christian identity in order to fit into a predominently Christian society. I found some people talking like OM and Soj are talking here. I also found myself leaning very strongly toward discarding religion. It felt too much to me like Checkmate is saying, like Christian in name only. If I had to work so hard to come up with a concept of God I could live with, I wasn't sure he existed or how genuine my faith could be said to be. Why not just come clean and deconvert. That is how I personally felt.

 

But I did not feel that I should impose those feelings on the others who were actively involved in running a church on those principles, nor do I feel it is right for me to judge whether or not anyone is a Christian. I consider it in my place to learn what they believe and why, but not to judge and impose. If people want to retain a religion it might as well be a harmless one.

 

On the other hand, when I observed the politics of the church and programs the liberal Christians I met on that other forum were running I wasn't sure if it was as harmless as it appeared at first. The Center for Progressive Christianity is one of the things I was introduced to. It appeared as though there was dogma, too, it just wasn't fundamentalist dogma. As soon as you have dogma and politics things can get really ugly and difficult and people get hurt.

 

If you're the kind of person who happens to fit in, you're okay. If you don't, you're in trouble. Now just to be fair, I guess that same applies here on exC, too. We've had people here, too, who were exChristians and didn't fit in. It was clear to all of us except them what they were doing wrong. And that tends to be the case in churches, too. Maybe that is just part of the human condition.

[R. S. Martin]

I distrust subjective, personal experiences also, maybe that is why I have never had one like what she describes. Her experience and her understanding has nothing to do with the intellect, the way I see it. Having never had an experience like hers, I cannot have anything to say about it except it was obviously real for her.

 

Such things do happen and they are very, very real to the person who experiences it. However, they do not always lead to religion. Read about Antlerman's similar experience in Evidence of the Heart, Post 12. It's a really long post, so look for the part where he quotes himself from "Antlerman @ Nov 1 2007, 06:04 AM." From there on he talks about why he is still an atheist after that experience. His experience as he describes it is very similar, if not identical, to Sojourner's. I didn't compare the details so maybe I'm missing something and there may be important differences. I think William James is the name of the person who did a study on this kind of thing about a century ago. I believe it's a psychological event, but I believe this (and lesser events) are the things religion are based on.

 

I also believe that many people don't have these experiences, because you are not the only person who says they have never experienced it. I discuss my ideas around this in Evidence of the Heart. That was basically why I wanted that discussion in the first place so I won't repeat it all here. People who don't experience it but accept religion probably accept religion on the Voice of Authority and/or on logic. Don't get me wrong; there is some rhyme and reason within the mindset of religion.

 

If you accept the parameters of religion and only reason inside those parameters, there is lots of room for reasoning and logiccal debate inside. My "sin" is in wanting it to fit into the larger picture of the entire universe. On top of that, I want the spiritual and physical to correspond and fit into the same reality. I think liberal christianity is a valiant attempt at reconciling the two without compromising either. Whether they succeed is an open question.

 

As to who is qualified to judge is also an open question. ExChristians and/or atheists are hardly disinterested third parties.

[R. S. Martin]

I admit I JUST DON'T GET IT, but am envious in a way, because if I could see the Christ event in the same way she does, I could go back to a liberal church and be OK, whereas now its a lonely life.

 

I cannot possibly just dismiss or somehow reinterpret the parts of the Bible (like Paul's letters) that talk about the depravity and sin in man and forget the hopeless contradictions in the Bible. To me, that would be fundamentally dishonest.

 

Deva, maybe you need to do some more study of the history of theology from long before the fundamentalists came onto the scene. I think you are judging Christianity by modern fundamentalist standards. Universalist Christians existed long before fundamentalist christians came onto the scene.

 

If you really want to convert to a liberal church I am sure you have the right to do so. I don't think it's right for exChristians to impose on professing Christians whether they are worthy of the name or not. It just seems wrong. I think that is for the churches to fight out among themselves; not for us who have left. So I appreciate your honesty is confessing your envy. As stated, I don't think you need to remain envious; I believe you can find historical centuries-old evidence for the kind of theology Soj and OM are presenting. I maybe able to recommend some authors if you're interested.

[GraphicsGuy]

I cannot possibly just dismiss or somehow reinterpret the parts of the Bible (like Paul's letters) that talk about the depravity and sin in man and forget the hopeless contradictions in the Bible. To me, that would be fundamentally dishonest.

 

I tend to agree with you, Deva. I'm kind of an "all or nothing" type of person. If I have to take this little bit here, that bit there, but this is okay to toss out then I feel like none of it is worth keeping.

 

We're talking about living life according to what a book says and picking and choosing kind of seems like building an engine. You have to put the entire engine together correctly. Randomly choosing pieces, including some and not others and expecting it to still function properly just doesn't work.

 

But, religion isn't an engine. I guess if some people can make it work for them with parts missing, good for them. I can't.

[Evolution_beyond]

I'm kind of an "all or nothing" type of person. If I have to take this little bit here, that bit there, but this is okay to toss out then I feel like none of it is worth keeping.

 

So if you read a book that teaches you something valid and important - but you diagree with some of the other things it says - then you discard the good things you learnt even though they were important and useful?

 

I've never understood this attitude some people seem to have that they are reluctant to pick things apart and sift the truth from the bullshit. Truth can hide in the unlikeliest places. What does a scientist do when he or she conducts an experiment? He or she conducts the test so that the bullshit can be separated out from the truth. It is part of life and part of human experience to discern in everything you read or hear, which parts are true and which parts are bullshit.

 

I have no problem understanding why someone might approach the Bible and use their own discernment to figure out which bits are from God and which bits are from man. (I don't believe in God myself, but I understand why someone who does believe in God might take that approach). If someone tries to discern which bits of the Bible are true and which bits are false - and then finds a lot of truth in the whole person of Jesus, his message and in the metaphor of crucifixion and resurrection (a metaphor can be truth) - then why can't that person call themselves a christian? A christian is a follower of Christ. That is what the word means. If someone has done the natural, human thing of picking out the truth from the bullshit - and if some of the truth includes an affection and devotion towards the person of Jesus, a desire to follow him and some kind of meaning and peace from the story of his death and resurrection - then that person is a christian.

 

Sometimes I think that ex-fundamentalist atheists still unfairly define christianity according to fundamentalist definitions. As an ex-liberal-christian atheist (I don't want to say ex-liberal because I'm still liberal! I'm just not christian anymore ) I disagree with this. A christian is a 'follower of Christ' - whatever else they may think about the Bible, or the Church, or even God. The Jesus stuff is what defines a christian.

 

And I don't understand this lack of understanding about people believing some of something and yet rejecting other parts of it. I do this constantly with nearly every book I read. There are countless books I read where I say "That's true - but I don't agree with that". I've long since given up hope in finding a book where I can totally agree with everything it says - the only way I could find such a book is if I wrote it myself (and even then I probably would disagree with what I'd written a few years down the line). But I still find things of value and use and truthfulness in these books that I also find things I disagree with.

 

Very foolish to reject something totally just because you disagree with some of it.

[Deva]

So if you read a book that teaches you something valid and important - but you diagree with some of the other things it says - then you discard the good things you learnt even though they were important and useful?

 

I've never understood this attitude some people seem to have that they are reluctant to pick things apart and sift the truth from the bullshit. Truth can hide in the unlikeliest places. What does a scientist do when he or she conducts an experiment? He or she conducts the test so that the bullshit can be separated out from the truth. It is part of life and part of human experience to discern in everything you read or hear, which parts are true and which parts are bullshit.

 

I have no problem understanding why someone might approach the Bible and use their own discernment to figure out which bits are from God and which bits are from man.

 

Very foolish to reject something totally just because you disagree with some of it.

 

I fully understand extracting the good from the bad in books. We do it all the time. But here we are talking about a book that many people calling themselves "Christians" purport to be the word of god in its entirety. A book which was entirely written by men. Yeah, you can pick and choose to your heart's content, but why use the word "Jesus" for what is really meant a subjective, abstract, principal of mercy, wholeness, love, etc.?

 

Your remarks were really directed to GraphicsGuy, but I have been down this road of sifting the Bible. I was in a liberal church for 5 years. Oh what a beautiful passage in Corinthians, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, John, etc. I can still say I like some verses that ring true with life. But would that make me call myself a follower of Christ?

 

You say "the Jesus stuff is what defines a Christian." You are right. Your position seems to be that you are free to define that any way you want to. That is the problem the early church ran into and the reason why the creeds were developed early on that say you must believe certain things to be a Christian, and many churches have statements their members must subscribe to. You can't receive the Eucharist in a Catholic church unless you have been confirmed and profess to believe their teachings about Christ. Do you just use your own experience and understanding while the church you go to stands for something else? I know probably many millions of people do. But is it right, is it honest?

 

Reading your defense of liberal xianity, EB I am surprised you aren't still in the liberal church.

[Deva]

Deva, maybe you need to do some more study of the history of theology from long before the fundamentalists came onto the scene. I think you are judging Christianity by modern fundamentalist standards. Universalist Christians existed long before fundamentalist christians came onto the scene.

 

If you really want to convert to a liberal church I am sure you have the right to do so. I don't think it's right for exChristians to impose on professing Christians whether they are worthy of the name or not. It just seems wrong. I think that is for the churches to fight out among themselves; not for us who have left. So I appreciate your honesty is confessing your envy. As stated, I don't think you need to remain envious; I believe you can find historical centuries-old evidence for the kind of theology Soj and OM are presenting. I maybe able to recommend some authors if you're interested.

 

I think you have misunderstood me. Thanks, but I don't need to do anymore theological studies. I know different interpretations of Christianity, including universalism, have been around for centuries. These differing interpretations were generally known as "heresy."

 

It isn't a question of whether or not I have the "right" to go to a liberal church. If I could reconcile myself with xianity I would go to one tomorrow. I also don't know why we can't properly question professing Christians of any kind about their beliefs. I am imposing nothing, and I don't think I ever said they weren't worthy of the name "Christian". I just quite frankly stated I didn't understand it.

[SWIM]

I'm kind of an "all or nothing" type of person. If I have to take this little bit here, that bit there, but this is okay to toss out then I feel like none of it is worth keeping.

 

So if you read a book that teaches you something valid and important - but you diagree with some of the other things it says - then you discard the good things you learnt even though they were important and useful?

Xtians seen to think it is historically correct. Maybe parts of it is, like the "names" of places and such. Also, there are "good" sayings in it, like "do unto others blah blah", but this is not deep. Most of the "good" in the good book, is just, well, common sense. If you take just the "core" teachings, like "christ died for your sins", and "he came back from the dead to defeat death", and look at them, you know that's not true. So, if you put the metaphor "spin" on it, then it's really just a fairy tale with "some" (very little in contrast) good stuff in it. So you *really* don't need an all or nothing approach to disregard the bible as manmade and false.

 

 

I've never understood this attitude some people seem to have that they are reluctant to pick things apart and sift the truth from the bullshit. Truth can hide in the unlikeliest places. What does a scientist do when he or she conducts an experiment? He or she conducts the test so that the bullshit can be separated out from the truth. It is part of life and part of human experience to discern in everything you read or hear, which parts are true and which parts are bullshit.

 

I have read the bible many times in my life and have still failed to find *any* text in it that I went ahhhhh cool... It's just not there. All the good stuff you should know anyway, kindergarden level common sense. Tell me, what did you find in the bible that was a unique truth, that was found by you *only* in the bible?

 

I have no problem understanding why someone might approach the Bible and use their own discernment to figure out which bits are from God and which bits are from man. (I don't believe in God myself, but I understand why someone who does believe in God might take that approach). If someone tries to discern which bits of the Bible are true and which bits are false - and then finds a lot of truth in the whole person of Jesus, his message and in the metaphor of crucifixion and resurrection (a metaphor can be truth) - then why can't that person call themselves a christian? A christian is a follower of Christ. That is what the word means. If someone has done the natural, human thing of picking out the truth from the bullshit - and if some of the truth includes an affection and devotion towards the person of Jesus, a desire to follow him and some kind of meaning and peace from the story of his death and resurrection - then that person is a christian.

 

Well, you would *really* need to find unique wisedom in the book first, in order to embrace it. I don't think the cruxifiction is a "good" metaphor at all. Rather vauge, and the whole thing reeks of spin. So guy named jesus existed no doubt, everyone thought he was the shit, so the gov with the church killed him. All the followers were like WTF?, and put this *spin* on the *ending* deliberately to make him the hero of the story *after all*... As a metaphor it's weak.

 

You know I find *peace* and comfort (or I used to as a child) with Dr Suess books, however I would never call myself a "Suessian".

 

Sometimes I think that ex-fundamentalist atheists still unfairly define christianity according to fundamentalist definitions. As an ex-liberal-christian atheist (I don't want to say ex-liberal because I'm still liberal! I'm just not christian anymore ) I disagree with this. A christian is a 'follower of Christ' - whatever else they may think about the Bible, or the Church, or even God. The Jesus stuff is what defines a christian.

 

Yup, but I am an ex-half-assed-christian. Never followed it literally, hardly followed it at all. I *still* however, see that "interpreting the living shit out of it" does not make the religion *better*...

 

 

And I don't understand this lack of understanding about people believing some of something and yet rejecting other parts of it. I do this constantly with nearly every book I read. There are countless books I read where I say "That's true - but I don't agree with that". I've long since given up hope in finding a book where I can totally agree with everything it says - the only way I could find such a book is if I wrote it myself (and even then I probably would disagree with what I'd written a few years down the line). But I still find things of value and use and truthfulness in these books that I also find things I disagree with.

 

I am sure you do, and so do I and I am sure graphicsguy does too, to an extent. But the big difference tween you, him, me and people like soj (no offense soj) is we don't embrace these books as a *religion*.

 

Very foolish to reject something totally just because you disagree with some of it.

 

Reply with boldings cause I be's too lazy to quote-tag.

[SWIM]

I gotta say checkmate is doing a *really* good job at cutting through the bullshit and clarifying the issue! Good job fella, keep it up!

[Deva]

I gotta say checkmate is doing a *really* good job at cutting through the bullshit and clarifying the issue! Good job fella, keep it up!

 

Agreed. Checkmate is doing a great job. I have appreciated reading his recent posts.

[Grandpa Harley]

*Waves a Green Big Foam Hand*

 

This thread needs beer and footdogs...

[Evolution_beyond]

That is the problem the early church ran into and the reason why the creeds were developed early on that say you must believe certain things to be a Christian, and many churches have statements their members must subscribe to.

 

But how do we know the gnostics weren't the true christians?

 

Reading your defense of liberal xianity, EB I am surprised you aren't still in the liberal church.

 

Ah, but I no longer believe that Jesus ever existed and if he did then he certainly wasn't God - so there is no way that I can call myself a christian. I also don't even believe in God and that definitely is a pre-requisite of being a christian.

 

Also there are too many things that I disagree with in even mainstream liberal and/or traditional christianity. The metaphors, even if they might represent true things, are far too dodgy and open to misinterpretation and far too likely to encourage the wrong kinds of thinking. Original sin is a horrible belief that encourages guilt and a negative opinion of ourselves and our fellow humans. This is not healthy. The whole God sacrificing his son metaphor is ridiculous and also horrible and bloody (not the sort of thing children should be encouraged to read). The hell thing is just wrong, wrong, wrong. So they are bad metaphors.

 

I don't like what the Bible says about women or about homosexuals. Liberal christians may um and ah about it and talk about 'historical context' - but shit we should have outgrown is shit we should have outgrown. The Bible would be far better if those parts were edited out of it.

 

And there are all those headfuck nutters who call themselves christians (in other words fundamentalists) - and I would do anything humanly possible to disassociate myself with those assholes!

 

So no - christianity is not for me. If I need something 'spiritual' I will go for Hinduism or Buddhism. Good metaphors are better than bad metaphors, and healthy spiritual belief is better than unhealthy spiritual belief.

 

But as a tolerant, rational individual I can certainly understand that someone can be a christian without taking everything in the Bible literally because it is only believing that Jesus is divine and following him that really defines someone as christian. and that was the point I was making.

[Evolution_beyond]

Michael - i don't really believe any of that shit anymore. So I don't really care all that much.

 

But I do think that technically it is only believing that Jesus is divine and that he died and rose again - and following this Jesus figure - that defines someone as christian.

 

A lot of people seem to think that someone has to be a fundie to really be a christian - and I just don't see it. I think it is fundie prejudice surviving into atheism.

 

That was the only point I was making. I wasn't saying that liberal christianity is any better than fundie christianity (although I would rather have lunch with a liberal christian than with a fundie one!) - just that it has just as much right to be called christianity.

 

I'm not saying there's much point in it. I think they would be far better embracing a more positive and less confusing form of religion - such as hinduism or buddhism. But that's their business I suppose. I'm an atheist, what do I know?

[R. S. Martin]

Checkmate Post 11:

 

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-unicornistâ€, or “a-lepracaunistâ€, 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 just gotta get this off my chest so I can concentrate on reading. So he doesn't like the label atheist for himself. Why then does he have this big Atheist label in his avatar? I like to see people living what they preach. It looks an awful lot like this guy is preaching stuff he doesn't believe and that causes serious problems in my mind. If he can't stand the label Christian on folks but he uses a label on himself that he claims he can't stand--all of this negates everything he says.

 

Maybe he explains later on. I don't know the guy. He left the forums about the time I joined and just returned a few weeks ago.

[Checkmate]

 

I just gotta get this off my chest so I can concentrate on reading. So he doesn't like the label atheist for himself. Why then does he have this big Atheist label in his avatar? I like to see people living what they preach. It looks an awful lot like this guy is preaching stuff he doesn't believe and that causes serious problems in my mind. If he can't stand the label Christian on folks but he uses a label on himself that he claims he can't stand--all of this negates everything he says.

 

Maybe he explains later on. I don't know the guy. He left the forums about the time I joined and just returned a few weeks ago.

Simple answer, Ruby: IT'S NOT MY WEB SITE. You and I receive whatever identifier(s) the webmaster provides. It's either Ex-Christian, Atheist, or Christian. When they give me the option for Rational Skeptic, I'll ask for it.

 

You're right, you don't know me. If you did, you'

 

d know that I change my signature, personal avatar and tag lines about as often as you change socks. I don't like being pinned down with any LABELS. I am more than any one word can capture.

 

Does this clear things up for you?

 

 

 

Staff "spoiled" as per ground rules of this Peanutting.

 

Grinch, need for you to not participate in side debate/discussions while you and opponent(s) are involved in yours.

 

kL

[Deva]

But how do we know the gnostics weren't the true christians?

 

We don't, but my difficulty is with folks right now saying they are "christians" and belonging to churches with creeds and statements of belief (and even most liberal churches have them) and not believing the stuff. I say it's dishonest.

 

Ah, but I no longer believe that Jesus ever existed and if he did then he certainly wasn't God - so there is no way that I can call myself a christian. I also don't even believe in God and that definitely is a pre-requisite of being a christian.

 

Also there are too many things that I disagree with in even mainstream liberal and/or traditional christianity. The metaphors, even if they might represent true things, are far too dodgy and open to misinterpretation and far too likely to encourage the wrong kinds of thinking. Original sin is a horrible belief that encourages guilt and a negative opinion of ourselves and our fellow humans. This is not healthy. The whole God sacrificing his son metaphor is ridiculous and also horrible and bloody (not the sort of thing children should be encouraged to read). The hell thing is just wrong, wrong, wrong. So they are bad metaphors.

 

I don't like what the Bible says about women or about homosexuals. Liberal christians may um and ah about it and talk about 'historical context' - but shit we should have outgrown is shit we should have outgrown. The Bible would be far better if those parts were edited out of it.

 

I actually think Jesus probably did exist historically and I am open to the idea of God--otherwise, I agree with you.

 

But as a tolerant, rational individual I can certainly understand that someone can be a christian without taking everything in the Bible literally because it is only believing that Jesus is divine and following him that really defines someone as christian. and that was the point I was making.

 

 

I submit to you that most of them do not take the Bible literally -- even in fundamentalist churches. They just won't admit it. Your idea that the only thing that defines a "Christian" is that Jesus is divine and "following him" (whatever that means), is where I and a lot of others would have to disagree with you. I don't profess myself to know what a "true Christian" is. Fact is, I don't think one exists. What I am objecting to, and I think Checkmate is objecting to, is precisely someone using the word "christian" by someone who obviously does not subscribe to most, if not all of the Nicene creed or the commonly accepted historical meaning of the term "Christian." I don't know what churches these liberal christians are attending but even the Episcopal Church has the Book of Common Prayer. The creed is in there and in fact is recited in every service by people who manifestly don't believe in parts of it. It seems dishonest. In view of the fact that we agree on so much, I am just surprised to see you defending it.

[R. S. Martin]

Deva, maybe you need to do some more study of the history of theology from long before the fundamentalists came onto the scene. I think you are judging Christianity by modern fundamentalist standards. Universalist Christians existed long before fundamentalist christians came onto the scene.

 

If you really want to convert to a liberal church I am sure you have the right to do so. I don't think it's right for exChristians to impose on professing Christians whether they are worthy of the name or not. It just seems wrong. I think that is for the churches to fight out among themselves; not for us who have left. So I appreciate your honesty is confessing your envy. As stated, I don't think you need to remain envious; I believe you can find historical centuries-old evidence for the kind of theology Soj and OM are presenting. I maybe able to recommend some authors if you're interested.

 

I think you have misunderstood me. Thanks, but I don't need to do anymore theological studies. I know different interpretations of Christianity, including universalism, have been around for centuries. These differing interpretations were generally known as "heresy."

 

Okay sorry. I thought you said you were envious. The universalists I am talking about didn't get excommunicated or burned at the stake or anything. In other words, they weren't "heretics." They were in the United States around 1800 as a legitimate church. Sure, the Calvinists saw them as heretics just as they do today. But the fundamentalists did not exist until a century later. That is why I get confused when exfundies charge Universalists with not being real Christians.

 

But I'm beginning to see that this is a seriously complicated and thorny issue. On another thread I was asked why exfundies can't charge Universalists with not being real Christians when people come in here charging us with not having been real christians. Here's the problem as I see it:

 

Calvinist says: You weren't a real Christian if you deconverted. If you were a real Christian you would not have deconverted. Once you're born into the family of God you cannot become unborn. Either you never were a real Christian or you still are a Christian but you don't know it.

 

Universalist says: Gods loves everybody. There is no such thing as eternal torment. A just and loving God would not do that. The hell doctrine is a false teaching developed in the Middle Ages to scare peasants into paying the tithe and getting their babies baptized at a time when that was the only way to get people listed on the social register and collect funds to maintain the churches and care for widows and orphans. The NT references to hell were figurative and refered in some places to the underworld and in some places to the constantly/eternally burning heap of trash outside Jerusalem. Revelation was a vision not to be taken any more literally than those of the OT prophets.

 

Anabaptists say you get into the family of God by repenting of your sins and committing your life to Christ. You can fall away and backslide if you are not constantly on the watch. Satan is a very sly enemy of souls and forever on the lookout how he may snatch someone off the straight and narrow way. He is nowhere more busy than at church. Repentance is available for all sins except for blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Once a person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit there is no more room for repentance because God said, "My spirit will not strive forever with man." In other words, when the human has blasphemed the Holy Spirit, the person has rejected God on a level where God will no more prompt him or her to repent. A person who has spent seventy years living for Christ but backslides and on the deathbed renounces God will go to hell.

 

So it's the Calvinists who come in here and charge us with never having been real Christians. The Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, possibly Baptists?) say you can become born and unborn quite regularly--forget about those Calvinists with their rigid ideas about OSAS. But it's the Universalists whom exChristians accuse for not being real Christians. How is that fair?

[Not_Scarevangelist]

The Calvinists are wrong, because their God is a God who plays dice. Some will go to heaven others will go to hell and it depends on function random(). Bingo!

We are being accused for not being real Christians because we reject the concept of Hell.But in fact, I think we are the *real* Christians because we are closer to the early church. For example, Origen believed in Universal salvation and it was not considered to be a herecy until 5th century.

[Deva]

Okay sorry. I thought you said you were envious. The universalists I am talking about didn't get excommunicated or burned at the stake or anything. In other words, they weren't "heretics." They were in the United States around 1800 as a legitimate church. Sure, the Calvinists saw them as heretics just as they do today. But the fundamentalists did not exist until a century later. That is why I get confused when exfundies charge Universalists with not being real Christians.

 

But I'm beginning to see that this is a seriously complicated and thorny issue. On another thread I was asked why exfundies can't charge Universalists with not being real Christians when people come in here charging us with not having been real christians.

 

Regarding my being envious, I said:

"But with respect, I say that this metaphorical understanding of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the thing I just don't understand. I feel like beating my own head against a wall when I read this reinterpretation that has nothing to do with the historical Christian understanding. I admit I JUST DON'T GET IT, but am envious in a way, because if I could see the Christ event in the same way she does, I could go back to a liberal church and be OK, whereas now its a lonely life."

 

If I could subscribe to the creeds and statements of belief of even "liberal" denominations, I would go to one. Most of not all of them believe in or preach the atonement. I can't subscribe to it so I won't attend. If I could it would be better for my social life. That is all I meant. Folks like Soj and the others can reinterpret, ignore or metaphorically twist somehow this doctrine where they are able to attend a church. So in that regard, I admit I am a bit envious of them, but only a bit.

 

I don't see how this is complicated, or why it is necessary to drag in the whole history of xianity. Most churches today, even liberal denominations, except the unitarian universalist church, have statements of belief their members are asked to subscribe to. There is a reason for this. There is a reason why Roman Catholics won't permit non-catholics to partake of the eucharist. It isn't complex. They want like-minded people with a common understanding of Christianity to be a part of their church.

 

Now that there are 3,000 different understandings of what it means to be a christian, the word becomes ever more nebulous. Even so, if I didn't believe in the atonement, the literal death, resurrection, etc. when I know the common understanding of people are that xians believe these things, is it completely honest for me to call myself an xian? Should I pretend I am one just to be thought provoking?

[R. S. Martin]

The Calvinists are wrong, because their God is a God who plays dice. Some will go to heaven others will go to hell and it depends on function random(). Bingo!

We are being accused for not being real Christians because we reject the concept of Hell.But in fact, I think we are the *real* Christians because we are closer to the early church. For example, Origen believed in Universal salvation and it was not considered to be a herecy until 5th century.

 

Well, I'm not playing favourites as to who is the "real" Christian. The Calvinists do have major Scripture passages on their side. All I am doing is objecting that exChristians play favourite with who the real Christians are. I think anyone who identifies as Christian should be allowed the right to call themselves that. They should also be prepared to explain why they call themselves Christian.

 

I think that is what Checkmate is doing--asking them to explain on what basis they think they are Christian and why they would call themselves by that name when (in his opinion) there are other more desirable labels available.

[R. S. Martin]

The Calvinists are wrong, because their God is a God who plays dice.

 

See Romans Chapter 9, esp. the verses about Esau and Pharoah and the potter.