Amanda's & Jay's gospel

[Saviourmachine]

Before I'm further hijacking threads, let I open this thread, so Amanda and Jay can share their gospel with us. The good message that can be distilled from the bible.

 

Occasion________________

The original posts were in I was wrong from/about Jay.

... Also, understanding what the Bible is, and what its intended purpose is. The Bible is not a book of science. ... It is skewed and biased.  If you read it knowing those things, then you can gain some useful information from it.

And in God/Jesus being a Genuine Man (2) from/about Amanda:

I don't care if there is historical evidence to prove Jesus physically existed, I don't care if you think he is a myth,

...

You see, what you seem to ignore about the 'story' of Jesus, IMHO, is that there are altruistic principles superceding egotistical drives

...

Even 'IF' Jesus were a myth, you show me nothing that presents anything that comes close to the magnitude of the masterpiece I've come to understand and know, portrayed in the scriptures.

I repost my response to Jay overhere:

 

God's aim with Jesus?________________

What's the intended purpose of the bible? What useful information can be gained? What's the purpose of the myth about Jesus death?

 

Theological Overview________________

• Do you know Strauss? Jesus is a myth*, and God want to tell us through him that He is present in every person.
  
• Do you know Troeltsch? Jesus is only necessary to continue the existence of the church.
  
• Do you know Bousset? Judge xianity just as you would judge every other religion. Jesus is deified and does fill in some spiritual need of the people that ancient time and in current times. Humanity does wish 'einen Gott auf Erden'.
  
• Do you know Harnack? Jesus didn't preach himself. Jesus isn't an ingredient of the gospel / good message. He was only a messenger of the gospel.
  
• Do you know Bultmann? He said that we know not much about Jesus as a historical person. In the gospels we meet not Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus as the faithful xian communities saw him. For Bultmann believing was not believing in the history of the bible, it is 'something' that arises from 'hearing the Word'. And that was about the seriousness of the 'End of the World' in Jesus time, and is now for the listener, the seriousness of the 'End of His/Her Own Life': Death. Believing is a form of 'Entweltlichung': being Free from the World. Almost Buddhistic.
  

* However, he didn't consider it as fairy tale. A kind of serious myth.

 

Question________________

This summary about modern theology is - I think - necessary for the many that - like me - had quite fundamental beliefs: Literal truth, literal hell etc. Let's hear wat the gospel of Jay and Amanda is. Let they speak! I open my ears:

[dogmatically_challenged]

I will be a silent fly on the wall of this thread. I promise. I just don't get were they are comming from and I want to understand. Thanks for posting this thread Saviourmachine!

 

[Amethyst]

I used to believe kind of like Amanda, but I realized eventually that I couldn't believe any of it, so much was I discarding.

 

Why not create your own myths and stories? I agree that some people DO need/want some sort of metaphorical construct to help describe their reality. Why hang all your hopes and dreams on a bloody guy on a cross. Why is that appealing?

 

Heh...that's what writers do. But people don't take them literally. The only reason Christianity is as popular as it is, is because it was passed down from one generation to the others. Everyone else believes in it, therefore it must be right.

 

Question: If it suddenly became popular to commit suicide by jumping off bridges to get to heaven faster or some such nonsense, would you do so also?

[Vixentrox]

It's like they are trapped in an alternate reality or something. Amanda particularily. Still, interested in hearing.

[Checkmate]

Yeah, I'm with D_C on this. I'll just keep silent and watch from a distance. I'm getting worn out debating with these people. However, it COULD be interesting to see what they come up with. You guys have fun!

[Guest Priapus]

I have not read Jay's work but I find Amanda's theology sweet, gentle, and utterly unbiblical. It appears entirely of her own design, which is fine and good and I hope satisfying to her. I do not, however, understand how she can call her belief system "Christian" in even the most liberal sense.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Saviourmachine, I agree, this is a great question. You really know a lot about modern Protestant theology! I am very eager to hear Jay and Amanda's answers. I agree that I find Amanda's views to be idiosyncratic to her. I don't think, therefore, that they qualify as Christian in the historical sense, because Christianity from its inception has been a communal religion with a hierarchical structure, elders who teach doctrine normatively, etc. Maybe Amanda is more in the gnostic tradition, which as we've all acknowledged got suppressed during the Roman period.

 

On the old board back in the fall I posted a thread on the General Theological board about a liberal Episcopalian parish that I visited with my friends, who are members. They say the Epis. church holds out a threefold rule of faith: scripture, tradition, reason. They were both brought up listening to sermons that sought to clarify the core of the gospel as ethical, Jesus as channeling God's message to mankind, etc. It all struck me as sweet and well-intentioned, but like Zoe, Amethyst and others, it ultimately seemed that people were cherry picking, ignoring a huge amount of appalling stuff in the Bible, and what diff did it make if we all go to some heaven-like further plane anyway,and the journey, not doctrinal orthodoxy, is what matters for our spiritual growth?

[Mythra]

I agree with y'all. Amandianity is much preferred over christianism, but after most of Amanda's posts, my reaction is

 

Hell if I know what she's talking about.

 

Amazing how many different points of view can all be derived and qualified out of one book.

 

I think they're all completely wacked.

[Ouroboros]

Actually this question shows what Science has done to religion in our modern world.

 

Before Science made the scene, and Philosophy about Logic and Truth and so on, Religion was not really about a literal truth, but was taken as a mythological truth.

 

People knew that the stories were stories and not necessarely historical references.

 

I mentioned Karen Armstrong in one of the other threads, who has studied this subject, and John Shelby-Spong and Joseph Campbell talks also talks about this.

 

You can take a story like The Little Mermaid by H.C. Andersen and find morals and guidance to how we should behave. You could say a mythological story doesn't tell the physical truth of something that happened, but it tells you a story that gives you an insight into yourself, a lightweight version of psychology or even some philosophy. The stories are insight into the things that can't be explained just with words, but has to be wrapped into a story.

 

Just look at the movies, like Die Hard with Bruce Willis. We know that story is not true, it never happened, but it tells us things about what we want to be: A Hero.

 

We want to make the heroic act or journey, and since we don't live a life in danger, hunting bad guys, we live it through the stories.

 

This is how I see the Bible today. You know I'm not Christian, and I don't believe the stories to be actual events, and with Amanda and Jay, I think you see a bit of the Christian version, the way religion used to be: a spiritual inspiration rather than a literal and fundamentalistic book.

 

I don't know, maybe they won't agree with me there, but Plato said there are two ways to truth: through Logos and throug Mythos.

 

Science is the Logos way, literal, reality oriented, physical, biological, through our five senses.

 

Faith is the Mythos way, spiritual (higher consciousness, not necessarely supernatural or metaphysical), touch the psyche, guide for emotions (the feeling there is a God), and so on.

 

Logos is dominant today, while Mythos has been almost forgotten. We don't understand it anymore, because we want everything to be literal and not imaginary.

[Mythra]

One thing that I think gets misunderstood is the term "myth or mythos" here, and how things were understood differently 2,000 years ago.

 

In our world today, we see "myth" to be something make believe, non-existent. Pure fiction. Something that's not real. That's not how Jesus began.

 

From my pea-brained, kindergarten educated mind, comes this:

 

Back then, they believed that a parallel world, if you will, existed in another plane above ours. The stories of gods and goddesses (and sons rising from the dead) all were REAL to them. They just didn't take place, for the most part, here in our physical world. They happened in a realm that was somewhere else, and often considered more "real" than the world that we can touch and see.

 

So, when we see the world "myth", don't just take it to be our current understanding of the word. It would be strange, indeed if the Jesus story developed from a story that was known to be a work of fiction. That's not how they viewed it. (even the gnostics). They understood Jesus to be a real dude, just not here in this world.

 

Then, along came Rome, who figured out if the "mythos" of Jesus were turned into the "logos" of Jesus, it would distinguish christianism from everyone else.

 

Anyway, that's all that's in my brain today.

 

Dissenting opinions are, of course, highly discouraged.

[Asimov]

Even 'IF' Jesus were a myth, you show me nothing that presents anything that comes close to the magnitude of the masterpiece I've come to understand and know, portrayed in the scriptures.

 

Well so what? Just because you like it doesn't mean that we will like it, nor does it mean it's true. I don't see anyone trying to deconvert you, and I personally don't care.

[quicksand]

The Gospels of Dune are pretty kick ass Amanda. There are very few books that I have read that can match the majesty and excellence that these Books offer.

 

And if the number of times I have read the Gopels of Dune verses the Bible as a metric, then Dune is by far more an important "myth".

[Amethyst]

Even 'IF' Jesus were a myth, you show me nothing that presents anything that comes close to the magnitude of the masterpiece I've come to understand and know, portrayed in the scriptures.

 

What about Lord of the Rings? The Granddaddy of all fantasy fiction, and it's even loosely based on the Bible. (But we know it's fiction.)

[Skankboy]

The Gospels of Dune are pretty kick ass Amanda. There are very few books that I have read that can match the majesty and excellence that these Books offer.

 

And if the number of times I have read the Gopels of Dune verses the Bible as a metric, then Dune is by far more an important "myth".

 

Mua'dib! Mua'dib! Mua'dib!

 

Frank Herbert, now there was a true visionary!

[Ouroboros]

All these books are good, and the mythology that's in them work just as well to give us the spiritual insight we want to get. And the same with our favorite music. I have secular music that gives me same kind of chill through the spine when I listen to it, as I got from certain beautiful worship songs.

 

It's all in our mind.

[Amanda]

This summary about modern theology is - I think - necessary for the many that - like me - had quite fundamental beliefs: Literal truth, literal hell etc. Let's hear wat the gospel of Jay and Amanda is. Let they speak! I open my ears: 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Saviourmachine... so you want to set me up to take a few shots... ... actually, that is very nice of you as I have learned and refined my beliefs through some of the challenges made to me here. I've never claimed to know all the answers, and if you're not growing... you're dying... so they say. Yet, I must say that I'm not familiar with any of those authors you've listed. Mostly, I've just studied the Bible, by a special method I've explained numerous times on ths site, and have since learned on this site that it is probably how the Gnostics interpreted the Bible too. Looking up Gnosticism, I am not in great alliance with them.

 

The Bible, IMO, is a Spiritual book. If something gives uplifted energy to your emotions, energy in motion, as well as to others... that is life. If something drains this energy from your emotions, or others, this is death. Carnally minded is death, spiritually minded is life and peace.... IMHO.

 

What I think about heaven and hell is 'more' of an internal state than an external one. "Our Father. which art in heaven" refers to the most divine authority of all things that is in heaven, which is the kingdom of God, and Jesus says that the kingdom of God is within us... so I believe the divine authority of all things is in us. Holy is the name, the way we know and identify this part within us, our higher actualized self, it is that part which drives us to a higher calling. BTW, I think this is in ALL people... yet actualization happens in God's order, not ours. Yet, there is the same rewards for all in the end. All are equally saved already!

 

Does that answer anything SaviourMachine? If you'd like more specifics... I'll do my best. I can just imagine everyone now....

 

and and and and

[Amanda]

So amanda...All intangible things you can't see are good and all tangible things you can see are bad?

 

physical pleasure is bad...anything "carnal" or physical is lower than things "spiritual"

 

So you spend your time in a place that might not exist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Absolutely NOT! I personally think that God is experiencing life through us. Physical pleasure is a wonderful element we are given the honor to experience for a lifetime... at a time!!! I believe the qualifier is to be respectful of self and others... and that about sums it up. "Physical experience" is something not to be taken for granted... it is something that seems so simple, yet is such an amazing state of being for our spirit!

 

I think that what can enhance this state is the position of this inner world. The war between heaven and hell may be predominantly within our self.... and the side that wins is the side we feed the most. If we are selfish, self elitist, narcissistic, or believe we are less than who we are... then the repercussions are not so good. If we have no solid foundations on which to stand, maybe that is the bottomless pit? If the land came by volcanoes erupting, then this may be the 'lake of fire' on which we stand and have weeping and gnashing of teeth? If we have solid peace and contentment within us, then that is being in heaven... no matter what is going on in the world. These teachings of Jesus is to liberate us into having life abundantly... IMHO.

[BuddhistCommunist]

Amanda, you have an incredible system of faith and I like it. Your constantly sharing your views and taking into consideration all the other peoples as well.

You constantly search for the truth in every religion it seems and that is very admirable.

I try to search for the truth in All religions as well and they all seem to have a basis somewhere. And like I've told many people, "Before any other religion, there was Shamanism". I'm just glad there are people like you on this site that really listen, learn and share. I believe We could all learn a lesson from you.

Honourably yours,

Matt

[Christopher Carrion]

Personally, I have about as much tolerance for "liberal" Christians as I do fundamentalist ones. They still willfully adhere to an outdated, evidently flawed belief system out of some misconstrued preconception that to abandon it would be to abandon the only means they have of self definition, and in that regard they are equally selfish. Besides which, I don't see how one can reconcile a tolerant attitude to other belief systems or even alternate perspectives concerning the nature and function of reality with Christian belief, which states quite clearly on several separate occassions that those who do not adhere to the word of the bible, and of Jesus as it is written is going directly to Hell.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Personally, I have about as much tolerance for "liberal" Christians as I do fundamentalist ones. They still willfully adhere to an outdated, evidently flawed belief system out of some misconstrued preconception that to abandon it would be to abandon the only means they have of self definition, and in that regard they are equally selfish. Besides which, I don't see how one can reconcile a tolerant attitude to other belief systems or even alternate perspectives concerning the nature and function of reality with Christian belief, which states quite clearly on several separate occassions that those who do not adhere to the word of the bible, and of Jesus as it is written is going directly to Hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops! I promised I wouldn't post. Dang it.

[Amanda]

"Before any other religion, there was Shamanism".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

BuddhistCommunist, I absolutely admire your courage... among other character attributes! And thank you for sharing that the oldest religion is Shamanism... as my great grandmother was 100% Cherokee Indian. I feel a strong connection to her, although she died before I was born. And, if you know, where does Hinduism come in then?

[Checkmate]

Amanda, I was just wondering: Why does it say "Skeptic" under your name? Is that something that was arbitrarily assigned to you (due to number of posts perhaps), or did you choose that?

 

It just seems out of place, as you don't SEEM to be all that "skeptical" about your beliefs.

[Amanda]

Amanda, I was just wondering:  Why does it say "Skeptic" under your name?  Is that something that was arbitrarily assigned to you (due to number of posts perhaps), or did you choose that?

 

It just seems out of place, as you don't SEEM to be all that "skeptical" about your beliefs. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TK421, I did not choose that... did you choose 'Strong Minded'? Perhaps some wonderful moderator thought that I was, of all things, a traditional understanding of a 'fundamentalist'... and now they are giving me the benefit of the doubt? ...and that's a good thing...

[Fweethawt]

TK421, I did not choose that... did you choose 'Strong Minded'? Perhaps some wonderful moderator thought that I was, of all things, a traditional understanding of a 'fundamentalist'... and now they are giving me the benefit of the doubt?  ...and that's a good thing... 

 

It's an automatic title related directly to post-counts. Nothing more.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Amanda

Perhaps some wonderful moderator thought that I was, of all things, a traditional understanding of a 'fundamentalist'...

Amanda = H-E-R-E-T-I-C. Hehe!