Reading The Bible Literally Is Not A Requirement Of Christianity?

[DanInPA]

Northern Sun

 

O, Dan in Pa,

 

If you had faith, you would know the answer.

 

(1 Cor 2:12) "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit."

 

This means if you are filled with the Holy Spirit you can undertand and interpret the Bible. If you are not, you can't.

 

I assume you're being sarcastic, but my reply would be:

So why don't all professing christians understand and interpret the bible the same way?

 

Its like the Pittsburg Steelers. You just knew they were going to win the Super Bowl again sometime. But if you are an Eagles fan, all you have are doubts. LOL

 

Obviously only Steelers fans have received the Spirit which is from God. Eagles fans are being misled by the great deceiver!

[NorthenSun]

O, Dan in Pa,

 

I was reading on a different web site where someone was claiming that Jesus might be a false prophet for prophesizing that he would return to the earth before some of the his current generation had passed away. The Xtians tied all kinds of arguments to rebut his claim, but none of them could really refute his assertion. The poster calmly answered all their thrusts with good logic but the Xtians would not concede any ground. Finally they began bringing up (1 Cor 2:12), and asserting that the poster really could not understand or interpret the meaning of the scriptures since he was not filled with the holy spirit. To the Xtians, this is their trump card of last resort; and it works, but only in their twisted little mind games.

 

So why don't all professing christians understand and interpret the bible the same way?

 

Good point.

Makes one wonder why Protestants don’t recognize the Catholic Church as the one true church and the Pope as their earthly father? Where is their holy spirit?

[kal-el]

O, Dan in Pa,

 

I was reading on a different web site where someone was claiming that Jesus might be a false prophet for prophesizing that he would return to the earth before some of the his current generation had passed away. The Xtians tied all kinds of arguments to rebut his claim, but none of them could really refute his assertion. The poster calmly answered all their thrusts with good logic but the Xtians would not concede any ground. Finally they began bringing up (1 Cor 2:12), and asserting that the poster really could not understand or interpret the meaning of the scriptures since he was not filled with the holy spirit. To the Xtians, this is their trump card of last resort; and it works, but only in their twisted little mind games.

 

Haha. Of course Xtians claim that their adverersaries aren't interpreting the bible correctly. Yes, but that's exactly like saying it is fallible. Because if the bible is infallible, it is above and beyond a fallible human's capacities to misinterpret the writings.

[Ziggy]

 

To summarize what I said in the other post.... the author of John wrote about Jesus differently than the authors of the synoptic gospels. The very first verses of John point to Jesus as the WORD made Flesh. The LOGOS, WISDOM, SOPHIA made flesh IN Jesus.

 

The author of John also had Jesus say, "Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am."

 

Specifically the author of John was pointing to something WITHIN Jesus. Even a literalist does not believe Jesus physically walked the earth before Abraham. So, twice to my immediate recollection the author of John points to something transcendent and Sacred that he sees WITHIN Jesus. One of those times he intentionally uses the words "I AM" thereby pointing back to an understanding of God that any Jewish listener would recognize. And this "I AM" is not the physical form of Jesus, because that physical form did not walk the earth before Abraham.

 

So... I have always looked at the "I am" passages unique to John's gospel in light of this. To me when the author of John attributes the words, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" to Jesus he is pointing to the LOGOS within Jesus. He is saying, "Sacred WISDOM is the way, and the truth, and the life". Everyone has access to Sacred WISDOM - so - to me - this verse is very inclusive. It does not exclude by religious affiliation. It points to Sacred WISDOM as being the way, being the truth, being the life.

 

Now I fully recognize these passages can also be looked at as meaning the physical being of Jesus Christ. And - as I've said many times - I feel no need to prove anyone wrong and myself right. I simply see this dynamic - that the very same verse which brings me comfort - because it includes everyone - also has historically been used to exclude, to divide, to cause pain. Interpreted as pointing to the physical form of Jesus Christ rather than to that which John saw WITHIN Christ this verse has been the cause of wars and untold amounts of violence.

 

Does this example help, Robert.

 

Hi OM sorry for my late reply. I am in and out of these forums and its a post one day and then come back and check it the next ... not exactly condusive to a flowing discussion!

 

Your example above is THE single thing I have learnt from these forums since i have been here. Being able to look at Christ in a positive biblical way but not to see him as the one and only way - which then introduces all the problems with exclusive heaven and hell etc as you have said

 

You and others take the time and have the ability to describe your views so well ... I am grateful. i take it in and pass it along

 

It made me think of this..

 

One christian standpoint is how Christ was Human and God at the same time. Christians say this is good because he knows your pain and suffering, he knows your temptations - because he has been there.

But does Christs Human-ness not also show that the Human condition in its natural form has the ability to find God - on its own. Its something that is part and parcel of the Human condition and so everyone has this ability - to find God within?

And Christ proved this was the case becasue of his human-ness

[Open_Minded]

Hi OM sorry for my late reply. I am in and out of these forums and its a post one day and then come back and check it the next ... not exactly condusive to a flowing discussion!

 

Robert ... don't worry about it. We'll take the conversation one-day-at-a-time.

 

Your example above is THE single thing I have learnt from these forums since i have been here. Being able to look at Christ in a positive biblical way but not to see him as the one and only way - which then introduces all the problems with exclusive heaven and hell etc as you have said

 

You and others take the time and have the ability to describe your views so well ... I am grateful. i take it in and pass it along

 

It made me think of this..

 

One christian standpoint is how Christ was Human and God at the same time. Christians say this is good because he knows your pain and suffering, he knows your temptations - because he has been there.

 

But does Christs Human-ness not also show that the Human condition in its natural form has the ability to find God - on its own. Its something that is part and parcel of the Human condition and so everyone has this ability - to find God within? And Christ proved this was the case becasue of his human-ness

 

How right you are. I have often gone back to this idea of Jesus as true man - to show how Jesus looked at himself. Jesus is known to speak of himself in very "human" ways....

 

Mark 10:18 - Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. (Keep in mind that Mark is the first gospel put into writing, the closest gospel to the time of Jesus).

 

Luke 18:19 - Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

 

Again from Mark:

 

Mark 15:34 - At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

 

In conversations with more conservative members of my congregation ... if I walk them through the process:

 

1. Jesus as true man and true God

2. The timeline of the gospels. (Mark first - part of the synoptics and most likely based off of an even earlier common document - and John the latest and furthest from the time of Jesus.)

3. Then discuss how Jesus spoke about himself in the earliest gospels as compared to the latest gospels. That the words attributed to Jesus in the earliest gospels are very human in his relationship to his Father.

4. When people start following the path ... by the time we get to the verses in John they are already figuring it out.

 

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't change their overall understanding of Jesus, but they see that indeed the author of John was pointing to something WITHIN Jesus when he wrote the "I Am" verses. It gives people permission to let go of a lot of the exclusiveness they've grown up with.

 

Of course, Robert, this whole process requires that participates in the discussion be willing to explore other points of view besides the ones they've typically been exposed to.

[jrmarlin]

It seems to me that Sub_Zero is what we call a "Drive By." One hit and they're outta there... It's a shame you can debate your faith with others, Sub because that only shows me that you are not very strong in it enough to fight for it!

 

Such a pity indeed. For if you're going to believe in something you might as well take it to the mattresses.

[Open_Minded]

It seems to me that Sub_Zero is what we call a "Drive By." One hit and they're outta there... It's a shame you can debate your faith with others, Sub because that only shows me that you are not very strong in it enough to fight for it!

 

Such a pity indeed. For if you're going to believe in something you might as well take it to the mattresses.

 

Jrmarlin ... don't be too hard on Sub... s/he has been run through the hoops in the One Verse and An Invitation To Sub_zer0 And Any Fundamentalist To Discuss Spirituality threads. Admittedly, much of his frustration and pain is self-imposed.

 

But add that history to the challenge I gave him earlier in this thread, that he answer my question to him about Martin Luther King, Jr.... Well he has much to think about.

 

I sincerely hopes he works up the strength to come back and answer all the questions he has been ignoring. Gathering up the strength to answer these questions head-on, with compassion and sincerity can be a real growing experience.

[SkepticOfBible]

One christian standpoint is how Christ was Human and God at the same time. Christians say this is good because he knows your pain and suffering, he knows your temptations - because he has been there.

But you don't see the paradox in that. If he was God who is Omniscient(knows everything), why would he take birth as a human to understand us. That's like saying I need to become part of computer game to truly understand what the computer characters think like. One would assume God already knows more than us.

 

Second of all, I once asked this question to Sub, who could never reply. If Jesus was god of the universe, what was Satan tempting him with?And how exactly can you tempt God the Son away from God the Father, especially since they are co-equal?

 

To me, I personally think the Satan story was formed to show that Jesus was faithful to God, just like Job. If you humanise Jesus completely then that would make sense, cause you can only tempt fallible humans, not all powerfull Gods.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, everyone. One of the things I've noticed and appreciated on here over the last year or year and a half is the contribution of people who believe in Christ and pursue a relationship with him but do not take the bible literally. I don't take this approach myself and don't get it, actually. O_M and others above talk about a paradigm shift. My paradigm shift came not about how to understand the kind of communication God is conducting via the Bible - it came when I concluded that christianity is false and that the bible is simply one of many collections of wisdom and doctrinal literature attributed to divine sources over the centuries. I see it as a human document, which, as such, contains much that is true.

 

So to me it goes nowhere to try to ask myself how to interpret the bible. I do from time to time wonder what this or that writer was trying to say, or wonder what social attitudes or practices are encoded in part of the bible. I don't even think it makes sense to view the bible as a unity except insofar as that unity was an imposition by the early church fathers who decided what books to include in the canon.

 

I agree though that reading the bible literally is not a requirement of christianity . REading it allegorically, so as to see Jesus prefigured somehow in it, might be a requirement, since that's how the church has historically read the OT - even how writers in the NT read the OT. But I can't pronounce about that.

 

There is no single authority who can say what is a requirement of christianity, as far as I can see, so I can't go far with the question anyway. Are Unitarians "christians?" I can't answer taht.

 

Cheers all,

[Open_Minded]

My paradigm shift came not about how to understand the kind of communication God is conducting via the Bible - it came when I concluded that christianity is false and that the bible is simply one of many collections of wisdom and doctrinal literature attributed to divine sources over the centuries. I see it as a human document, which, as such, contains much that is true.

 

You and I are closer than you think ficino. I've always looked at the Bible as a portrayal of one culture's human search for the sacred. I do think it is inspired, but I also think the Rig Veda is inspired, I think the Torah is inspired, I think the Tripitaka is inspired as well as the sacred literature of other world faiths.

 

One of my paradigm shifts in coming to this board, was just how literally the Bible is read in some quarters. I mean - on an objective/intellectual level I knew that there were branches of Christianity that read the Bible literally. But, WOW, ... has this board ever been an education.

[Ziggy]

One christian standpoint is how Christ was Human and God at the same time. Christians say this is good because he knows your pain and suffering, he knows your temptations - because he has been there.

But you don't see the paradox in that. If he was God who is Omniscient(knows everything), why would he take birth as a human to understand us. That's like saying I need to become part of computer game to truly understand what the computer characters think like. One would assume God already knows more than us.

 

Second of all, I once asked this question to Sub, who could never reply. If Jesus was god of the universe, what was Satan tempting him with?And how exactly can you tempt God the Son away from God the Father, especially since they are co-equal?

 

To me, I personally think the Satan story was formed to show that Jesus was faithful to God, just like Job. If you humanise Jesus completely then that would make sense, cause you can only tempt fallible humans, not all powerfull Gods.

 

Hi Skeptic. I kind of agree .. If any Christian says God is almighty, Omniscient, Omnipresent... whatever - then you have to to start to ask the questions like you have. However I think its clear that there is good and bad in the world and in each of us. Can anyone argue with this fact? This is clear whether you believe in God or not, and if you do then it must also then be clear that God cannot just make us 'good' even if he wanted to. The bible backs this up by all the way through I think OT and NT and even fundamantal Christians believe this because that was the reason we needed a Christ. someone had to pay for the sin .. which was outside Gods control.

 

You are right its a paradox - the human / God thing. I do not understand it .. but who can? maybe its not meant to be understood to such an extent - was not supposed to be a watertight argument like many of the bible stories

 

The Satan thing - I just see that as a name for the 'bad' side of us Just as i see God as a name for the 'good' side in us. I think you are right .. Christ being tempted did show he was faithful to God. I do't think there was ever a possiblity of him actually saying - 'och stuff this crucifixion lark, lets go and have a few beers Mr Devil and see what that Mary's up to tonight'

 

Hi, everyone. One of the things I've noticed and appreciated on here over the last year or year and a half is the contribution of people who believe in Christ and pursue a relationship with him but do not take the bible literally. I don't take this approach myself and don't get it, actually. O_M and others above talk about a paradigm shift. My paradigm shift came not about how to understand the kind of communication God is conducting via the Bible - it came when I concluded that christianity is false and that the bible is simply one of many collections of wisdom and doctrinal literature attributed to divine sources over the centuries. I see it as a human document, which, as such, contains much that is true.

 

ficino I understand this view. I am not far off it .. But I do not think there is nothing out there

I can't prove anything and its possible none of it is true! Maybe its just a fear that we are nothing more than accidents of nature that somehow developed brains and that any abstract notion of love is just something invented to try and keep us from going mad . But it feels like humans have a spiritual side - a need to connect with 'good' which i call God Not something explained by science. I think the people that see this side of them are better for it ... but if they then attach to it a religion which becomes inclusive then it falls apart

 

 

 

So OM .... why do you think Jesus was crucified? Was it that important and if was in what way?

[Open_Minded]

So OM .... why do you think Jesus was crucified? Was it that important and if was in what way?

 

Robert - you go right to the core with this question.

 

Actually it's not the first time I've discussed it on this board. A month - or so - ago I discussed it in the Leaving Jesus thread.

 

Following is an excerpt from one of my posts on this issue:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&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.

 

From the Buddhist tradition there is the Bodhisattva Ideal. The following excerpt is from the About.com website.

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa091802a.htm

 

The Bodhisattva Ideal

 

In the Jataka tales, we read stories of the Buddha in his previous lives as a Bodhisattva, an individual destined for enlightenment and Buddhahood. ('Bodhi' means 'enlightenment' or 'wisdom' and 'sattva' means 'being' or 'essence'). As Mahayana Buddhism developed, the idea of the Bodhisattva became imbued with increasing significance. Whereas Theravada Buddhism appeared to focus on sainthood and the individual's solo quest for enlightenment, Mahayana Buddhism emphasized the role of the Bodhisattva as a supremely compassionate individual who is motivated to win enlightenment not for himself but for the benefit of all sentient beings.

<Snip>

One example of vicarious suffering in our own age is the suffering of Ghandi. One only has to study his life and his suffering on behalf of peace to really see the power of such intentional suffering. He participated in interspirituality on a level that most people could not go. Here is a man who was as well versed in Christianity as Hinduism. He was born into and chose Hinduism as his path, but studied and admired Christianity. He used the Sermon on the Mount as the ground for much of his thinking on non-violent resistance.

 

Beyond that - for my own needs

I have determined that the salvation of Christ is not in the shedding of blood but in the shedding of truth.

And that is where I stand. Others in my own congregation feel differently and we could have long indepth discussions about it. But in the end we respect each other - because we know each other on a deep enough level to not let something like this get in the way of our journey in Christ together. And this is a treasure to me - because I've been run out of at least one church for my beliefs

 

Robert there are follow-up posts to this one - because people had questions.

 

But - in essence - I do feel that Jesus lived and died on the cross. But, I do not accept the theology of blood sacrifice for all of humanity's sins. That theology made sense in the 1st century. In our current worldview and with our current understanding of science and of other cultures and religions - that theology just does not make any sense to me. It never has - even as a child.

 

Does this answer your question?

[NorthenSun]

ficino I understand this view. I am not far off it .. But I do not think there is nothing out there

I can't prove anything and its possible none of it is true! Maybe its just a fear that we are nothing more than accidents of nature that somehow developed brains and that any abstract notion of love is just something invented to try and keep us from going mad . But it feels like humans have a spiritual side - a need to connect with 'good' which i call God Not something explained by science. I think the people that see this side of them are better for it ...

 

Robert,

 

Increasingly I have come to see the notion of Gestalt (something is more than the sum of its parts) as being critical to understanding how the world works. Physical science has been great at reducing the world to a rather small set of physical laws. But one should not dismiss the inventor, engineer, creator side of science that can take these principles and build incredibly complex machines. Ethane is a rather dull two carbon compound, but it can be cracked and polymerized into plastic devices of amazing variety.

 

Biologists are working to understand the basic functions of macro molecules, but the cell is an intricate interaction of many molecular actions, and an animal is the result of the complex collusion of multiple cellular processes. The operation of the brain is often reduced to an electro-chemical reaction; perhaps, but it is an incredibly complex set of reactions and interactions. The brain and its complex structure give rise to sensory, reasoning, and emotional functions which are greater than the mere electron and sodium ion interchange occurring at the neuron level.

 

To some extent the human brain and mind are hard wired to react is certain ways, and much of this is for the purpose of maintaining the body’s functionality and health for as long as possible. But the science of human behavior, psychology, cannot reduce human actions to mere stimulus and response in the manner of B.F. Skinner. We are not slave to our passions, but reasoning acts to moderate our passions and desires. This occurs only because of the complexity of the brain’s many functions. Imagine a hundred people listening to a summer concert in the park. They all hear the same vibrations in the air created by the instruments which are then transformed into nerve signals by the ear, sent to the brain, converted to brain activity, which finally results in a sensation of music and pleasure. But it is more than that, it’s catching someone’s eye, seeing them smile, and realizing they are experiencing the same sense of pleasure. This ability to see both a human uniqueness and a shared experience between individuals is what I would call the human spirit.

 

I do not fear being merely an accident of nature, the resulting human experience and soaring spirit has made it a truly magnificent one.

[SkepticOfBible]

Hi Skeptic. I kind of agree .. If any Christian says God is almighty, Omniscient, Omnipresent... whatever - then you have to to start to ask the questions like you have. However I think its clear that there is good and bad in the world and in each of us. Can anyone argue with this fact? This is clear whether you believe in God or not, and if you do then it must also then be clear that God cannot just make us 'good' even if he wanted to.

You are thinking by forcing us to be "good" will take away our free-will. However there are a numerous methods where freewill can exist and God can makes us good. Eg

 

God can physically shows us the Doors of Heaven and Hell. Leave evidence of the Garden of Eden. Leave historical data about the stories of the OT and NT. Whereas that is certainly not the case.

 

We as people (especially skeptics) go where the evidence lead us, however there is very little evidence for christian theology other than a collection of books.

 

The bible backs this up by all the way through I think OT and NT and even fundamantal Christians believe this because that was the reason we needed a Christ. someone had to pay for the sin .. which was outside Gods control.

 

Nope, the OT does in no way backs up the assertion that some has to pay for the sin. In fact the New Convenant of Jeremiah 31 says the complete opposite ie

 

1)God will clean the slate(See it's in his control)

2)He will imprint the laws in the people's heart

3)He will be in directly in contact with everyone, hence no need of preaching

4)EACH MAN WOULD DIE FOR HIS SINS

 

The New convenant doesn't mention anything about the Messiah being a sin sacrifice. Humans are illegal and are not valid sin sacrifice.

 

You are right its a paradox - the human / God thing. I do not understand it .. but who can? maybe its not meant to be understood to such an extent - was not supposed to be a watertight argument like many of the bible stories

 

The whole human/god was invented by a council of men, who were threatened by a competiting school of thought where Jesus was not considered God.

 

The Nicene Creed and Truth about the Trinity.

 

Even the great St Paul never thought about Jesus has God. He always placed God (not God the father) above Jesus, and he explicitly mentions Jesus and God seperately.

 

The Satan thing - I just see that as a name for the 'bad' side of us Just as i see God as a name for the 'good' side in us. I think you are right .. Christ being tempted did show he was faithful to God.

 

Which takes away the God part of Jesus. I am not sure where Matthew asserted that Jesus was god. Most of the christian theology about Jesus being God comes from the Gospel of John.

[Antlerman]

Jrmarlin ... don't be too hard on Sub... s/he has been run through the hoops in the One Verse and An Invitation To Sub_zer0 And Any Fundamentalist To Discuss Spirituality threads. Admittedly, much of his frustration and pain is self-imposed.

 

But add that history to the challenge I gave him earlier in this thread, that he answer my question to him about Martin Luther King, Jr.... Well he has much to think about.

 

I sincerely hopes he works up the strength to come back and answer all the questions he has been ignoring. Gathering up the strength to answer these questions head-on, with compassion and sincerity can be a real growing experience.

I don't think he ever read that last challenge you posted. It looks like after he asked you the question of whether you considered yourself a Christian or not, he went offline and hasn't been back since. You posted your response to him about 7 hours later. That appears to have been his final time online here since the 28th at around 1am.

 

Maybe he realized the errors of his ways after posting that, and has been doing some soul-searching ever since? (best case scenario)

[Open_Minded]

I don't think he ever read that last challenge you posted. It looks like after he asked you the question of whether you considered yourself a Christian or not, he went offline and hasn't been back since. You posted your response to him about 7 hours later. That appears to have been his final time online here since the 28th at around 1am.

 

Maybe he realized the errors of his ways after posting that, and has been doing some soul-searching ever since? (best case scenario)

 

Maybe he is working through all that he discovered here. I do hope so .... like you said ... "(best case scenario)".

[Ziggy]

So OM .... why do you think Jesus was crucified? Was it that important and if was in what way?

 

Robert - you go right to the core with this question.

 

...........

Does this answer your question?

 

Hi

OM You are right ...its core. Your take on it is a very personal one .. and not an easy one for others to take on board as a belief for themselves I also can accept it as an historical event but the deeper meaning you talk about ('the vicarious suffering' part) - is one you have arrived at after much personal thought reading and experience. Another persons path would take them to a different understanding or do you think where you are now is a logical conclusion that others would also get to if they thought it through?

 

I think the key to this is your firm belief in an interconnectedness of all life. From that comes the search for meaning and what you see as truths ...albeit not absolute truths. As long as a person has a feeling for this interconnectedness then they are on the right track... after that what form their beliefs take pretty much depends on their own experience knowledge and reading. Is that fair.?

 

Thank you for the time you take to explain Although I don't see a concrete answer.. I do sense a feeling of warmth and humanity which cannot be wrong

 

 

I suppose my feeling on the crucifixion is that it is symbolic - not an actual / literal sacrifice. That would there is an actual literal Hell .. no thanks!

 

Increasingly I have come to see the notion of Gestalt (something is more than the sum of its parts) as being critical to understanding how the world works. Physical science has been great at reducing the world to a rather small set of physical laws. But one should not dismiss the inventor, engineer, creator side of science that can take these principles and build incredibly complex machines. Ethane is a rather dull two carbon compound, but it can be cracked and polymerized into plastic devices of amazing variety.

 

Biologists are working to understand the basic functions of macro molecules, but the cell is an intricate interaction of many molecular actions, and an animal is the result of the complex collusion of multiple cellular processes. The operation of the brain is often reduced to an electro-chemical reaction; perhaps, but it is an incredibly complex set of reactions and interactions. The brain and its complex structure give rise to sensory, reasoning, and emotional functions which are greater than the mere electron and sodium ion interchange occurring at the neuron level.

 

To some extent the human brain and mind are hard wired to react is certain ways, and much of this is for the purpose of maintaining the body’s functionality and health for as long as possible. But the science of human behavior, psychology, cannot reduce human actions to mere stimulus and response in the manner of B.F. Skinner. We are not slave to our passions, but reasoning acts to moderate our passions and desires. This occurs only because of the complexity of the brain’s many functions. Imagine a hundred people listening to a summer concert in the park. They all hear the same vibrations in the air created by the instruments which are then transformed into nerve signals by the ear, sent to the brain, converted to brain activity, which finally results in a sensation of music and pleasure. But it is more than that, it’s catching someone’s eye, seeing them smile, and realizing they are experiencing the same sense of pleasure. This ability to see both a human uniqueness and a shared experience between individuals is what I would call the human spirit.

 

I do not fear being merely an accident of nature, the resulting human experience and soaring spirit has made it a truly magnificent one.

 

Nice one Northern Star!

[Ziggy]

Nope, the OT does in no way backs up the assertion that some has to pay for the sin. In fact the New Convenant of Jeremiah 31 says the complete opposite ie

 

1)God will clean the slate(See it's in his control)

2)He will imprint the laws in the people's heart

3)He will be in directly in contact with everyone, hence no need of preaching

4)EACH MAN WOULD DIE FOR HIS SINS

 

The New convenant doesn't mention anything about the Messiah being a sin sacrifice. Humans are illegal and are not valid sin sacrifice.

 

Skeptic I meant that all the way through the bible there is this theme of good vrs bad. And that the bad side of us is not something God is in control of.. In Jeremiah it says he will wipe the slate clean but this is at some point in the future and it means forgiveness of past sin. Not taking away the possibility of sin in the first place which is outside his control I did not mean to say that the OT said that some else can pay for your sin.

[Skankboy]

As long as a person has a feeling for this interconnectedness then they are on the right track... after that what form their beliefs take pretty much depends on their own experience knowledge and reading. Is that fair.?

 

Exactly! I find that people with a mystical bent tend to all have this same core belief, it's just the expression of it is filtered through their culture/education. For me, christianity didn't provide the tools I needed (or else the concepts were so intertwined w/my previous "fundy" existence that I couldn't use them), but when I started to learn about Buddhism and the eastern traditions it was like a light went on for me.

 

Great post Rob!

[Open_Minded]

OM You are right ...its core. Your take on it is a very personal one .. and not an easy one for others to take on board as a belief for themselves I also can accept it as an historical event but the deeper meaning you talk about ('the vicarious suffering' part) - is one you have arrived at after much personal thought reading and experience. Another persons path would take them to a different understanding or do you think where you are now is a logical conclusion that others would also get to if they thought it through?

 

I don't think my conclusions are the only valid conclusions. In fact I thnk one of the worst wrongs of literalist religion is the idea that there is only one "right" way to understand things.

 

You are correct, vicarious suffering is an understanding which is deeply personal. And yes, this understanding is harder for more traditionally minded people to pick up on. But, it is not impossible. From experience, I can tell you that it is possible to start having these discussions. Especially since 9/11. Most christians I know want to build bridges, they just don't know how. They've been fed one line of theology their whole lives and they don't know there are other possibilities.

 

Just a few weeks ago, in our meditation group, the crucifixion came up. We meet in our sanctuary, and every year at this time our congregation puts up this huge hand built cross. I don't like it, I've never liked it. I don't say much because I know it's important to many people. One person in our meditation group is the very same person who built the cross. He and I are very good friends - when we first met 10 years ago - we began to have some very difficult discussions. He used to be a literalist. He is not any more. And two weeks ago - he initiated a discussion about that cross in our sanctuary. And during that discussion he acknowledged that it was important to be open minded (no pun intended) about how to interpret the crucifixion. That, it was not necessary to look at the crucifixion as a "blood sacrifice".

 

Now, even two-three years ago he would not have said this. I don't expect that cross to disapear from our sanctuary during lenten season anytime soon. But minds are opening up, people in our church are beginning to see other possibilities that they can embrace without turning their backs on the things they they hold dear in Christianity.

 

I think the key to this is your firm belief in an interconnectedness of all life. From that comes the search for meaning and what you see as truths ...albeit not absolute truths. As long as a person has a feeling for this interconnectedness then they are on the right track... after that what form their beliefs take pretty much depends on their own experience knowledge and reading. Is that fair.?

Exactly! I find that people with a mystical bent tend to all have this same core belief, it's just the expression of it is filtered through their culture/education. For me, christianity didn't provide the tools I needed (or else the concepts were so intertwined w/my previous "fundy" existence that I couldn't use them), but when I started to learn about Buddhism and the eastern traditions it was like a light went on for me.

Robert and Skankboy... wonderful thoughts.

 

I do thnk people with a mystical bent tend to experience this interconnectedness. But, it is filtered through our own lens. It is exciting to me that interfaith dialog on a world level is bearing most fruit between the mystics of the religions. Those from a more contemplative background have an easier tiime letting go of the language and theology that is used to frame spiritual experience and belief.

 

I suppose my feeling on the crucifixion is that it is symbolic - not an actual / literal sacrifice. That would there is an actual literal Hell .. no thanks!

Your feeling that it is symbolic is more common than my approach. I also know - and admire - people who interpret the crucifixion in more traditional ways - but are still quite open to people from other traditions and viewpoints. The pastor of our church is one person. He came to our church in the late summer of 2001. After 9/11 he was the ONLY pastor in our community to invite Muslims out from our local metro area. He invited them specifically to talk about their religion and answer questions. The meeting was wonderful, and right then and there our new pastor earned my deep respect. He is more traditional in his theology - but he is also one of the most unbiased and tollerant persons I know.

 

Increasingly I have come to see the notion of Gestalt (something is more than the sum of its parts) as being critical to understanding how the world works. Physical science has been great at reducing the world to a rather small set of physical laws. But one should not dismiss the inventor, engineer, creator side of science that can take these principles and build incredibly complex machines. Ethane is a rather dull two carbon compound, but it can be cracked and polymerized into plastic devices of amazing variety.

 

<snip>

 

I do not fear being merely an accident of nature, the resulting human experience and soaring spirit has made it a truly magnificent one.

 

NorthernSun ... I LOVE what you said. And what fascinates me is that the very same thought process is why I believe creation is a product of intention.

 

Please don't take this comment to mean I feel you are wrong and I am right. I do not feel that way, objectively speaking it is not possible to know which conclusion is correct, or if there is yet another conclusion that neither one of us can grasp hold of. In the end we can't "know" in a concrete sense of "knowing" if creation is an accident of nature or a product of intention.

 

I just see a dynamic at play where we are seeing the same things and coming to different conclusions. A dynamic that is well within typical human behavior.

 

One of the things that I really like about this board is that we can explore each other's thought processes without having to prove that one conclusion is right and the other conclusion is wrong.

[Seabiscuit]

I've been reading through these posts and a few others that Open_Minded (OM) sent me last week. What I keep coming back to is how metaphors operate. Metaphors in and of themselves don't hold truth; they are mere vehicles to getting across a point. I know this is something that all of us already know and its crucial to my thought process below.

 

In my job, I have to communicate a ton via talking and emailing. I'm always using metaphors. They're great! I can take complex information and get people to follow me. I even follow my co-workers down complicated paths of new information and "AhAh" moments. (Those moments when you realize something new.)

 

Time and time again, communication breaks down because someone got stuck on my metaphor. If I were to use a visual metaphor of an actual human heart, those I'm communicating may not get past the blood and gore. They miss my point entirely.

 

So, coming more to my point, I can't stand christianity and the bible or even bible god. It isn't because I came to the conclusion that it was all wrong. The errors I found to be in christianity were after I "left." I left christanity because my body could no longer take the physical evasion of that belief system. I was/am physically sick. This is largely because my church elders and my parents used biblical principles to justify (out of love for me) beating me starting when I was six months old. As a teenager and adult, I couldn't bond well because of my fear of people. Those happy, hugs and empty "how are you?" from church continued to repulse me physically. I knew they were empty because the person who'd ask was already gone with an "I'll pray for you…" hanging in the air by the time I would answer.

 

NOW don't get stuck on the abuse point, keep with me here. When I met OM, I was dumb struck that someone could talk about not reading the bible literally. It got me thinking about metaphors again. Could it be that the bible was all about metaphors and ideas of other people's spiritual experiences? Could the bible not be a fairy tale, but a collection of recorded metaphors that were victim to the woes of politics throughout history?

 

Because no matter how far I go from christianity there are some principles that have stayed with me. Just as an example, the parable of the guy with one talent (sp?). During a very dark time in my life, I wanted to give up and kill myself. It was that parable that kept me going. The idea that maybe you don't have much to work with in life, but you can still keep going and investing. Even investing one small talent. I wasn't christian when this happened. I don't even know where to find this in a bible. I don't even own a bible anymore.

 

Buddhism has a principle that I'm learning called "suchness." It's a category of things that we can't describe with language. Maybe we humans just haven't developed a sophisticated enough language and metaphors are all we have in understanding complex things. Now that I'm out of the frame work of heaven or hell, the possibilities of *some* aspects of the bible being real and helpful are coming to me. But because of my own physical repulsion, I am limited and will probably be for life. I, too, get stuck with a metaphor or rather I trip of metaphors and miss the meaning.

 

I'm thinking the key to at least understand these helpful parts of the christian belief system is to look at them as the metaphors they are. Not truth in and of themselves but a vehicle to a new way of thinking and a new language in which to think them.

[NotBlinded]

I've been reading through these posts and a few others that Open_Minded (OM) sent me last week. What I keep coming back to is how metaphors operate. Metaphors in and of themselves don't hold truth; they are mere vehicles to getting across a point. I know this is something that all of us already know and its crucial to my thought process below.

 

In my job, I have to communicate a ton via talking and emailing. I'm always using metaphors. They're great! I can take complex information and get people to follow me. I even follow my co-workers down complicated paths of new information and "AhAh" moments. (Those moments when you realize something new.)

 

Time and time again, communication breaks down because someone got stuck on my metaphor. If I were to use a visual metaphor of an actual human heart, those I'm communicating may not get past the blood and gore. They miss my point entirely.

 

So, coming more to my point, I can't stand christianity and the bible or even bible god. It isn't because I came to the conclusion that it was all wrong. The errors I found to be in christianity were after I "left." I left christanity because my body could no longer take the physical evasion of that belief system. I was/am physically sick. This is largely because my church elders and my parents used biblical principles to justify (out of love for me) beating me starting when I was six months old. As a teenager and adult, I couldn't bond well because of my fear of people. Those happy, hugs and empty "how are you?" from church continued to repulse me physically. I knew they were empty because the person who'd ask was already gone with an "I'll pray for you…" hanging in the air by the time I would answer.

 

NOW don't get stuck on the abuse point, keep with me here. When I met OM, I was dumb struck that someone could talk about not reading the bible literally. It got me thinking about metaphors again. Could it be that the bible was all about metaphors and ideas of other people's spiritual experiences? Could the bible not be a fairy tale, but a collection of recorded metaphors that were victim to the woes of politics throughout history?

 

Because no matter how far I go from christianity there are some principles that have stayed with me. Just as an example, the parable of the guy with one talent (sp?). During a very dark time in my life, I wanted to give up and kill myself. It was that parable that kept me going. The idea that maybe you don't have much to work with in life, but you can still keep going and investing. Even investing one small talent. I wasn't christian when this happened. I don't even know where to find this in a bible. I don't even own a bible anymore.

 

Buddhism has a principle that I'm learning called "suchness." It's a category of things that we can't describe with language. Maybe we humans just haven't developed a sophisticated enough language and metaphors are all we have in understanding complex things. Now that I'm out of the frame work of heaven or hell, the possibilities of *some* aspects of the bible being real and helpful are coming to me. But because of my own physical repulsion, I am limited and will probably be for life. I, too, get stuck with a metaphor or rather I trip of metaphors and miss the meaning.

 

I'm thinking the key to at least understand these helpful parts of the christian belief system is to look at them as the metaphors they are. Not truth in and of themselves but a vehicle to a new way of thinking and a new language in which to think them.

That was absolutely a wonderful post!

 

I had a very difficult time with all the contradictions in the bible when read on its surface. It's when these metaphors, allegories and such are understood is when the philosophical 'truths' appear. So, yes, there is meaning in the verse/s that claims one must have ears to 'hear' and eyes to 'see'.

 

Wonderful, wonderful post.

[Open_Minded]

I've been reading through these posts and a few others that Open_Minded (OM) sent me last week. What I keep coming back to is how metaphors operate. Metaphors in and of themselves don't hold truth; they are mere vehicles to getting across a point. I know this is something that all of us already know and its crucial to my thought process below.

 

<snip> (only for space)

 

NOW don't get stuck on the abuse point, keep with me here. When I met OM, I was dumb struck that someone could talk about not reading the bible literally. It got me thinking about metaphors again. Could it be that the bible was all about metaphors and ideas of other people's spiritual experiences? Could the bible not be a fairy tale, but a collection of recorded metaphors that were victim to the woes of politics throughout history?

 

Because no matter how far I go from christianity there are some principles that have stayed with me. Just as an example, the parable of the guy with one talent (sp?). During a very dark time in my life, I wanted to give up and kill myself. It was that parable that kept me going. The idea that maybe you don't have much to work with in life, but you can still keep going and investing. Even investing one small talent. I wasn't christian when this happened. I don't even know where to find this in a bible. I don't even own a bible anymore.

 

Buddhism has a principle that I'm learning called "suchness." It's a category of things that we can't describe with language. Maybe we humans just haven't developed a sophisticated enough language and metaphors are all we have in understanding complex things. Now that I'm out of the frame work of heaven or hell, the possibilities of *some* aspects of the bible being real and helpful are coming to me. But because of my own physical repulsion, I am limited and will probably be for life. I, too, get stuck with a metaphor or rather I trip of metaphors and miss the meaning.

 

I'm thinking the key to at least understand these helpful parts of the christian belief system is to look at them as the metaphors they are. Not truth in and of themselves but a vehicle to a new way of thinking and a new language in which to think them.

 

Seabiscuit ... EVERYTHING you wrote above is so compelling. I feel silenced in the face of such utter honesty. The ONLY thing I can add is:

 

I am so thankful that you are here to write this post, that you kept going and investing the talent you had. You have invested very well, Seabiscuit ... your wisdom speaks to your strength and character and ability to "invest" well. You have my admiration.

[Ziggy]

 

I'm thinking the key to at least understand these helpful parts of the christian belief system is to look at them as the metaphors they are. Not truth in and of themselves but a vehicle to a new way of thinking and a new language in which to think them.

 

seabiscuit I am with you here I think there is alot of helpful stuff in the bible for people of all backgrounds and culture but rather than the help being in the form of an external God its actually something within us. The bible can help us find this side of us but so can other things... the most important thing to know is that we have it within us and we can help oursleves and each other

Your story was moving - If you can find help from the bible after being through what you have then you are on the path of true healing I would say Good Luck

[Ziggy]

I have another question about literalism for anyone who has a vague belief in God

 

Two sides

1 Literal

Christians say God is almighty and good and personal. The arguments against that are many and varied - hell, accidents, illness and natural disasters etc are not the marks of a caring personal God

 

2 Alternative

I think that there is a consensus here that God is more of a force within us rather than an old man looking after us like a father (or mother !) A force that we can find within and is open to all etc

 

 

My question is to those who hold the second view. How do you rationalise natural disasters for instance and still hold a belief in God? How could you tell your children where God was when a family member was run over by a car? Or explain that its possible for anyone to be a victim of an earthquake or a tsunami irrespective of what they believe.

 

It seems clear that life is about luck. None is looking after us from above.

If God exists - then it is more in the form of an energy that we can utilise to help us deal with what does actually happen to us and around us. Not something that has any control over what does / will happen. My sister has said she feels things are done for a purpose but not in a literal Christian way - more in line with point 2 above - a sort of mystical way. But does even this view hold water?