Some thoughts over the weekend....

[marutidas]

I have been thinking alot about Jesus in history, Now I know the Bible make reference to historical events, but does that mean that Jesus did walk the earth, hey I would like to think so, but many that I have observed feels that give the message of the Bible validation. My question, if Jesus was never a real person, would that make his teachings any less important?
If you truely lived your faith would you need any validation?

Do you feel that the Bible needs historical validation?
What do you think, I would like to know your thoughts on this.

I say, "No", I listen to the stories of Hanuman, Do I really need him to have lived upon the Earth, No, He lives in my Heart, and that the only place that he needs to live to be real to me. God lives in me and in everyone and everything.

[andrewlittle]

I have been thinking alot about Jesus in history, Now I know the Bible make reference to historical events, but does that mean that Jesus did walk the earth, hey I would like to think so, but many that I have observed feels that give the message of the Bible validation. My question, if Jesus was never a real person, would that make his teachings any less important?
If you truely lived your faith would you need any validation?

Do you feel that the Bible needs historical validation?

While in England a few years ago, I heard some of the verbal dialogue between Marcus Borg and N. Wright. Wright stated that if they ever found the body of Jesus his faith would end then and there. His faith is built not only on the physical presence of Jesus on Earth, but also on his physical resurrection into heaven. Presence of a body = no physical resurrection.

I find this kind of reliance upon absolute doctrines, of any kind, troublesome.

I believe in a triune God, but my faith doesn't depend on it.
I believe Jesus was real - walked the Earth as God incarnate - but my faith in God does not hinge on its proof and would not collapse if proven false.
I believe Jesus was cruxified and resurrected - but an abysmal and violent death does not form the basis of my faith, nor a physical resurrection.

I have faith that Christ - real or not - was the living "message of God" to the beloved children of God. The Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Christ, delivers God's message of hope, peace and forgiveness, as well as a call to agency to overcome the dehumanizing patterns of life on this world. This is critical to my faith. Without this, I have no faith.

This faith doesn't rely on proof - on evidence - on certainty, but on what I can fathom about God from scripture and the visible and knowable world around me. This faith makes plenty of room for the ongoing mystery of God in the world, and requires plenty of action on my part to overcome those circumstances which stand against, what I believe, is the message of Christ.

I also believe what Richard Rohr wrote in an e-mail correspondence - “the most clever way to avoid the message is to worship the messenger.” I think reliance on a historical Jesus is based on just such worship.

[Steven E. Webster]

I believe there is sufficient historical evidence to support the belief that there was a Jesus of Nazareth. As to whether this or that detail or doctrine is historically true or not is disputable. I doubt that there was a literal virgin birth (Mary was probably an unwed mother) or a physical resurrection (and I don't consider those beliefs important). I do believe that Jesus was an intinerant preacher, perhaps a healer (not unsual among Rabbis at the time), and that he ran afoul of the Religious and Politcal authorities and that he was crucified by the Romans. While I don't consider Jesus' physical resurection to be historical, I do believe that his followers experienced and still experience his resurrection in a spiritual sense.

Resurrection is a strange belief. It's not just supposed to apply to Jesus--it's supposed to apply to everyone and the whole physical universe--I see it as an affirmation of the good of the physical world and hope for the future. Native Americans also expressed a kind of belief in resurrection when they practiced the ghost dance religion.

I think it is important to hold out for belief in an actual human Jesus because otherwise our Religious doctrine can become too abstract. Actually, my problem with Fundamentalists is they have made Jesus too abstract by focusing on doctines like the Atonement and neglecting the earthly life and teachings of the historical Jesus. Spirituality/Religion is not just in my heart--it is to have an impact in how I live my life and how we form community together. It's not just about an abstract, distant heaven--it's about concrete issues right here and now in the real world.

None of this may be logical or consistent--but that doesn't matter.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Maritudas- the title of Joesph Campbell's book, The Power of Myth, came to mind in answer to your question.

I am no 'Campbell Scholar' per se, but I do admire his observations very much. He deals with the thought that it is the idea of a thing, rather than the thing itself which is the operationing force (I'm sure I'm being overly reductive here!). As such (and this is getting into metaphysics), everything is an idea. And hey, why not? We know from physics that what seems solid is not. And of course, my appreciation of Buddhistic thought follows in the the same vein: what seems concrete- the content and meaning of one's perceptions- isn't concrete at all. 'Things' are not as they seem. There's a lot of space between stuff- material and immaterial objects. Of course, this kind of thinking traces back upon itself. What, after all, is Real?

Some time ago, I came upon a study of the brain and how it processes information (Learning Theory) which supported the idea that, if presented with a the letters of A-P-P-L-E or a picture of the same, the brain more easily and readily takes hold of that latter. This may seem bit off the subject here, but I believe is speak volumes. As such, human beings think more freely about the matter you are interested in, in abstract- right brain- ie picture- terms. Not left-brained- literal- everything- has-to-be-in -order consciousness. Or course, the matter isn't so easily differentiated: The two sides of the brain do, after all, do work together.

But is it any wonder that the artists of the world- as a matter of distinction- whatever their artform- invoke that which has everything to do with the right side approach?

I think the literalists are missing something. ;)

Literal ressurection and virgin birth? The facts may not be as compelling as what the mind does with its perception to these two 'things'. And to circle back here for a second: how much 'space' does these two 'things' have interally? That is, in the mind? I would posit that the literalist has very little room to manuever. What that 'gets' him is a whole other matter.

[scott snedeker]

I believe Jesus was real and merely human. His genius was the ability to feel universal love. So deep was this genius in his connection to this side of human nature that millions of people believe him to be God incarnate.

I believe his example to be the extreme potential of human achievement. The amazing aspect is that he achieved it in a world that was exremely violent and cruel. Within our species is this and other fantastic potentials. All that is required is connection to this potential within each of us.

So while many christians may consider expression of my interpretation evidence of atheism, I feel It to be merely a matter of semantics. I find his acheivemnt to be more astonishing, realistic and influential as a human than as a diety. It makes the possibility of universal love a more realistic manifestation today for me.

In many of my posts I quote Abraham. This is a workable model for me to connect with the aspects of my nature [soul/source energy/god or other spiritual pronoun] that help me heal and grow. These aspects are love joy empowermwnet to direct my focus and not fear, and others. "Follow your bliss" ---Campbell So then if it feels good to see something as divine then do so and embrace it! And if something is disaffirming direct your focus elsewhere


love and affirmation,

Scotty:cowboy:238

[Daniel]

Scotty- Reclining Pan with Flute? By Michelangelo? A ceiling painting? :cool:

[Vanessa White]

My faith is such a deep, core of my being, that I am not sure that it would be possible to really put it into words. However, no matter what "proof" could or could not be shown to me to indicate that the bible stories were more factual, that would not influence my faith in any way. Sure, my faith and belief in Jesus as savior are based in the stories, in a way. That is how I first found out who he was, and is. However, the stories are not the central part of my faith now. I sometimes feel less adept at discussions here and on other forums, because I do not delve into the stories and quotes from the Bible, as a way to prove or disprove that God is okay with me being gay. Then, I realize that, in spite of my lack of knowledge and interest in that type of research, my faith has not waned. I have lost faith in organized churches left and right, but not in Jesus. I do believe that he lived as a man, and was the kindest, most compassionate soul that has ever been. Whether it were ever proven true or not that he walked this earth, I know in my heart he was, and is, ever present. He inspires me to do right by my fellow humans, to listen to my heart, to strive for higher levels of awareness and existence. I don't know if that falls within the rigors of Christianity itself, but I literally consider "What would Jesus do?" in my everyday actions. I don't feel like I base my actions on how they will get me into heaven, although I look forward to seeing those loved ones that have passed again someday. But, I do want to emulate his example as much as I can. To me that feels like a calling, but I don't need proof to know that it is based in fact. One other detail I would like to comment on, and I am not sure if it is the same as what Daniel discussed. I believe in a type of descriptor of human behavior called choice theory. One aspect of it is about the idea of perception- in my idea, what "real" really is. A chair does not become a chair, for example, except in how we as humans perceive it within our own awareness. So, nothing to me really exists except in how I perceive it as necessary or purposeful in my life. This is why, I think, communication between us humans is so darned difficult most of the time. We say what we mean, but it really means little unless the person we are saying it to perceives it the way we mean it. How we perceive our world is based on the meaning we have of it, but it also influences what we give meaning to. Make sense?

[keltic63]

by invitation to the conversation: Thanks Marutidas.

I've briefly considered joining in, and now I will write down my thoughts.

For so many Christians, it's not about the message, it's about the messenger, and then believing all that surrounds the messenger as literal truth. Is it more important that I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified and resurrected, or should I concentrate on his teachings while he was on earth? I believe the teachings are more important, they are, afterall, the reason he was put to death.


the issue of whether the details of Jesus' life are accurately reported, or merely myth added later to emphasize his deity, have become less important to me. I have come to recognize that while I have faith that they are true, they are not germane to my faith because the message remains the same, even if those details are fictional.

I also do not believe that the death of Jesus was a business transaction. He did not purchase my salvation. It seems illogical that an all-powerful God would have to buy off Satan to secure the redemption of God's people. Again, the salvation is in the message, not the crucifixion. The crucifixion then becomes a logical result of Jesus' revolutionary teachings.

I know, for some christians, what I've just said is heresy.

[andrewlittle]

In that case, Keltic, let's hear it for heresies. Of course, we could just consider them ongoing "reformations" of the faith.

[marutidas]

for posting here, this is a question that came up after the sermine I listen to last saturday at my local catholic church. where father stateed that this is not merely a story, but actual truth that our lord walked upon the earth,(not that excatly, but close) because the bible mentions historical events.

So I wanted to know the general feeling on the forums here.

Please continue posting.

~~~Maruti Das

[Dash]

Like some others here, I feel that focusing on the merely quantifiable aspects of Jesus's life is a mistake. How was he conceived? Did he walk on water? Did come to life again? Did he float up from the ground into the sky? Did he even exist? Some of these things I neither know, nor care about anymore...some I think are probably lies agreed upon by those who consolidated the teachings of Christianity...some may well be true.

For some, I think the radical teachings of Jesus need to be buttressed by the authority of deity. They seem to think that if Jesus wasn't God, then no one will, or even should listen to the ravings of a wild, Jewish prophet. If he was a miracle-worker, God walking on the earth, then (and perhaps only then) we should pay attention.

What is it that they say?....either a liar, a madman, or God!

But for me (and as I'm gathering from others here) the truths spoken by this person (who I believe did probably live and teach these things) are recognized in themselve as Divine and essential to their faith. The teachings carry the greater weight of Divine authority for those who can recognize it. They recognize the Voice that speaks when they come upon the call to live as Jesus lived. The teachings do not die, but live on and are resurrected in our hearts and in the world all the time. The Spirit of the Christ...the ideal Son of Man...rises up before our eyes again and again as inspiration, comfort, hope and guidance.

I don't think it would go too far for me to say that many Christians who insist that Jesus was God and virgin-born, ignore the Divinity of the words when they hear them. I simply can't imagine that people who truly hear and humble themselves to serve the teachings of Jesus would do the violence upon the society of which the Church is perrenially guilty. (Sometimes I wonder if there has ever been an age when the Church was really a light to the world...there's a myth, in my opinion)

So yeah...those who question the measurable parts of the life of Jesus will often be branded as heretics and dismissed from the table; but many of these same people have no trouble devoting themselves to the actual radical and extremely liberal teaching of Jesus. Which is more important?

(And that reminds me of a parable...)

[scott snedeker]

Daniel

Good guess! I'm not sure. I found the picture on a google search!


240 my favorite sexy little faun!


Love Scotty:cowboy:

[Zerbie]

Hi MD,

I don't really have anything profound to say about this subject. . . though my personal intuition is that there WAS a historical Jesus, a master of "miracles" who in fact accessed capabilities most people don't, because of a surpassing spiritual understanding. I think it's entirely possible that he was indeed a fully divine being, and in that sense Lord. Those are really all the thoughts I've got on that one.

Z

[tpdncr4christ]

My question, if Jesus was never a real person, would that make his teachings any less important?
If you truely lived your faith would you need any validation?
Do you feel that the Bible needs historical validation?
What do you think, I would like to know your thoughts on this.



Thanks for the invite. I haven't read the entire thread yet, but I have glanced over some responses, and I've found I agree with just about every body a little bit.

I would have to say when it comes to faith, I define my faith as following blindly. Going where you are led, without needing to know the direction or the reason for going.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you quoted Luke 6 the other day. This book is one of my favorites, and one to which I dedicate many nights studying. Your quote came from a passage in which Christ said (verse 34) "...if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full." I think that Christ is trying to tell us not to expect a simple out come, not to expect payment for our loans, our work. This is, in my mind, a definition of faith. Trust in the Lord and you won't need to worry about being repaid.

If you live your life by faith it doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter if Christ was here, or if He was a magician or the son of God. What matters are His words and His teachings. I believe He walked this earth, but that is not the foundation of my faith. Whether or not it happened doesn't destroy the validity. There are many stories with fictional basis but astounding morals. Just because the story is untrue does not dilute the message.

Austin

PS. I believe whole heartedly that everything the Bible says happened. But just in case...

[BruceChris]

And it's GREAT to see it being addressed by people that I am beginning to feel that I know almost as well as I know members of my own church, and with very similar viewpoints. And it is one that I have not formally addressed myself, yet. (I can think of a few books that I should read)

First of all, I agree with Keltic. No, I don't think God had to make a deal with Satan. I do not think that Adam and Eve could break something that God couldn't fix. I'm pretty much of the opinion that the doctrine of sin and redemption was created by the early church to control the masses and boost attendance, and the accompianing collection, by using the fear of hell.

I have no reason to sell the messinger short, just becaust I believe that the message is what is really important. And, of course, the life of Jesus was both the messenger and the message. Is Jesus the Christ, and is Christ devine? I would like to believe so.

So the message is to learn and practice Love and Forgiveness, as a path to spiritual growth, emotional maturity, mental health, being in right relation, and inner peace. And of course, Jesus was not the only teacher to teach this.

James Fowler, in his book "Stages of Faith" talked about this a lot. He referred to levels of emotional maturity as stages of faith, referanced other authors on the subject, and suggested that it may be possible for some people to reach stage 6, a Christlike conciousness. Perhaps Confucious, or Budda, or Muhammed, or Mother Teresa managed to get there?

It is far easier for me to connect with a message about contemporary life from a contemporaty source. There are many, but the one I have found is the Course in Miracles. It's all about Love, and Forgiveness. The "Course", short version: All good things come from Love, and all bad things come from fear.

Note: in the Course itself, it says that the words do not mean the same thing to every person, and so it cannot be taken literally, but some people do anyway. It is Really difficult for me to wrap my head around that.

I like a lot of what Scott, and Vanessa said.

"Religion is not about what you believe, it's about how you treat other Peolpe"

It is wonderful to be a member of the gay community and a UCC'er, and to be among the members of my church. It is usually wonderful to be here at SF, and sometimes not so.

If God is Love, is Love God? Is God not so much a concious entity as a law or force of nature, like entropy, only in reverse? Now my head is beginning to spin.

Peace, and Much Love, Bruce Chris

[marutidas]

Law is the shadow, Love is the reality.

You cannot lead with the laws of the Bible, you can only guide with love.
If there is no love, then there is lawlessness.

[Dash]

This thread has generated a cascade of new thoughts...something that has been working in me all year, quite frankly. I note that the traditional Christian "creeds" are statements of the nature of God--with careful iteration of the meaning and legitimacy of the Trinity. The Apostolic Creed (below) is the simplest of these statments:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Each Christian creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed) seems lengthier than the last, in contrast with the Hebrew Shmah, which is a concise statement of monotheism:

Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.

Yet, these creeds make absolutely no statement about what a Christian is, or how Jesus encouraged people to live. Do they reflect anything about his actual ministry?!

I just found the Methodist Social Creed from 1908, which I like:

We believe in God, Creator of the world; and in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of creation. We believe in the Holy Spirit, through whom we acknowledge God’s gifts, and we repent of our sin in misusing these gifts to idolatrous ends.

We affirm the natural world as God’s handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind.

We joyfully receive for ourselves and others the blessings of community, sexuality, marriage, and the family.

We commit ourselves to the rights of men, women, children, youth, young adults, the aging, and people with disabilities; to improvement of the quality of life; and to the rights and dignity of all persons.

We believe in the right and duty of persons to work for the glory of God and the good of themselves and others and in the protection of their welfare in so doing; in the rights to property as a trust from God, collective bargaining, and responsible consumption; and in the elimination of economic and social distress.

We dedicate ourselves to peace throughout the world, to the rule of justice and law among nations, and to individual freedom for all people of the world.

We believe in the present and final triumph of God’s Word in human affairs and gladly accept our commission to manifest the life of the gospel in the world. Amen.

I had already been thinking about writing my own...one that eschews any discussion of divisive concepts of divinity or trinity or original sin or prevenient grace or yada yada, and sticks to things that Jesus wanted people to remember. Perhaps beginning and ending with the two great commandments. Something like:

I believe I should love my neighbor as myself, and I will be open to making any person my neighbor.
I will pray for those that intend me ill.
I will not cling to wealth, but will be generous with those in need.
I will feed the hungry, refresh the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick and visit those in prison.
I will seek to serve rather than rule.
I will be merciful.
I will seek peace.
I will pursue these things will all the strength I can find.
In doing so, I believe I will love God.

I don't know...a very rough draft...in between tasks at work. The Bible records that Jesus said, "He who believes in/on me..."

But...how about actually believing him.

Thoughts?

[nmwolfboy]

These discussions are fascinating!

Dash, your post about the different creeds is especially pertinent to me right now - the meaning & significance of different creeds is exactly what i've been pondering for the past two days.

Do i feel that the Bible requires historical validation? No, the historical reality feels irrelevant to me. i like to believe that Christ really did walk the earth, but even if the story is just that, a story, i think it's still full of spiritual wealth and truth. What has great relevance to me is how Biblical truths apply to our lives today.

[marutidas]

I believe I should love my neighbor as myself, and I will be open to making any person my neighbor.
I will pray for those that intend me ill.
I will not cling to wealth, but will be generous with those in need.
I will feed the hungry, refresh the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick and visit those in prison.
I will seek to serve rather than rule.
I will be merciful.
I will seek peace.
I will pursue these things will all the strength I can find.
In doing so, I believe I will love God.

Here's a thought, how about instead a creed, an affrimation.
Spoken like a personal mantra. We already have creeds, pleadges and oaths, but if they are not spoken as a promise, with conviction, they mean nothing. Just alot of hollow words.

:pray: But Dash, I would rather speak your creed a 1,000 times like a prayer, rather than say the existing creed just one time, Because it doesn't speak about what it means to Love God. This is truely a great affirmation, but affirmations are useless unless it is meant as a promise, and fulfilled everyday. I bow to the divinity within you. I don't think you need to add anything else, It is beautiful just the way it is now.

~~~Maruti Das

[Dash]

Here's a thought, how about instead a creed, an affrimation.
Spoken like a personal mantra. We already have creeds, pleadges and oaths, but if they are spoken not spoken as a promise, with conviction, they mean nothing. Just alot of hollow words.

:pray: But Dash, I would rather speak your creed a 1,000 times like a prayer, rather than say the existing creed just one time, Because it doesn't speak about what it means to Love God. This is truely a great affirmation, but affirmations are useless unless it is meant as a promise, and fulfilled everyday. I bow to the divinity within you. I don't think you need to add anything else, It is beautiful just the way it is now.

~~~Maruti Das

You know, by the time I had biked home last night, I also was questioning the "creed" thinking. "Creed" makes me think of something that everyone must say and follow in order to be a part of the group...but what I'm thinking of is more like what you describe. Plus, I realize that what I wrote is highly interpretive...I'm drawing on things that are meaningful to me from Jesus' ministry, and leaving out others that don't resonate so well...for me.

By the time I got home, I had already been thinking of ways in which I could implement the kind of living in this statement. ...it had already begun to change me?...

I say the Nicean Creed every Sunday in church, but I can't say it ever led me to change...

[andrewlittle]

I am from the Reformed Tradition, which is, of course, a title we use to differentiate ourselves from those who are not of the Reformed Tradition(?!?!)

Anyway, one of the hallmarks of the RT is the various confessions of faith that we occasionally recite, preferrably without thinking too deeply about what is being recited. Many of them are so old that the meanings are, thankfully, buried in somewhat archaic language.

But your creed, affirmation, whatever you would call it - now that, my friend, is truly a confession of faith that I can get me head and my heart around.

It says to me - this is what my faith looks like when I put legs and hands on it - when I engage my heart with my love and put it to work.

I think we should called it "The Confession of Dash" and teach it in catechism, and recite it at baptism. Oh crappe, we can't do that - it'll just become a heartless bunch of words then, just like all the others.

Hmmm. Perhaps, instead, it should be the benediction that is said just before we leave the church to take our faith into the world. That's it. It could be the reminder of what we are actually promising to God when we say, "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven."

Well, whatever. I will just say that even just reading it fills my heart with passion for loving God by loving my neighbor, my sister, my brother. A beautiful piece of liturgy, if there ever was one.

[erubre]

I have been thinking alot about Jesus in history, Now I know the Bible make reference to historical events, but does that mean that Jesus did walk the earth, hey I would like to think so, but many that I have observed feels that give the message of the Bible validation. My question, if Jesus was never a real person, would that make his teachings any less important?
If you truely lived your faith would you need any validation?

Do you feel that the Bible needs historical validation?
What do you think, I would like to know your thoughts on this.

I say, "No", I listen to the stories of Hanuman, Do I really need him to have lived upon the Earth, No, He lives in my Heart, and that the only place that he needs to live to be real to me. God lives in me and in everyone and everything.

I believe that a Jesus really did walk the earth. It is not necessary to be able to prove everything. It is best in my opinion to be able to believe all that one can. If you find something in the Bible that appeals to you and you have a good feeling about you can add that to your list of things you choose to believe. It dosen't matter what other people think about it or if it makes sense for another person. If it works for you than that's good for you. God is in everyone and if the God in you finds something good than it is good. In interpreting the Bible anything that is in accord with the Nature and Character of God is from God. Other things are not from God. And the Nature and Character of God is Universal and Uncondfitional Love. When you find something that you wish were true and that you want to beleve - then just pray that God will help you by faith to believe it. This way you can build a system of belief that will be comfortable for you. Everyone needs a belief system that they feel comfortable with. You don't need to be able to prove it. It's enough that you feel a peace with it.

[Deb]

I also do not believe that the death of Jesus was a business transaction. He did not purchase my salvation. It seems illogical that an all-powerful God would have to buy off Satan to secure the redemption of God's people. Again, the salvation is in the message, not the crucifixion. The crucifixion then becomes a logical result of Jesus' revolutionary teachings.

I know, for some christians, what I've just said is heresy.

Ouch! I wouldn't call it heresy, I would just say it is not Christainity... That is a religion I don't know anything about. 'With out the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin....' and if there is no forgiveness of sin then why even believe salvation has any meaning at all? what are you being saved from? the crucifixion is the point of our faith as Christains.

[frankandcathy]

I would have to give a resounding "YES" to answer the question, "Does it matter if Jesus was a real guy?" And more than that, "Does it matter if he was God incarnate?" "YES!!"

I guess it boils down to what you think of the human condition. Eastern or "New Age" theology as I understand it says that there is a god inside all of us. That we are all inherently good. That the "god inside of us" is just waiting to escape.

Chrisitan theology says that all people are inherently sinful (not good). Any goodness or wisdom that we have is credited back to God. Therefore, "every good and perfect gift" within me is directly attributed to God, not to ME, my efforts, or my good works. If I boast in anything, it is Christ within me. Am I a role model? That is Christ within me. Am I kind? This is Christ within me.

What's the point? Well, if Jesus was just some guy walking around, he is fallible just like you or me. He can screw up, sin, etc. He instantly loses credibility as a source of pure, divine wisdom. What he said could have been flawed or not divinely inspired. The thing about Jesus is that he did and said ONLY what the Father told him to. The rest of us kind of mix in the "God" stuff and our own thoughts.

Keltic mentioned the crucifixion as not a "payment" for sin. I don't know if he is just unfamiliar with biblical doctrine or if he just doesn't accept it. Or maybe I've just been well versed in these concepts and he has not.

At any rate, why we look at crucifixion as a "payment" for sin is because the OT (old testament) was a type and shadow of the things to come (NT). When we read in the OT that God said, "The life of a creature is in the blood" or that there must be a blood sacrifice to atone for sins (a lamb, a goat, a bird, a calf, etc.). To atone is to satisfy. This is, in essence, a satisfaction for the judgment of God over sin in the earth. A payment, if you will. The atonement WAS made on the cross because that's when the blood was shed. No atonement could be made without blood being shed. This is why Jesus is called "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

Dash makes some strong statements about the church not ever really having been "the light of the world" in his opinion and actually questioning the veracity of that phrase. I shake my head at this. The church has been a light to MY world. To the world of MILLIONS of others as well. It is simply misguided to take one aspect of the church (whichever you don't like) and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just as it would be wrong to take one aspect of, let's say, a gay man, and dismiss him entirely as "useless" to the world. We must be careful not to define "light" in terms taht we LIKE or that make sense to US. Does this mean that "the church" has always been right? No. But did many Christians harbor Jews and other outcasts in Nazi Germany? YES! Should we discount them, then, because we didn't like other things the chruch did in that period? By no means.

Bruce says that Adam and Eve didn't "break something" that God had to then "fix." I, of course, disagree. I have children. They often break things and bring them to me to fix them. I might tell them, "If you stand on that, you'll break it." They stand on it. It breaks. They bring it to me to fix it. This is human nature.

HOWEVER, the main problem that I see here is that many people that I've met here at Soulforce are discounting the Bible in favor of what they believe or their own personal experiences. I simply don't think that's okay. So, in essence, I can't say, "Hey, look, my kids do the same thing so that proves God is xyz." No. My experience may back up the Bible but the Bible doesn't have to back up my experience. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Okay, don't get freaked out. I'm showing my conservative side a little more here but that's okay. It's important for you to know how I think. I have a BIG problem with putting confucious, mohammed, ghandi, or ANYONE on Jesus' level because...well...I believe He was God...and they weren't. Jesus himself made these statements. And, (because I believe that what is written in the gospels is in fact what Jesus said and thought) I am forced to believe him. He was God in the flesh. Weird but true.

Dash: I actually really like your creed. Kudos to you.

Some other thoughts I have:

Christianity is not a RELIGION...it's a relationship based faith. It's based on the relationship you have with Jesus. Thus Jesus made a statement like this: many will call upon me in that day and say "we did many works in your name" and I will tell them away from me you evildoers. I NEVER KNEW YOU. The body of Christ is also about relationships. It's not about "you have to do this, you have to do that." It's this: you are my brother or sister. I will serve you in love.

Dash is right, a recitation never changed anyone unless it brought you closer to the person of Jesus. At which point, yeah, it will make a big impact.

I've been hearing a LOT about "God is love." Which is true. It's biblical. Yeah. God is also judgment. God is also mercy. God is also rebuke. God is also kindness. God is also damnation. And salvation. It grates upon me for folks to speak of a one-dimensional God. God IS love. But love is NOT GOD. We do not worship love. We worship God..His love...and everything else about him (even the stuff we don't like...like judgment).

I am wondering about the differences between liberal and conservative theology again. It still surprises me how different we can be and still call ourselves "Christians." I guess it's in how you define that. But, again, Jesus himself defined it through RELATIONSHIP with himself. I think that's the bottom line. If you have a daily walk with Christ and you lay every thought and idea at his feet and ask his opinion, go with what he tells you! I cannot and should not attempt to judge you unless you're doing something that would physically harm me. We all struggle with laying it all down for his examination and approval I think. I know I do. I cannot say that I've laid down everything and asked His opinion. I think it's a process...and I'm learning.

Again, thanks for asking my opinion. Hope this wasn't too long or drawn-out. I hope it helped you understand myself and others who believe the way that I do.

~C

[frankandcathy]

David:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I certainly don't pretend that my own experiences don't make me partial to certain beliefs. Are we to say, then, that there are no absolutes? Hmmm..interesting question.

The phrase "God is damnation" was probably not well put. A more appropriate phrase is probably "God allows damnation" so maybe "God is not anti-damnation??" I don't know. You're correct. "God is judgment" is not as well-put as "God is a judge." But all of this is missing the point. God IS more than just love. I don't think God is MORE love than he is anything else.

To imply this is to imply that love is more valuable than judgment, mercy, kindness, rebuke, etc. I think you're most right when you say that justice is a PART of love. So is judgment. That's my point I guess. "God is love" is just so nice, soft, and touchy-feely. Who DOESN'T want to think God is love?? Who wants to dwell on God as judge? Who likes to read that he struck dead babies in Egypt? No one really. But he did. So we can either look at that, believe it, understand that God IS a judging God...or we can just cling to the touchy feely. Or refuse to understand that "love" includes things we don't like.

As far as what I said being heresy...hmmm...I'm not sure how that's heretical. Unless you're saying that I was intending to take man's free will out of the equation. But who is it that ultimately decided that those living apart from Christ would be separated from God forever? God, of course.

Oh, and, by the way, I understand that in the NT we are told again and again (probably, yes, more than anything else) that God is loving. Actually, we're probably told to love one another MORE than we're told that he's loving. So I can understand your statement about God being MORE love than anything else. I can almost agree wtih it...but I am not sure what the full implications of that would mean and I wouldn't want to exclude anything important from the concept of God.

Hope that makes sense. Again, please forgive my quick post with ill-thought-out wording.

~C

[Daniel]

Dash- your post on creeds reminded me of Elaine Pagels book Beyond Belief, the Secret Gospel of Thomas, in which she posits that (if I remember correctly), not only was the Gospel of John written as a reaction against the Gospel of Thomas, but that the Nicene Creed was a repudiation of Gnosticism itself. More 'no' than 'yes'.

Your creed however, is all yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels Her New York Times bestseller, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), focuses on religious claims to possessing the ultimate truth. In it Pagels contrasts the Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of John, and argues that a close reading of the works shows that while John emphasizes that Jesus is the "light of the world", Thomas teaches individuals that "there is a light within each person, and it lights up the whole universe. If it does not shine, there is darkness." Thomas also shares with other supposed secret teachings a belief that Jesus is not God but rather a teacher who seeks to uncover the divine light in all human beings. Pagels argues that the Gospel of John was written as a reaction and rebuttal to the Gospel of Thomas. In John, the apostle Thomas is portrayed as a disciple of little faith who cannot believe without seeing, and very strong emphasis is put on accepting Jesus as the center of belief. During the time of persecution of Christians, the church fathers constructed the canon, creed and hierarchy, suppressing some of its spiritual resources in the process, in order to avoid conflict with Roman law and religion.

[andrewlittle]

A full blown theology discussion - who'd a thunk it. The discussions that are occurring here have been going on since Jesus died. What was, or wasn't, orthodoxy or heresy, for that matter, shifted time and again over the last couple of thousand years. And the two biggies have always been "the nature of God" and the "nature of Christ" - theology and christology.

The non-Christians on this site have probably already been rolling their eyes or wandered off in utter disinterest, so I'm not going worry about being PC.

The divide is far more complex than liberal/conservative. For instance, what you think of the nature of God and Jesus influences what you believe about atonement theology, among many other things. Now, the reason that all these topics are argued today, as they have been for millennia, is that, ultimately, we cannot know the nature of God and each and every theological formulation to date has its inherent problems. Boiled down to what they actually say about God, they all lead to some place that is potentially disturbing to someone - each of those someones being just as Christian as the other.

The problems begin with finite and, therefore, limited beings like humans trying to get their heads around the unknowable - the creator of all that is, all that has been and all that will be. I think that last statement is fairly orthodox and safe, isn't it?

Even then, the problem of "evil" rears its ugly head - is God the creator of evil? On a little smaller scale - did God create sin?

In one extreme, the answer usually comes out as, "No, we have free-will and we chose to sin and do evil. What God created was perfect and we messed it up." At the other end of the spectrum is the answer, "God created all that is for a purpose that we do not understand. While it may seem like sin or evil, that is just how we perceive it."

While there are myriad formulations inbetween, there are also just as many concepts and problems with just these two. The problem with the second answer is that if we can't understand even God's purposes for sin and evil, then how can we understand any aspect of God - good, bad or indifferent. To derive any doctrine is untimately pure folly.

The problem with the first begins with "free-will" and the creation problem. If by our free-will we have created evil and sin, then God did not create all that is, nor all that will be. We are responsible for that. God must have just created in the beginning and left it at that.

The middle road, and the most common, has been the "Satan" answer. God is the creator (was, is, will be), but Satan is responsible for sin and evil. Okay, so who or what created Satan, or has Satan been around for all eternity like God? If Satan is as powerful as God (dualism, BTW, is still officially a heresy of the Catholic church), then we have two gods warring with each other. If Satan is less powerful than God, then God allows Satan to work evil and sin when God has the power to prevent it (God is unethical - also a heresy). If God ordained that Satan can work sin and evil, and God prevents Him/Herself from intervening, then God has just placed limits on God. Can God be limited in scope even if it is voluntary?

Then you have the question of "the nature of Jesus Christ." Fully human, fully God - that's also orthodox, but it took 400 years and four councils to reach that formulation. The reason it took so long, and is still argued, is that there are contradictory scriptural passages AND there are so many views on the nature of God to begin with.

While bloody atonement attests to the power and immutability of God, it somehow plays a little loose with the fully God part of Jesus's nature. If Jesus is the Lamb of God, is Jesus subordinate to God? If Jesus is truly God, did God's judgment require that God Him/Herself die a miserable death on the cross to atone for human sins? Again, were these sins God created or humans? If God required human or mortal death to atone for sin, and Jesus was the Lamb, does that mean Jesus was only human?

There are no easy or pat answers to any of these questions, and invariably an effort to try will come up against something that some council already declared a heresy.

I know Pentecostals who don't agree with each other, and Baptists, and Lutherans, and Presbyterians and... So differences don't just exist between liberal/conservative, or even between denominations, but also within denominations or associations or non-denominational groups who, on the surface, seem to be alike.

A true conundrum can be seen in the Adam and Eve story - even if you take it at face value. Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. God had told them not to eat the fruit, but they did. God created Eden, put the tree in Eden and created humankind.

Did God know that they would eat the fruit?
If not, what does that say about "all-knowing" or "omniscient".
If so, then God put the tree there purposely - did God set a trap?
What does your concept of original sin say about God, about evil, about sin, and about the need for Jesus' death on the cross?

None of these questions are original, BTW. They've been floating around with thousands more for centuries.

The big problem that arises is when someone or some group decide they have "the" answer to any or all of the questions - they have the one and only orthodox Christianity. All of these questions and many more have been asked by Christians who cared passionately about God, about Jesus Christ, about faith and what the faithful look/act like. There is no one right Christianity - never has been, never will be - at least not this side of the Kingdom of God. Growth in faith has occurred by entering the discussions, not by declaring a "for once and for all time" theology.

[andrewlittle]

One value of theological discussion - in my mind possibly the only value - is in the way it promotes theological reflection on how we act in the world. To that end, I find one question in particular very helpful:
What's at stake?

This one question can immediately branch off in several directions:
What's at stake if I'm wrong?
What's at stake if I'm right?
What's at stake for the "church"?
What's at stake for me?

So, what is at stake if Christians disagree about whether Jesus' birth, life, message, crucifixion or resurrection is the critical starting point for christology?

What is at stake if Christians disagree about whether God is love, judge, arbitor, mercy, etc?

What is at stake if GLBT folks are concognized as full citizens and full church members/pastors with rights to be married, to marry others, to perform sacraments or ordinances, etc?

What is at stake if we prevent GLBT folks from these levels of participation in society and church?

What is at stake if we judge others?

What is at stake if we don't judge others?


When all else fails, the big one for me is, "What's at stake for God in all these things?"

DISCUSS!

[Emproph]

And what’s up with the concept of nothing? If nothing doesn’t exist how can the concept of it? :eek:

Something’s up with that... and I aim to find out what.. :inspector:

[marutidas]

I wanted this thread to try to encompass this important debate.

Institution vs. Spirituality
You do not have a discussion, by say I'm right your wrong, or saying that so-an-so's responce is irrellevent. A discussion ecompasses two apossing views, In this case, is it more important to follow the institution, the Bible and the Church, or is it more important to find God within those around you. To question your place in the world and finding God's place in your life.

I have been thinking alot, what good does it do anyone just to inllectualize the Bible. You can go to Church every Sunday and read the Bible from cover to cover and it not do you any Good. And just to point something out. Jesus NEVER called himself God/King or Messiah, It is only his followers who gave him that title. I believe Jesus did great thing, he taught the importance of Love, Serving and Compassion. But never did he do anything for his own glory, his own fame. He did everything for the good of others.

Spirituality, I feel yeilds flexiblity. Feeling God when you help the poor, the sick and hungry. Seeing God in expressions of Love. In this respect, the Bible is not so important. Yes in the beginning, the Bible is good because it teaches structure, but how does one transend that structure, to internalize and apply the lessons?

So how does one live these lessons if they are worried about translation, quibble over samantics or oppress those different from you.:inspector:

~~~Maruti Das:flower:

[tdogg]

I believe LOVE is the most important thing. I believe Jesus said LOVE is the most important. And if that is correct, then how can God not be mostly LOVE?

If one is to believe the Bible literally and without error, than one must think God is also damnation - according to the Bible (any of the versions I've read) those who are not found in the Book of Live are THROWN into the lake of fire - they don't jump (choose), they are thrown (tossed by another being or beings). On the surface it may seem like a choice but when the ONLY alternative is to be THROWN into a lake of fire to burn eternally, then I really don't see how that is much of a choice. Any thoughts?

This is coming from one who for years identified as a Christian (and I do believe Christianity is a religion - living a Christ-like life is spirituality), and who accepted Christ at a very young age, and who still holds fast to her faith and spirituality as it has evolved over the years - which does include a continuing relationship with Jesus.

[Daniel]

Marutidas -- the fact is that CHRISTIAN spirituality is BOTH individual AND communal. I don't know much about Eastern Spiritualities, perhaps thay are more individualistic in their approach, but we believe that the most common and dangerous "sin" is idolatry and that when people engage in a purely individual journey they inevitably end up worshiping themselves- the ultimate form of idolatry.

I would like to venture that what Maritudas is alluding to is two classes of perception, that being exoteric or esoteric point of view. The former is an outside to in perspective, while the latter supposes a different dynamic, that being, inside to out. One might also call these modes of perception objective and subjective.

East and West both function on this dynamic (there are western and eastern monastic communities who specialize in matter esoteric), and, from what I have gleaned, after being steeped in matters Eastern as well as seeing Christianity up-close (abet Pentecostalism) during my 20's, the idea of the meditator who is somehow idolizing himself is grossly misunderstood. Case in point: a serious student of the Buddha comes in contact with what is called the concept of "No Self". To put it simply: the person doing meditation practice (I'm using Zen Buddhist terminology here) isn't focused on their 'ego' (idolatry you might say) as much as they are endeavoring to experience Reality, that which is beyond the ego. This isn't easy to put into words.

Insofar that one is tied down to matters objective, one runs the risk- in terms that evoke Christianity- of adhereing to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Of course, this points to the question: what is the Law?

In answer, I am tempted to agree with tdogg: Love.

A Buddhist might ask it this way: "What is the ultimate reality?" An answer might be: "The awareness, if not the experience, of Emptiness." This last word is misunderstood, as a great many things are when translated from one language to another. It points to, however, an experience of boundless spaciousness, spaciousness that is full of Presence. And that sounds a lot like Love.

[marutidas]

As the Dali Lamma put it, No object, person or event comes in to being of its own volition. Therefore it is empty. Lets suppose I make a clay cup, The cup it self does not come into being on its own, but because of me, and a whole multitude of events, the decision on its form, molding the clay and glazing and fiering it, the cup comes into being. Now, lets suppose my parent never met, the cup would never have come into being, because I the creator would have never made the cup.

I was trying to point out the two points of perseption of institution vs spirituality., I admit its was clumsy wording, and I am not blessed with the eloquence the Daniel Posseses, so sometimes I come off a little blunt.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[marutidas]

David, First of all, Religon is a personal journey, no one can walk the path for you. second of all, If you verbally slap some one in the face, you can some times get them to think about things they never would have in the first place, I ment nothing malicious in my statement, but as a device to spur on the conversation. You responce, it seemed you pour alot of your self into it, though most of it was pointed at me and my responce and you were so committed to get you point across, I admire that truely.

On the rest of you comment, I say again, the Jesus never did Anything for his Own glory. If someone to put others need above their own, the is not Idolitry. The Bible is guide, not an instruction manual. What purpose does do to quote the Bible if you not living the lessons? Compassion, Love and Generousity toward everyone even your most hated enemies. Anyone can read the Bible, anyone can quote scripture, but is that not devicev, using God to prove your point. "Even the Devil can quote scriture when it serves his purpose."-( William Shakespeare)

"If a priest wears robes and talks about God, but thinks selfishly, that is not a religous act, but a politian, or a lawyer Works for the welfare everyone, that is true religon."-(The Dali Lamma)

In the Eastern Religions, I am acoarse refering to Hinduism and Buddhism.
There is the Dharma, To avoid any action in thought, word and deed that would bring harm to a fellow human being. But it goes much farther than that. It would take to long to try to explain it. I would suggest reading the book by His Holiness, Expanding Love.

In Buddhism there is no Sin, only suffering its causes and the contemplation of how to end it.

Just something to think about.
~~~Maruti Das:flower:

[Emproph]

God IS more than just love. I don't think God is MORE love than he is anything else.

To imply this is to imply that love is more valuable than judgment, mercy, kindness, rebuke, etc. I think you're most right when you say that justice is a PART of love. So is judgment. That's my point I guess. "God is love" is just so nice, soft, and touchy-feely.

~CHey Cathy :wave:

I’ve heard that sentiment many times before. Wouldn’t judgement, mercy, kindness, rebuke, etc., all be the result of Love? Physical life can be extremely taxing under the best of circumstances, our attention and focus easily scatters, but who would say that the touchy-feely part of love is not the point of life? All the other aspects; judgement, rebuke etc., are necessary to keep life going – for the purpose of love. I don’t see them on equal standing, I see them “in the name of.”


Insofar that one is tied down to matters objective, one runs the risk- in terms that evoke Christianity- of adhering to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Of course, this points to the question: what is the Law?

In answer, I am tempted to agree with tdogg: Love.

A Buddhist might ask it this way: "What is the ultimate reality?" An answer might be: "The awareness, if not the experience, of Emptiness." This last word is misunderstood, as a great many things are when translated from one language to another. It points to, however, an experience of boundless spaciousness, spaciousness that is full of Presence. And that sounds a lot like Love.That last part reminds me of The Starseed Transmissions (http://www.amazon.com/Starseed-Transmissions-Ken-Carey/dp/0062501895/sr=8-1/qid=1166776630/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2785518-9522314?ie=UTF8&s=books):
In your natural state of being, you have no sense of identity distinct from the Creator, except when you are engaged in a relationship... When such a relationship is not taking place, that particular aspect of you simply does not exist; you float effortlessly in the potential of God. You are not annihilated, but all definitions of you are...The loss of individuation can be disconcerting at times, whether enjoyably absorbed or just feeling listless about life. That’s when that quote usually rears its beautiful face. I think that the idea of oneness especially can have that effect. As fun as merging with heaven can (may) be, the sense of ‘where did I go?’ isn’t always so comfortable to the human mind. :borg:

In Buddhism there is no Sin, only suffering its causes and the contemplation of how to end it.

Just something to think about.
~~~Maruti Das:flower:I’ve come to the conclusion that original sin is the belief in sin itself – the idea that anything could ever go wrong. We bought that idea when we ate of the knowledge of good and evil. Before that, we knew only heaven – we just didn’t know the meaning of it.

If everything is created by a God who is love, and love is heaven, then everything is created with the “material” of heaven, as that’s all God has to work with – Itself.

I think the concept of oneness and to a lesser extent, the belief in reincarnation and karma help with the understanding of the eternal nature of our spiritual being, but I don’t think they are necessary. A belief in a God of love however, is.

No sin no blame, no need to retaliate. No war - only love, Heaven on Earth. Thus Matthew 22:40 (http://bible.cc/matthew/22-40.htm) “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Re: Love God and love others.)

I see the second command as an extension of the first. Love Love first, and remember to love all its creation(s). Jesus as Christ is the word of God, and the word sayeth thus. The Bible is the documentation of that word, and the Bible documenteth thus (:D).

A man made closed cannon with a beginning and an end cannot accurately reflect an infinite and eternal anything let alone the perfection of God. The idea of only-love-always, can. Hence that commercial that was censored: God is still speaking (http://www.stillspeaking.com/intro1.htm).

As far as I understand God, those two commands are the entirety of the Bible. Just as “God does not foster a spirit of confusion,” Love does not foster a spirit of illogic. Sin is based on harm, because harm causes pain, and pain is what we've defined as "evil." If we love God, we love loving, and will automatically do unto others as we would have done unto us – eliminating not just sin but the concept of it.

If one is to believe the Bible literally and without error, than one must think God is also damnation - according to the Bible (any of the versions I've read) those who are not found in the Book of Live are THROWN into the lake of fire - they don't jump (choose), they are thrown (tossed by another being or beings). On the surface it may seem like a choice but when the ONLY alternative is to be THROWN into a lake of fire to burn eternally, then I really don't see how that is much of a choice. Any thoughts?Agreed. Fear based salvation is not only oxymoronic on the face of it, but any love expressed to avoid a hell is inherently selfish and thus nothing has been gained. No one had to teach us that kind of love, it was designed into our DNA for the survival of the species. (Red Alert, Avoid Threat!)

I think part of the reason we’re prone to accept the concept of "damnation" itself is because the concept of being eternal is so foreign to our identity. Human consciousness – life, is so brutally demanding that we're blind to our own eternal nature, and thus our memory of eternal existence past. Isn't there some scripture that relates to that, something about 'He knew us before we were born?

I’ve got plenty on the whole evil thing too (fair warning :D) but I think that’s enough for now. Suffice it to say, I think religion, or “institution,” is the reflection of spirituality – not the other way around.

[Daniel]

That last part reminds me of The Starseed Transmissions (http://www.amazon.com/Starseed-Transmissions-Ken-Carey/dp/0062501895/sr=8-1/qid=1166776630/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2785518-9522314?ie=UTF8&s=books)

You mean that 'wacko'? Out there on a limb guy? The one channeling some entity? Should I be flattered or horrified? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I’ve come to the conclusion that original sin is the belief in sin itself – the idea that anything could ever go wrong. We bought that idea when we ate of the knowledge of good and evil. Before that, we knew only heaven – we just didn’t know the meaning of it.


And this sounds very http://www.amazon.com/A-Course-in-Miracles/dp/1890648337/sr=8-1/qid=1166789717/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4875345-5065752?ie=UTF8&s=books of you. :D

[BruceChris]

Good and Evil is what got us into all of this trouble in the first place, and yet most of us spend most of our lives trying to teach our children the difference between right and wrong.

If by some chance the kids are somehow NOT born with Original Sin in them, we make SURE that they WILL learn it anyway!

P&L, BC

[frankandcathy]

But I have to go clean the whole house for the 20 people I'll have here in two days!

I have to say that this post has turned me on more than any other. Um...I mean that as in "intellectually turned me on."

Wow. There's so much I don't know about theology and what others think about who God is. I'll have to come back here sometime and read it all in-depth.

Andy & David, I want to thank you so much for your posts.

This is the bottom line for me. Over the past few months I've made it a point to take trips with my 3 little girls around our neighborhood to just love people (say hi, ask how they are, etc.). My express goal is to love people and be there for them in case they might ever need anything. It is always my hope that if they don't know Jesus, they may come to know him through our loving them. I didn't used to be that way. But now I'm part of an other-centered church instead of a self-centered one. I don't take any credit for it but I do now "see the light" and am frustrated when others don't.

I have met MANY Christians on my block that don't know anyone else, don't come out of their houses, etc. One of these guys is a minister at a local church. Seriously. They don't know anyone on their street.

Today we took cookies around to wish people "Merry Christmas" and one guy said, "We've got enough cookies in our house, we don't need anymore." He thought we were SELLING THEM!

It is so sad to me that 1) My neighbor doesn't even consider that someone might just want to bless his family with some cookies because no one ever has. 2) "Christian" no longer means reaching out to others with God's love. It means going to church on Sunday and then coming home every day of the week, going into your garage, shutting the door, and flipping on the tube.

So I guess what I'm saying is that faith without works is DEAD! HOWEVER, I don't believe in "social" Christianity alone. Works without faith is dead too! Why the heck can't we get this down? Let your faith push you toward loving others. Let your loving others spur you on toward more faith.

Can anyone relate to this? I think part of the bad wrap that CCs get is just because they're living like everyone else. They are part of a self-centered paradigm. It's a trap and it leaves people hopping from church to church seeking something that can't put a finger on. Sometimes they complain about the worship, sometimes the children's or youth programs. It's always something. We Christians keep searching for more "spiritual growth" unknowing that true growth takes place when we serve others.

Oh yeah, Marutidas, Jesus said He was the messiah at least 3 times that I can remember off the top of my head. Not "directly" but clearly. When he said, "I am." When he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. NO ONE comes to the father except through me." And when he was talking to either Pilate or the pharisees about being king of the Jews. Sorry, I can look that one up later.

Also Maruitdas, thanks for this topic. It is very eye-opening and I LOVE IT. My favorite so far.

Merry Christmas!:love:
~C

[BruceChris]

I find myself wishing that the holidays will be over soon, so that we can see more of you around here. :love: :agree: :love: :agree: :love:

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[frankandcathy]

What you wrote about teaching our children just hit me in the gut. As parents, we naturally fall into the "pattern of the law" versus the pattern of relationship with Jesus. The only REAL way to change behavior is to change the heart/the inner man. I extend this grace to myself constantly. "Mommy didn't mean to yell at you. Let's pray about it. Now forgive Mommy and let's move on." I fully rely on God to change my hurtful behavior. And yet how much do I push my girls to connect to God? Probably not as much as I pop their little bottoms and tell them to "behave."

This was particularly poignant today as my 5 year old and I went round and round today. I kept decrying her behavior and she kept becoming more defiant. I wish I had taken the time to ask her to talk to God about what she was feeling and see what He had to say. As she gets a little more cognitively aware I know that I will have to start encouraging her to develop her own, very personal relationship with the Lord. I think it's time that I quit playing "Mom: The Holy Spirit" quite as much.

I am reading a book about an educator named Charlotte Mason who lived a while ago. Her stance was that adults are more experienced than children but that we need to treat children with respect as brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not to lord knowledge over them as though somehow they have to be grown up to achieve wisdom. She reminds parents that as we read the Bible to children we should remember that it applies to us too! She suggested that we consistently try to steer children to thinking in terms of: we are ALL accountable to God for our actions. Mommy and you are EQUAL in this way.

Anyway, good thoughts.

~C

[BruceChris]

Helping a child to build their self respect by always treating them with respect, even when dicipline is indicated, is a very important part of their upbringing. When we meet a person who is a real ass, and is always trying to put him/herself above everybody else, this seems to me to indicate that they have far too little self respect, not too much.

Quote: "Love others, as you love yourself" And what we forever have to keep learning, is that we cannot love others, until we really learn to love ourselves. This is NOT selfishness, it is simply learning how to love.

However, I suspect that you seriously misunderstood the point of my posting. I, and many theologians believe that the "Fall" was all part of God's plan in the first place. By telling Adam and Eve NOT to eat of the fruit, He was giving them that one little bit of knowledge that would cause the Fall. So He was really breaking His own rules to begin with. And if He had really been serious about it, He would not have created the tree, in the first place!

Furthermore, if we HAD recieved complete knowledge of Good and Evil, there would be no sin! Or at least, we would know everything that we would need to, to avoid it.



Originally Posted by frankandcathy
So I guess what I'm saying is that faith without works is DEAD! HOWEVER, I don't believe in "social" Christianity alone. Works without faith is dead too! Why the heck can't we get this down? Let your faith push you toward loving others. Let your loving others spur you on toward more faith.

Merry Christmas!
~C

I like to think that this is awfully close to: "Religion is not about what you believe, it's all about how you tread other people"

Now if this complicates your theology, I am sorry. But I still think it makes sense.

God's Peace, Grace, and Love be unto you, Bruce Chris

[frankandcathy]

David: LOVE these toughts. As we attempt to educate our children at home one of the values we hope to instill in them is to wonder. Not to swallow "correct" answers and regurgitate them for a pat on the back and a "good" grade. I love the concept of wondering at the Bible. What were they thinking? Why? Good stuff!

bruce: Thanks for you post. I don't think my response to your post was so much about what you said. I understand you weren't talking about parenting as much as theology. I think your theological points are fascinating. Not sure how I feel about them. But the words you used, for whatever reason, made me think along the lines of parenting.

Sometimes how you affect peoples' lives is a mystery. I've had people say to me, "Remember when you said so-and-so? That changed my life." And internally I'm thinking, "I never said that. I never even thought that." You just smile and nod and thank God for letting you share some of the credit for improving someone's life...even though you're pretty sure you didn't do anything. It's like God's little blessing for us!

Anyway, I don't believe that faith=deeds. Without faith, it's impossible to please God. Some people get really into doing "good" things but have no belief in God. Apart from faith, good works are dead. I think that's also part of the equation in the garden. I think the tree was there for faith (to enhance faith). Or maybe (like sin and the law in contrast to faith-based salvation) as a foil to having no choices...mandated goodness. After all, faith is the evidence of things NOT seen. There has to be some question, problem, or issue to exercise faith. The question for those first humans was: Am I going to trust God? Maybe God wondered: Are they going to trust me? Let's see. They lacked the faith to believe God over the serpent. Okay. I'm sure God knew that was going to happen.

I disagree with the concept that if complete knowledge of good and evil had come, there would be no sin. Let's be real. I have COMPLETE knowledge that the turkey, dressing, cranberry chutney, rolls, jello salad, fudge, cookies, corn casserole, and banana cake that I ate today are going to make me gain weight and gripe about it. Did that stop me? Not one bit!

I'm unsure that it was necessary for COMPLETE knowledge of good and evil to be attained for sin to occur. That's not a requisite I don't think. I don't know why that would even be a consideration. God never said it was the tree of complete knowledge, did He? Perhaps that was the serpent's lie to the folks.

Anyway, it's too late!
Goodnight all. Hope you had a wonderful Christmas!
~C

[BruceChris]

But I still think it is self-evident that if we had perfect knowledge of Good and Evil, we would clearly have the option of not sinning. Yeah, you are right on one point. Genesis never did say that it was Perfect knowledge.

I have made this point before, but I do believe that a primary goal, perhaps The Primary goal of our being placed here on Earth is to continue to grow spiritually, by which I believe that that means becoming ever more emotionally mature. Two phrases that mean exactly the same thing, one in a Religious context, one in a Secular one.

The ultimate in growth is to become as loving a person as one possibly can.

Now a bit of a curve ball for you. To a large extent, we are what we do, and we do what we are. As a practical fact, I do believe that Faith does equal Deeds. Faith Requires Deeds, and Deeds Require Faith, or Love. If you do love yourself, wisely but humbly, you will love others, and treat them well. And if you are raised up to treat others well, as you say that you are doing with your own children, you will probably become a loving person. Each reinforces and supports the other. And yes, I will say that truly loving those around you DOES require a deep human Faith, even if you have never heard of God, or Jesus.

I find myself coming back to a book about personal growth, and emotional maturity. "Stages of Faith", by James Fowler. He defines a persons level of maturity as the level of Faith, or Faithing that they have reached. He concludes, not surprisingly, that the highest level of maturity is to become a truly loving person. He says that this level, the sixth level, is very rare, and cites people like Mother Teresa.

Has she ever read a Bible, or listened to an Evangelist, I don't know. Has she accepted Jesus Christ as her personal savior? I doubt it. Do you really think God will turn her away at the door?

If you have seriously considered answering "Yes" to that question, I do not think that I will ever be able to have a serious dialogue with you again. I do hope that that does not offend you, but hey, I've got a life to live, too.

Thoughtful Consideration, Bruce Chris

[marutidas]

I have found some Bible passages that Are relevant to this conversation,
read them or not, But please tell me your interpritation.

Mark 7:1-8,14-15,21-23, 10:17-30(please read this one)
James 2:14-18, 3:16-4:3
and just because I like this one
Wisdom 7:7-11

I am not going to quote them, It is up to you to read them and Divine their meaning for yourself.

~~~Maruti Das:flower:
I hope all of you had a wonderful Holiday Season.

[RainbowL'elly]

I have been thinking alot about Jesus in history, Now I know the Bible make reference to historical events, but does that mean that Jesus did walk the earth, hey I would like to think so, but many that I have observed feels that give the message of the Bible validation. My question, if Jesus was never a real person, would that make his teachings any less important?
If you truely lived your faith would you need any validation?

Do you feel that the Bible needs historical validation?
What do you think, I would like to know your thoughts on this.

I say, "No", I listen to the stories of Hanuman, Do I really need him to have lived upon the Earth, No, He lives in my Heart, and that the only place that he needs to live to be real to me. God lives in me and in everyone and everything.

i've got to say 'no' to the first one- the teachings are still valid- they still hold merit- that which jesus said was written by someone very wise and with a very good heart. i don't need validation. i don't think the bible needs to be historically validated, though i think that it does provide an interesting look at where we have been and, especially in the case of the old testiment, how far we have come and have yet to go. i like comparing the halves and knowing what historically was happening at the time helps with that comparison.

i'm jumping into this in the middle, i know. it ought to be interesting.

[Emproph]

This is what I was going to post originally but I got in on the game too late. So thanks RainbowL'elly :).

Most of my feelings have been represented already. Even if it were proven Jesus never existed, it still wouldn’t matter, the message of unconditional love is what is important. Loving others as ourselves IS salvation. If love is heaven, and the only motive and response we ever have is love, then we are always in the presence of love and thus in love, in heaven, and thus safe or “saved.”

A couple of things as to why my belief in / relationship with Jesus is not contingent upon the Bible:

I grew up Catholic so I got the story down fine (God/Bible), and took it to heart, but I didn’t understand the importance of Jesus. For years I figured God pretty much covered it. Eventually I began to realize that not only did Jesus put a human face on God, as opposed to an all knowing blob in the sky, but that it was done at the worst (most painful/hopeless) point in human history.

I heard it described once as a time when if three men were walking down a road together, each of them would be wondering if/when the other two were going to kill him. That was the level of fear. Along those lines, how often do we consider the emotional impact of just knowing that someone was stoned to death? That was tip-of-the-iceberg everyday life for them.

It shows at least two things. First that God / Love came to save the worst of the worst of us, and second, that Jesus knew pain, fear and misery of the worst kind possible. I realized that part of the importance of the human face of God as Jesus was that He understands our ‘modern day’ pain, and couldn’t possibly be shocked by anything we’ve done or experienced. His timing was strategic, His legacy would last. The story was designed so that it could only be compared with "worse."

Two specific things really brought me around though, and for the record I officially “gave my life to Jesus” several years earlier, so maybe that had something to do with it... (All the more proof to “convict” you with, my pretty.. (insert ambiguously evil/holy laughter here. :D)

I always conversed with God, but I began to notice thoughts.. about.. in regard to, etc., – Jesus – or at least the name of “Jesus.” I’d been shoo'ing away and dismissing them out of hand for years. But on one particularly contemplative night (a'hem), I closely examined those thoughts/notions/naggings of the notion of “Jesus,” and found them to be separate.

They were not of my own making, it was incoming information, not my own outgoing thoughts. I saw a clear distinction between my personal thoughts about Jesus and this seeming notion of the presence of Jesus. It was subtle, but it was there.

Now that’s inner confirmation, good enough for that person (me), but a witness applicable on a personal level only. Trust of that person being paramount in order to believe that witness.

The second confirmation was outer – I began to notice the use of swear/curse words in the media.

Why is it satisfying to say God damn it! or Jesus Christ!, when we are angry? Love doesn’t damn, so why wouldn’t it be “Satan damn it!”, or something similar? A Course in Miracles regards evil as “a call for love.” Behind the emotion of anger or frustration is a recognition of need. It is my contention that the “swear” or curse, is a misguided expression or prayer in regard to that need.

Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ God who is in control of all, I need your help right now but I know your not going to give it to me because this has already happened/is happening, thus I curse your miraculous power (Love) in vain! (Since you didn’t prevent this in the first place)

Again, wouldn’t “Satan” be responsible for the problem?

Now I would expect that “Lord’s name in vain” behavior from a believer / understander. What fascinates me is why atheists glean JUST as much satisfaction from it. Perhaps this is just a Western phenomenon, but “Jeez! Jesus Christ! God Damn it! etc,” all seem to be universal expressions of the same emotion – whether a devout believer, or one who is certain that there is no God.

If you don’t believe in miracles to begin with why bother to curse their non-existent source?

God. My God. Oh My God.

Sitcoms, movies, songs, listen and watch who says these things and especially the cavalierness yet automatic-ness with which they’re said. If it doesn’t mean anything, then why the satisfaction in saying it? Notice the emotion in doing so, and why is it the same for those it means something to as with those it doesn’t?

Now that was the frosted side of me, the objective wholewheat adult side asks: Do they say Mohammad damn it in the Mid East? If not, is it because of their society’s upbringing, or because Mohammad isn’t the “true” savior who has the unlimited ability to enter the heart of anyone who asks?
Anyway, that’s why my belief in Jesus isn’t contingent upon the Bible, it’s been proven outside of it.

It wouldn’t matter anyway, I already know the truth of Love above and beyond all that. The story of Jesus just seems to fit so perfectly within it.