Nothing to be saved from?

[pnggrad79]

My wife and I have been going to a UCC church here in Spring, and formed some really neat relationships with the people there. We considered joining even though we have some basic theological differences with the pastor. We went to a membership informational meeting last Sunday and the pastor stated that she believed that we had nothing to be saved from, and that is why she didn't preach on salvation. She said that the salvation message was negative and she wanted to focus on the positive.

I sat there and thought, "Did she just totally negate Jesus whole reason for being born, living and dying?" and then "She just totally disregards a basic, foundational bedrock tenet of the Christian faith." What then did Jesus die for if we have nothing to be saved from?

I believe the entire OT pointed to our need for a savior. I believe the whole sacrificial system they employed was a picture of Christ's sacrifice for our sins.
I believe that Christ's death on the cross was the final sacrifice and that our sins past, present and future are forgiven. If she basically throws out that principle, that basic belief, what is left of Christianity?

I am interested in what ya'll think of this...

[Steven E. Webster]

My wife and I have been going to a UCC church here in Spring, and formed some really neat relationships with the people there. We considered joining even though we have some basic theological differences with the pastor. We went to a membership informational meeting last Sunday and the pastor stated that she believed that we had nothing to be saved from, and that is why she didn't preach on salvation. She said that the salvation message was negative and she wanted to focus on the positive.

I sat there and thought, "Did she just totally negate Jesus whole reason for being born, living and dying?" and then "She just totally disregards a basic, foundational bedrock tenet of the Christian faith." What then did Jesus die for if we have nothing to be saved from?

I believe the entire OT pointed to our need for a savior. I believe the whole sacrificial system they employed was a picture of Christ's sacrifice for our sins.
I believe that Christ's death on the cross was the final sacrifice and that our sins past, present and future are forgiven. If she basically throws out that principle, that basic belief, what is left of Christianity?

I am interested in what ya'll think of this...

For those of us who are "progressive Christians" the word "salvation" does have a different meaning than it does for the "evangelical" wing of Christianity. The progressive Christianity that I believe in is rooted in the Bible. In the Bible "salvation" isn't all about saving individuals from punishment in hell (read Mary's Magnificat in Luke as an example.) Salvation refers to the liberation and redemption of humanity and creation as a whole. It is liberation and redemption not only from individual sin, but more importantly, salvation from oppression of every kind.

I'm a believer in "liberation theology" which was strongly expressed by Latin Americans. It is very biblical, but again, not focused on "going to heaven," but on liberating the poor and oppressed from poverty and oppression in this world.

Liberation theology also applies to LGBT people, and can be applied to our own experience of oppression and liberation. It offers us a powerful message of hope for change in this world.

Progressive Christians may not believe in a literal "heaven" or "hell." For some people "salvation" is all about escaping hell and getting to heaven. If you take heaven and hell out of the picture they just don't know what to do with the Christian religion.

I suppose what I'm saying may not be very convincing to "evangelical" Christians. Some might consider me a heretic and an apostate. But I'd like to hope that we might find some basis for Christian unity despite our differences.

Some theological differences are not easy to bridge. Maybe this UCC church is not the right place for you theologically---that doesn't make them unChristian--just different. But maybe, if there are other things that draw you to this church (for instance the fellowship with other believers) maybe you can overlook the theological differences.

As a progressive Christian, I'd also have problems with this pastor if she thought there was no need for salvation in the world---for one thing, I think the world needs to be saved from homophobia (to mention just one form of injustice.)

I may not be expressing myself very well--can others help me out here?

I don't want to discount the aspect of salvation as hope in the resurrection--not just the resurrection of Jesus, but the resurrection of all humanity and all creation. I do believe in that too! But I'm from a tradition that doesn't sit around at funerals and speculate about whether the deceased was "saved" or not. (I gag when I hear tales of preachers telling folks that the deceased is in hell!) I believe the message at every funeral is that the deceased is in the hands of a loving God who does not will that anyone will be finally lost.

Well, I was up late watching the New Hampshire primary--now I better go to bed!

Steven Webster

[scott snedeker]

"Did she just totally negate Jesus whole reason for being born, living and dying?" and then "She just totally disregards a basic, foundational bedrock tenet of the Christian faith." What then did Jesus die for if we have nothing to be saved from?
...

I am not a Christian, so tender what I think with that in mind, But I would interpret this view differently.

I see her message as Christ's salvation as being a given to all and not conditional.

I thinks she is trying to distinguish this interpretation of salvation from the more dogmatic and mass controlling appearing paradigm of salvation being rewarded only after meeting conditions of complying with the metaphysical beliefs of religious leaders. Leaders that, to me, have the appearance of having motives to exploit followers for their personal gain.

For a pagan, love of self extended to others is the connection to what we call the Spirit of the Earth or life energy or [enter label of choice].

I see Christ as a human who had a uniquely profound awareness of this connection. Love is the way, the path. It was Christ's path. I can follow it without pretending to believe that Christ was more than a very special human despite what someone who I have never met says or thinks.

[Steven E. Webster]

Pnggrad,

I'm not out to start a theological fight, Pngrad, but I am also troubled by the theology of some Evangelicals that places such a big emphasis on Old Testament sacrifice and on the death of Jesus as a bloody sacrifice required by God for the forgiveness of human sin. I offer this passage from the Old Testament (or the Hebrew Scriptures, if you will):

"With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands a rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? God has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Michah 6:6-8.

Even the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures were critical of sacrificial theology. I believe that Jesus himself was in that same tradition.

I find that many young people find the whole bloody atonement emphasis of some Christians to be a barrier to accepting Christianity. Did God really require a human sacrifice, the torture and death of an innocent person, in order to forgive humanity?

There are other ways to understand Jesus' death that are just as Biblical and just as rooted in Christian tradition. For one thing, I believe the real emphasis should be on the resurrection and not on the crucifixion. Crucifixion was a political punishment, a form of torture imposed by the Roman oppressors of ancient Palestine. The resurrection represents the defeat of the powers of death and oppression.

Steven Webster

[BenL]

I hesitate to enter this conversation because my theological skills come from personal experience and reflection and not from academic study of the Bible or theologians. Lord knows, I'm an Episcopalian who grew up a Roman Catholic, so my theology is as mongrel as I am.

To me, the question of whether we need salvation boils down to whether you think in terms of origianal blessing or original sin. I am trying to live into the notion that I am blessed by God for who it is God made me, not saved by God despite who I am. The dual thrust of the creation story in Genesis, for me, is an attempt to exalt God for the inexplicable wonders of creation while recognizing that God's gift of free will includes the possibility of evil.

So, why Jesus?

For Christians, Jesus is the link for their humanity back to the Divine. For me, Jesus embodies the strength I do not readily find in myself to overcome evil. Incarnation, embodiment of the divine, is what is important to me in the salvation question. Taking on our nature and willingly humbling himself without regard to his divinity, as Paul says.

If you examine all major religions, I think you see a theme of uniting humanity with the divine creator. Most people experience a sense of brokenness at some time in their lives, and salvation is the way Christians express the repairing of that fracture. In the Christian theology of grace, this divine act of salvation, embodied in Jesus the Christ, is freely given by God and undeserved by humankind. Which gets back to the notion of sacrifice: Nothing we humans can sacrifice is good enough to repair our brokenness, except what Jesus accomplished for our salvation.

Sorry if it all gets circular and begs the question, but it's how I conceptualize what my inner spirit experiences.

[pnggrad79]

Steven,
Thanks for your views on this. I wouldn't have posted this thread if I wasn't interested in what everyone thought.
My question is this- if blood wasn't a requirement for the forgiveness of sin, then why did Jesus have to die such a brutal death? I believe the whole system of blood sacrifice for the remission of sin, was only to point to what God was going to do with Jesus' death on the cross. I believe the OT sacrificial system a symbol or a picture of what Jesus would later do, thereby remitting sin and solving the sin problem of humanity. I don't know why God required spilled blood, but he did, and Jesus was the final sacrifice. God, in human form, became a man, and was the sacrifice He required for the salvation of man. (the book of Hebrews speaks to this)
Just because young people don't "like" this concept does make it any less valid. I maintain that it is a positive thing that all this has been done for us and we no longer have to make blood sacrifices to atone for our sin. We need to rejoice in that fact. We were bought with a price, Paul says, and I believe that goes for gay and lesbian people as well as anyone else.
I don't believe in watering down the gospel just because it was used to bash people (and still is). Then it is used wrongly and God is not honored, but we don't need to water it down so that it has no meaning and we feel comfortable. If we start taking out the things from the Bible we don't like, we are no better than the fundamentalists who lift scripture out of the Bible and use it to bash us with. The Bible is what it is and says what it says, and just because we don't like some of the concepts it teaches doesn't make it any less valid.

[keltic63]

For me, the idea of a sacrificial atonement raises some questions and concepts that don't agree with other concepts of God.

The idea that it was necessary for Christ to "pay the price" for our sins indicates that someone had to pay, that death/Satan was owed something. In order to redeem humans, someone had to pay. The implication is that if humans could not pay, then God had to make the payment. Does God not have the power to overcome satan and death? Is our God so weak that he has to buy us from Satan?

Here's what I believe about why Jesus was crucified: His message was so radical that it challenged the leaders, both religious and civil, and threatened their power. The logical result of such a message was such an uprise against the messenger, that Jesus had to be killed.

At the risk of being considered a heretic, I think the message that Jesus brought us is too often eclipsed by the crucifixion and resurrection. It seems to cause some groups of christians to concentrate on the guilt we should feel for causing Jesus to die, when Jesus himself did not talk a lot about that part of his mission. Instead, Jesus talked about love, and social injustice, and hypocrisy in the religious hierarchy, and how we should treat each other, and how we serve God.

[pnggrad79]

Jesus also talked about his death as the sacrifice for sin. Yes, he did concentrate on social injustice, the frailty of the OT sacrificial system and how it was flawed, and how we should love God and our neighbors as ourselves.

The fact that Jesus died, esoterically, because his message was radical in nature and went against the establishment, does not minimize the fact that His death also saved us from the eternal consequences of our sin nature.

He didn't say that the wine he drank at the Last Supper was a symbol of his radicalness, he said it was a symbol of the blood that cleansed us. He didn't say that the bread he served was his banner of social reform, he said it was his body, broken for our forgiveness.

Let's not minimize the crucial importance of Jesus death and what it means for Christians.

[NathanATX]

Fascinating conversation...

For me it all comes back to the question "Who is God?"

Is God Love or not?

Would it be loving to create your children with the potential to sin... or, as some believe, the guarantee they will sin... and then punish them forever... i.e. torture?

I can't fathom a loving God would torture any of His kids forever for any reason.

Let's assume sin and punishment are part of the equation.

God is going to require human sacrifice in order for Him to forgive sins He created us with the potential to commit?

When I hear someone talk about the "body & blood" of Jesus, all I can think about is some horrible monster deity requiring torture and blood to "pay" for something that He already knew I would do.

I can't take communion when it's presented as the body and blood of Jesus. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Jesus is more than an escape ticket. He is more than a human sacrifice. He came because through people's religous traditions they were forgetting who God was. He was constantly confronting their religious ideology and bringing them back to the basics... that God is love... that we are to love God and to love one another.

There's a phenomenal "opposing viewpoints" book called "The Meaning of Jesus." I highly recommend it. And Bishop John Shelby Spong's books are amazing, "The Historical Jesus" and "Jesus for the NonReligious."

[pnggrad79]

It is my conviction from my reading of the book of Hebrews that the body and blood of Jesus was spilled and broken for my redemption. I don't view it as a negative, ugly, or repulsive thing. Our sin was too great for us to pay, so God had to pay it for us. That is God's love-paying for my sin, which He did not commit nor create. Sending his only begotten son, to die for me, who openly rebelled against him and in defiance shoved it away. That same God saw me and came running to get me. I didn't go out to get Him, He came to get me. That is God's love. It is not my business to wonder why he required blood sacrifice, he just did and I accept Jesus' death as the remission for my sin.

[pnggrad79]

Amen Udog! She is wrong.

[Steven E. Webster]

Amen Udog! She is wrong.

I agree that your Pastor would be wrong if she really said, and really meant to say that "there is nothing to be saved from." If there was nothing to be saved from, there would be no work for Soulforce to do. And Jesus could have led a peaceful life as a village carpenter manufacturing crosses for the Romans instead of being hung on one.

I'm only saying that your Pastor may have a different view of what "salvation" is than you do. My view of salvation certainly differs from yours. I hope you don't think that disqualifies either of us from the Christian faith.

Steven Webster

[Pablo Rafael]

It is my opinion that we cannot understand the workings of God nor his reason for coming down to earth to live, die and rise.

I believe that for some reason unknown to me, God values very highly free will. God created people with the freedom to make choices. The bad choices that we make cause us to drift away from the love of God. God knew that on our own we could not come to him, so he came to earth to show his love to us and to shower us with his grace. With his love, shown by his life, death and resurrection, he pulls us back to himself. God loves everyone and wants all people to be embraced by his grace.

What I need to be saved from is my own tendency to make sinful choices and drift away from God. I cannot come to God on my own; however, I do not need to, for he comes to me. Every day his love pulls me back to himself. I think of hell not as a punishment but as a condition of being alienated from God, of moving away from him and his love.

I think the idea of Jesus paying a price to atone for our sins is an imperfect illustration that only hints at a plan that we cannot fully understand. I think the idea of hell as a place of punishment for sin is another illustration for a concept also beyond understanding.

However, I do not need to understand the workings of God to experience his love and rejoice in his salvation.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Steven E. Webster]

God is free to damn the innocent and to save the guilty.

U-Dog,
When you mention Calvin, the old Wesleyan in me prepares to bite his tongue. However, I can't let this pass.

Now you did not say that God DOES damn the innocent, but that God is FREE to damn the innocent--there may be a subtle distinction there, However, I think Wesley (and I) would be asking why we should worship a God who is not just. When confronted by an extreme form of Calvinism that depicted God as arbitrarily damning the innocent, Wesley once quoted Abraham's words from Genesis, "Shall not the Judge of the whole world do what is just?"

Pnggrad disparages the young folks I refer to who refuse to worship a God who demands a bloody human sacrifice (Jesus) as the price for forgiveness. If God is a savage, unjust despot, wouldn't it be better to go to hell? (Mark Twain once said, "I'd take heaven for the climate, but hell for the company.")

Fred Phelps is a nutty sort of Calvinist who "worships a dark and a vengeful God" (to quote from Sweeny Todd). Surely we can do better than Fred Phelps.

I enjoy working for Calvinists--I staff a Presbyterian office, but I find that most modern Calvinists have tempered their views since Wesley's day.

I like the book of Hebrews, too, but I interpret its language about sacrifice as being metaphorical. Hebrews, after all, is saying that the whole sacrificial system has been done away with. That's not at all the same as saying that God was required to sacrifice an innocent victim in order to grant forgiveness to humanity.

Steven Webster

[NathanATX]

An interesting piece of the puzzle for me is... how do I share myself and my faith in a way that isn't seen as judgemental, proseltyzing, superior, etc. That's quite a difficult challenge sometimes.
Nate

[Zerbie]

An interesting piece of the puzzle for me is... how do I share myself and my faith in a way that isn't seen as judgemental, proseltyzing, superior, etc. That's quite a difficult challenge sometimes.
Nate

I haven't observed you coming across that way when you share your perceptions about religion. It reads to me like Nate opening up some of his most personal experiences and insights derived from life, prayer, contemplation, etc. The way you present when we're all chatting online is very caring and personal - I 'click' with much of your philosophy, but by no means all, and the part that doesn't click, I just leave alone.
You are very open, and that's kind of amazing. :love:

[pnggrad79]

I don't believe the book of Hebrews to be at all metaphorical. I also don't subscribe to a lot of Calvinist doctrine. I think Fred Phelps is a maniacal idiot who is a little deranged.

I don't think that Christ's death was a bloody sacrifice that meant nothing. His death on the cross, while as brutal as it was, was more than a bloody mess. It enabled all of mankind( and womankind) to have eternal life, have an abundant life here on earth, and have the Holy Spirit come to live in us and help us enjoy the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22).

While I may seem a bit literalist, I tend to view it in a more historical context. I also think that the OT was fulfilled when Jesus came and so all the Mosaic law is beneficial for teaching the need for a savior but no longer applicable. So I am not a strict literalist, but I do believe a lot of the Bible needs to be taken for what it says, in a historical context. Some of it is metaphorical, but not all of it.

Taking Hebrews literally gives a tremendous amount of hope for gay and lesbian people. It basically teaches that Jesus knew me as a lesbian and I died with him on the cross and the cool thing is He didn't judge me as a lesbian. He loved me enough to pay the price for me. That is something to be joyful about.

[Daniel]

For me, the idea of a sacrificial atonement raises some questions and concepts that don't agree with other concepts of God.

The idea that it was necessary for Christ to "pay the price" for our sins indicates that someone had to pay, that death/Satan was owed something. In order to redeem humans, someone had to pay. The implication is that if humans could not pay, then God had to make the payment. Does God not have the power to overcome satan and death? Is our God so weak that he has to buy us from Satan?

Here's what I believe about why Jesus was crucified: His message was so radical that it challenged the leaders, both religious and civil, and threatened their power. The logical result of such a message was such an uprise against the messenger, that Jesus had to be killed.

At the risk of being considered a heretic, I think the message that Jesus brought us is too often eclipsed by the crucifixion and resurrection. It seems to cause some groups of christians to concentrate on the guilt we should feel for causing Jesus to die, when Jesus himself did not talk a lot about that part of his mission. Instead, Jesus talked about love, and social injustice, and hypocrisy in the religious hierarchy, and how we should treat each other, and how we serve God.

Like your interp Steve.

The whole idea, as expressed by fundies (and I was one!) is nothing short of a Quid Pro Quo

An equal exchange or substitution.

It's market place thinking. Transactional. No wonder JC turned over the money changer's tables in the Temple.

As Tina Turner said: "What Love Got To Do With It?"

Sure. One could could say that this is one of the great mystery's of Christianity, but my sense is that JC's death is an illustration of what he preached- in short: there is no death. And if they is no death.....well....what's the whole thing about?

My conclusion? (They burned people at the stake for thinking this kind of thing)

Love. It's all about Love. If Love is Love and Real, it can't be killed.

Now, being something of a Buddhist, or at least having that perspective, I see this matter through another lense, and it's this: one can look at JC's story in terms of what can happen to those who exhibit some degree of self-realization. Folks can get mighty pissed off with you.

It's not a widely known fact, but many scholar's believe that the Buddha was poisoned. Hmmmmm. Interesting story line for those who 'achieve' enlightenment, isn't it? You 'get it' and they kill you for it.

Again- I think there can be benefits to the thinking that both storylines (JC and Buddha) are about- and point to- the nature of reality.

Sacrifice?

This seems a very tribal and crude way to look at the matter, especially if one is a literalist.

Hey! Whatever happened to scripture being read as literature? As metaphor?

[NathanATX]

Its like I said. It all boils down to the question of Who is God? You? or God?

I think we have to turn within to discover who God is.

Here is some of Joel Goldsmith's teaching on meditation from http://www.joelgoldsmith.com. I think it's interesting in light of this conversation.

These are principles all teachers and practitioners follow and teach to their students. Question any Infinite Way teacher that does not meditate or teach meditation.


1. Make yourself comfortable. Sit erect, with your spine straight, your feet firmly planted on the floor, your hands relaxed in your lap, and breath normally. There is no mystical or occult reason for this, it is very simple, when your body is perfectly comfortable one is not conscious of it. Take a breath and count to four. Breathe in and out four or five times counting to quiet your mind. Breathe normally.


2. Next repeat silently or audibly, "I turn within to the Christ of my own being". If thoughts enter, repeat this phrase. Always go into meditation by yourself. Never let another lead you into meditation.


3. We will never be able to stop the mind completely. If human thoughts or concerns enter, do not fight them. Relax, let the thoughts come and then let them go. As you practice, this interference will subside. Be patient.


4. Now, move to the subject. "What is God?" You are not interested in another's concept of God; you are interested only in asking "What is God?" and receiving the answer from God. The kingdom of God is within you, so the answer must come from within your own being. Sit quietly and ask, "Speak Lord, thy servant heareth, or "Father, I am here, speak."


5. Assume a listening attitude as if you were waiting to hear the answer. Thoughts may come. Think about God as the source of our being and all this is, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient.


6. Someday, while meditating and pondering this idea, "What is God?" realizing now the nature of prayer, you will suddenly find that you cannot think anymore; you have come to the end of thought about God and prayer. Then you will sit there, quietly, at peace, no more thoughts, no more questions, no more answers, just peace. Thoughts will be quieted, the inner ear will open and a long deep breath like a sigh of relief or a sense of release will probably come to you. It is as if you were escaping from something, as if a burden were dropping off your shoulders. It will appear in many different ways, and when that release or relief comes you will be so full of the Spirit that you will get right up and do the work that lies ahead for the day, or perhaps some work that has been neglected. With that release will come divine wisdom, divine guidance, and divine strength, for this reason, that deep breath, the click or release, was a God experience, the actual presence or activity of God in your consciousness.


7. We never stay in meditation for more than 10 minutes at a time. It takes a long time to be able to stay in meditation 10 minutes or longer.

[NathanATX]

I haven't observed you coming across that way when you share your perceptions about religion. It reads to me like Nate opening up some of his most personal experiences and insights derived from life, prayer, contemplation, etc. The way you present when we're all chatting online is very caring and personal - I 'click' with much of your philosophy, but by no means all, and the part that doesn't click, I just leave alone.
You are very open, and that's kind of amazing. :love:

Thank you so much, Zerbie. :love:

[found49]

I personally think that yes, one makes a decision to worship God in his or her own way-so people who "refuse" to worship a God who "demands a bloody sacrifice" are certainly free to do so. I think that all theological questions generally help people grow as Christians.

But, I do think that there's more to Christianity than feeding the poor, helping the needy, etc. You can be a Buddhist or a Muslim and do that too. Most religions include love for one's fellow man as a tenet. But, the idea of Christ being God and coming to earth to die for his people-that is what makes the theology of Christianity unique from other faiths.

[NathanATX]

But, the idea of Christ being God and coming to earth to die for his people-that is what makes the theology of Christianity unique from other faiths.

But it isn't unique to Christianity at all. It's a very common theme in hinduism, native american religions, etc.

[found49]

It's a common theme, but that is what it is-a theme. For instance, according the Hindu religion, avatars come to earth to fix things when people louse them up, and there are some stories of them rising from the dead. Nevertheless, it should be noted that none of these avatars are regarded to be entirely human by the Hindu religion. There are similar themes of gods taking human form and rising from the dead in Native American religion, but, again, these entities are gods, not fully human and gods. The reason that they are raised from the dead is because they weren't fully human in the first place. Christ, however, was, according to Christian theology, fully God and fully man.

[Daniel]

It's a common theme, but that is what it is-a theme. For instance, according the Hindu religion, avatars come to earth to fix things when people louse them up, and there are some stories of them rising from the dead. Nevertheless, it should be noted that none of these avatars are regarded to be entirely human by the Hindu religion. There are similar themes of gods taking human form and rising from the dead in Native American religion, but, again, these entities are gods, not fully human and gods. The reason that they are raised from the dead is because they weren't fully human in the first place. Christ, however, was, according to Christian theology, fully God and fully man.

Here we go. Hope I'm wrong, but it seems like you're heading straight (hmmmmm....there's a joke there) into 'this-is-why-Christ-is-the-bestest-of-the-best' territory. Wish I could join you there, but I can't. Hey. Don't get me wrong, I think JC was one way cool dude and I endeavor to follow his teachings. This does not entail, however, any 'my-daddy-is-better-than-your-daddy' thinking.

Guess I read way too much Joseph Campbell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

[drewcaine]

Fascinating conversation...

For me it all comes back to the question "Who is God?"

Is God Love or not?

Would it be loving to create your children with the potential to sin... or, as some believe, the guarantee they will sin... and then punish them forever... i.e. torture?

I can't fathom a loving God would torture any of His kids forever for any reason.

Let's assume sin and punishment are part of the equation.

God is going to require human sacrifice in order for Him to forgive sins He created us with the potential to commit?

When I hear someone talk about the "body & blood" of Jesus, all I can think about is some horrible monster deity requiring torture and blood to "pay" for something that He already knew I would do.

I can't take communion when it's presented as the body and blood of Jesus. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Jesus is more than an escape ticket. He is more than a human sacrifice. He came because through people's religous traditions they were forgetting who God was. He was constantly confronting their religious ideology and bringing them back to the basics... that God is love... that we are to love God and to love one another.

There's a phenomenal "opposing viewpoints" book called "The Meaning of Jesus." I highly recommend it. And Bishop John Shelby Spong's books are amazing, "The Historical Jesus" and "Jesus for the NonReligious."


This is pretty complicated IMO. We'd both be called heretics (me for my whole gay thing and you for this), lol. Doesn't the Bible say that God will indeed damn people? I'm sorry if you expected a longer response, but I honestly can't think of anything else to say about this one.
drewcaine

[found49]

Dan, Dude-

While we're going into the "my daddy is better than your daddy" terrritory, why don't we take a pit stop in "My worldview is better than yoursville?"

[drewcaine]

Here we go. Hope I'm wrong, but it seems like you're heading straight (hmmmmm....there's a joke there) into 'this-is-why-Christ-is-the-bestest-of-the-best' territory. Wish I could join you there, but I can't. Hey. Don't get me wrong, I think JC was one way cool dude and I endeavor to follow his teachings. This does not entail, however, any 'my-daddy-is-better-than-your-daddy' thinking.

Guess I read way too much Joseph Campbell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell


Is this guy Atheist or something? The way he talks about Jesus sounds like he doesn't really believe in him, but respects the whole concept of Jesus.
Well, themes are prevalent everywhere, so just because some Asian God goes aorund bringing back the dead doesn't mean that it should be weighed with Christianity. Themes shouldn't be taken as a fact when discussing the Bible-save it for more safely debatable book studies/reports. That's my opinion.
drewcaine

[NathanATX]

Is this guy Atheist or something? The way he talks about Jesus sounds like he doesn't really believe in him, but respects the whole concept of Jesus.
Well, themes are prevalent everywhere, so just because some Asian God goes aorund bringing back the dead doesn't mean that it should be weighed with Christianity. Themes shouldn't be taken as a fact when discussing the Bible-save it for more safely debatable book studies/reports. That's my opinion.
drewcaine

I don't believe anything in the Bible should be taken as "fact" in the sense that we don't question, consider and evaluate it.

[NathanATX]

This is pretty complicated IMO. We'd both be called heretics (me for my whole gay thing and you for this), lol. Doesn't the Bible say that God will indeed damn people? I'm sorry if you expected a longer response, but I honestly can't think of anything else to say about this one.
drewcaine

That's a badge I wear with distinction... :)

[Daniel]

Dan, Dude-

While we're going into the "my daddy is better than your daddy" terrritory, why don't we take a pit stop in "My worldview is better than yoursville?"

My handle is Daniel, not Dan. ;) And you think I'm taking things for granted? hmmmmm.

[scott snedeker]

Is this guy Atheist or something? The way he talks about Jesus sounds like he doesn't really believe in him, but respects the whole concept of Jesus.
Well, themes are prevalent everywhere, so just because some Asian God goes aorund bringing back the dead doesn't mean that it should be weighed with Christianity. Themes shouldn't be taken as a fact when discussing the Bible-save it for more safely debatable book studies/reports. That's my opinion.
drewcaine

I consider all belief systems that optimize creation of love to be completely comparable in legitimacy. I consider metaphysical beliefs that hinder this connection by means of trivializing, excluding, or other motives that disconnect from unconditinal love to be disconnection from the spiritual life energy [God, if that label fits you best].

To say one belief system is a "theme" while another is "fact" is an example of an atttitude that hinders the connection.

If belief in the love of [god] and proof of His esteem of ones worthiness is optimized by maintaining he sacrificed his own son out of love, then that is the best "truth" possible for that individual.

Some may see this as an extremely dramatic way to be connected, however, it appears no more extreme than my druidic pagan practice of connecting to the life energy of the earth through sexual-spiritual sharing.

(Boy it's fun to be a pagan sometimes!) :lol:

But life is supposed to be fun! Entitlement to joy is a given! For me this is [God's] design.

Though Christianity is thousands of tears younger than either Druidic Paganism or Buddhism, I don't consider it a less valid belief system ------If it optimizes connection to uncondtional love of self and others.

However, if it causes self loathing, unworthiness, predjudice, hate, Then I have no doubt that it is the wrong spiritual path for the individual and a waste of the potential of a shining being.

[Daniel]

To say one belief system is a "theme" while another is "fact" is an example of an atttitude that hinders the connection.

Could not agree more.

Drew- Campbell was not an atheist. Rather, he was a student of all religions, though, classifying him thus does the man a disservice. My take on the man is that he was a first class thinker.

You would have to read him to understand him.

His reach and understanding of matters of faith was nothing short of revolutionary at the time in which wrote.

[found49]

I've seen Campbell's interviews in a series PBS did on him. He does not believe in Jesus. An interesting thinker for sure.