John 14:6

[awediot]

Jesus sayeth unto him, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one cometh unto the Father but by me." (KJV)

This is probably the most used ultimatum of scripture out there. There are many, different faiths and points of view on this forum.
This statement must somehow be accounted for if a mature spirituality is to form... In itself, it leaves no grey area...

What are your thoughts about it?

[Zerbie]

This may strike ya weird coming from the loudest non-Christian on board, but, I think it's completely true.

That said, how one understands the verse is completely contingent upon what they think Jesus meant by "I."

[Daniel]

Jesus sayeth unto him, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one cometh unto the Father but by me." (KJV)

Not something to ignore certainly, that is, if you are a literalist. Not being one has freed me up to look at this kind of thing in a different way.

I've learned to take such statements as if they were a Buddhist Koan rather than the statement of one ego to another. That said, I'd like to hear more about this from the Greek scholars among us. Or Aramaic. Whatever it's written in. My memory on this matter via my Evangel days when I sat in umpteen bible classes is long behind me. I found God in music, not Dogma.

Fire away please.

[Emproph]

Obviously there's more to it.

“Love your neighbor as yourself, oh and by the way Mother Teresa, if you don’t do it in my name you can go to hell, literally!”

Who says that all inspiration to love your neighbor isn’t coming from Jesus. By that definition, even an atheist would be accepting Jesus when doing so, they just wouldn't know it. And from what I understand about Jesus, His main concern was not about the sound waves created by the letters J-E-S-U-S.

(Sound wave based salvation, hmmm...)

It’s the ultimate egotistical trap of Christianity, and as far as I’m concerned, “trap” was the operating concern of those who forged the Bible as it’s known today. “I’m going to heaven and you’re not” is NOT loving others the same as God does, it’s blasphemy and idolatry. The superiority of self ends up being worshiped over reflecting God’s love for all.

There’s tons of testimony by those who’ve had near death experiences to back this up, not that I rely on them for my understanding, just that it seems to be a common theme for those who’ve actually been there.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research06.html

^I couldn't find it when I posted this but I put that link because one of the NDE's (atheist?) was confused about meeting Jesus and asked about that particular scripture and Jesus replied something like that he didn't specify that you had to necessarily be living when you "accepted" him.

[NonLemming]

Not something to ignore certainly, that is, if you are a literalist. Not being one has freed me up to look at this kind of thing in a different way.

I've learned to take such statements as if they were a Buddhist Koan rather than the statement of one ego to another. That said, I'd like to hear more about this from the Greek scholars among us. Or Aramaic. Whatever it's written in. My memory on this matter via my Evangel days when I sat in umpteen bible classes is long behind me. I found God in music, not Dogma.

Fire away please.

Great point, Daniel.;)

[Dash]

Who says that all inspiration to love your neighbor isn’t coming from Jesus. By that definition, even an atheist would be accepting Jesus when doing so, they just would know it.

YES!!

See...Jesus brings us to the Father...it is the work of God to save people! Whether or not we believe something is not a part of Christ's statement. It is a statement about His work.

The law never brought anyone to God.

Only Christ can.

Christ can bring Jews, Gentiles, Hindus, Bhuddists, Muslims, Deists, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Atheists, Agnostics, Mormons, Methodists, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgendered brothers & sisters, and yes...even the occasional Southern Baptist too.

Christ does it. And, note...He didn't say He brought people to the Church or to any congregation of people.

Likewise....no one acts in love and compassion except by the Spirit of Christ in them.

But we as Christians know this Spirit by that name. The knowledge...or lack of knowledge...of Christ does not change the redeeming work done for humanity. Nor does a lack of "Christian belief" render the work of the Divine impotent as it models virtue, love and beauty in the world.

[awediot]

Thanks y'all... Anyone with a more traditional reply out there? Now or never...

[baldness_65]

I haven't read all the posts (ADD don't ya know) so if this has been stated forgive the redundancy. After much study of this and other similar passages I am of the belief that Jesus was refering to following His example of how to live ones life. He himself stated that the most important commandments were love God and Love others. "This is the Law and the Prophets" He said. My Texas translation would be, "Everything else is gravy". God cares a great deal about where one's heart is. Dogma is not high on his priority list contrary to popular opinion. Daniel said it well when he found God in music not dogma. I find God in music as well, not to mention art, the poetry of a well turned phrase, my close friendships and (as I discovered the other night) the smell of an old bag of Sassafras tea that i forgot I had. I am doing everything that i can to Come to the Father through and by Jesus, ei. I am trying to live my life as He did.
L.

[Eugene]

Whether or not we believe something is not a part of Christ's statement.

Well, it is true that it isn't a part of Christ's statement in the cited verse. But that verse appears in the context of a work that emphasizes the necessity of belief in Christ. As I recall, John's gospel ends, "But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)

Since someone asked for a more traditional reply, I will follow it up with a personal observation. Since coming out, I have continued to be disturbed about the ease with which gay evangelicals abandon the whole of their theology in order to accomodate homosexuality. Given the reasonable approaches to the "clobber passages", it seems needless. Which leads me to suspect that perhaps a great many gay, former evangelicals really don't believe that the "clobber passages" can be reconciled to their choice of lifestyle. Throwing out Christian theology while retaining a nominal Christianity doesn't seem very solid to me.

[Dash]

Since coming out, I have continued to be disturbed about the ease with which gay evangelicals abandon the whole of their theology in order to accomodate homosexuality. Given the reasonable approaches to the "clobber passages", it seems needless. Which leads me to suspect that perhaps a great many gay, former evangelicals really don't believe that the "clobber passages" can be reconciled to their choice of lifestyle. Throwing out Christian theology while retaining a nominal Christianity doesn't seem very solid to me.

There's a lot in your algebra that doesn't add up in my mind, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. :)

I think metaphorically, so bear with me...

We wouldn't say the butterfly unreasonably abandoned the way of the worm when it got it's wings. Nor is a transcendant faith in Christ an abandonment of Christian theology.

Some things are meant to be outgrown.

We would not say that in growing up an adult has sadly only nominally retained her child state. Rather she has become all that she was meant to be in leaving childhood behind.

I feel that some Christian theology is very bad theology.

And..."choice of lifestyles"? :confused: You don't really mean to say that do you?

And...really...I don't think the decade of pain that was my twenties...the decade of losing my faith...friends...nearly killing myself...all before I could come to some peace with the Divine Spirit...was in any way easy.

That said...I realize that the tremendous comfort and confidence that many of us show on this board with our immense diversity of theology (or lack thereof) may make it appear that it was all "peach cobbler and grandma" as we came to our own personal understanding. There's a lot of experience, meditation, reading and (I'm not ashamed to say it) counseling that's gone into the shaping of my faith. I'm sure that others here have put as much or more into their own.

So, be not disturbed, my friend. :) I for one am not "accomodating" my sexuality by discarding traditional theology. God was using my sexuality to make me a better, wiser person. (I've always said I would have been an awful straight male...I was THE most close-minded person until it was cracked open for me! Hahah!!)

[Daniel]

We wouldn't say the butterfly unreasonably abandoned the way of the worm when it got it's wings. Nor is a transcendant faith in Christ an abandonment of Christian theology

Oh Dash,

You're said a mouthful here. And boy. Can I identify.

I just got back from the opera: Parsifal. Had never seen it. It took as long as it does to fly from NYC to San Diego like I did last week. 5 hours. But was infinitely more enjoyable.

Now why do I bring this up here? Well. The work is full of the strangest mixture of Christian (and Pagan) symbolism, Knights of the Round Table- Holy Grail etc. In fact- it creates its own world- think Lord of the Rings with better music. It's the music that's transcendent and brings to mind another realm- a spiritual one. The trick is to see past the plot at times.

Was the experience more than the sum of the story? Yes. How? Well. You got me there. I can't say with certainty, but I think, like with theology and faith, the plot and the music aren't the same thing, but inform each other.

Which is more important? I don't know. But I do know that, personally speaking, I'm more drawn to the music/faith. The singing- especially by the great basso- Rene Pape- was great. And it isn't opera without music. That's a play.

[Eugene]

I think metaphorically, so bear with me...

We wouldn't say the butterfly unreasonably abandoned the way of the worm when it got it's wings. Nor is a transcendant faith in Christ an abandonment of Christian theology.

Some things are meant to be outgrown.

We would not say that in growing up an adult has sadly only nominally retained her child state. Rather she has become all that she was meant to be in leaving childhood behind.


Your analogies imply that traditional Christian theology is inferior to pluralism (which is what I suppose you mean by "transcendant faith in Christ"). I do not agree. Traditional Christian theologies have logic and consistency going for them.

I feel that some Christian theology is very bad theology.

I would very much agree. (Calvinism comes immediately to mind.)

And..."choice of lifestyles"? You don't really mean to say that do you?

Yes, I really meant to say that. Homosexuality is not a choice; even evangelicals are coming to accept that. But lifestyle is a choice, and it is his choice of lifestyle that brings the homosexual under condemnation -- either the condemnation of the conservative church or the supposed condemnation of Scripture.

There's a lot of experience, meditation, reading and (I'm not ashamed to say it) counseling that's gone into the shaping of my faith. I'm sure that others here have put as much or more into their own.


As I said, I was making a personal observation. I wouldn't condemn anyone for his convictions.

[dewdrop_world]

Your analogies imply that traditional Christian theology is inferior to pluralism (which is what I suppose you mean by "transcendant faith in Christ"). I do not agree. Traditional Christian theologies have logic and consistency going for them.
Can you define pluralism?

Or, maybe a better question, is it possible to define pluralism in a way that also has logic and consistency? (I believe so.)

And, of course, traditional Christian theology is eminently logical... up until the point some tenet of the faith can't be logically proven. Then logic is cast aside in favor of the necessity of a credo. ;)

Yes, I really meant to say that. Homosexuality is not a choice; even evangelicals are coming to accept that. But lifestyle is a choice, and it is his choice of lifestyle that brings the homosexual under condemnation -- either the condemnation of the conservative church or the supposed condemnation of Scripture.
Which lifestyle would that be? What is it in "the gay lifestyle" that makes it worthy of condemnation?

Since "the gay lifestyle" is a phrase often bandied about in these discussions, it really needs to be defined so that the definition can be either confirmed or refuted.

hjh

[NonLemming]

Which lifestyle would that be? What is it in "the gay lifestyle" that makes it worthy of condemnation?

Since "the gay lifestyle" is a phrase often bandied about in these discussions, it really needs to be defined so that the definition can be either confirmed or refuted.

hjh

I may be able to respond to that request as I have been honest with myself for many years.

My "Gay Lifestyle" consists of:
Work hard.
Play hard.
Enjoy friends and family.
Pay taxes (yes, even the ones that educate other people's children)
Volunteer in my community to a charity.
Keep my chin up whenever I hear ignorant comments about gay people.
Try to make the world a better place each day.
Practice random acts of kindness.
&
If I should ever be in a relationship again, let my love know how much I love him each and every day.

That's about all I have time for in my "lifestyle".

[Dash]

Your analogies imply that traditional Christian theology is inferior to pluralism (which is what I suppose you mean by "transcendant faith in Christ"). I do not agree. Traditional Christian theologies have logic and consistency going for them.

I'm sorry, I did not really mean to imply the inferiority that you percieve in my analogies. However, I did wish to supply you with a positive image for something of which you are suspicious--namely "non-traditional" theology.

Unfortunately, I may have gone where you cannot follow. Without the relevant experiences, you will likely not understand my theology. One of those experiences is a kind of death.

[Eugene]

Can you define pluralism?

Or, maybe a better question, is it possible to define pluralism in a way that also has logic and consistency? (I believe so.)


Pluralism, as I have encountered it, is the view that all religions are equally valid; that Jesus Christ did not make atonement for sin; that God does not require (at least of those who have been confronted with the claims of Christianity) faith in Christ as the means of personal salvation from sin and judgment.

I do not believe it is possible to define pluralism in such as way as to integrate it into historic Christian faith with consistency, integrity, and logic.

Which lifestyle would that be?

Well, since homosexuality refers to one's sexual orientation and practice, I can think of a number of sexual lifestyles adopted by homosexuals.

1) Some people remain celibate for religious reasons.
2) Some people find a partner and live in a monogamous relationship.
3) Some people are promiscuous.
4) Some people get married and attempt to live as heterosexuals.

What is it in "the gay lifestyle" that makes it worthy of condemnation?

I was speaking of condemnation by the conservative evangelical community or the supposed (I did include the word) condemnation of Scripture. But I would add that I don't believe promiscuity is an acceptable lifestyle for a gay Christian.

[awediot]

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one cometh unto the Father but by me."

Taken first at face value, my automatic response to this statement has always been shock at the arrogance. It is appalling, megalomaniacism at its highest, and heart wrenchingly condemning. The majority of humanity is lost by it... The man who is said to have spoken it, also claimed to be the one sending us his servant Prophets, and to be the worst injured party in all sinful actions... These are not the proclamations of a humble philosopher or enlightened, moral teacher, particularly coming from a Jew. They are the words of an insane, Spiritual vampire bent on conquering the world... Or, the words of God Itself... No descended avatar or eastern godman incarnate ever made such egotistical boasts... This man was mad with power, or he was God... He intended to leave no middle ground...

But time gets old, and we've grown wise enough to believe what we want...

Zerbie
"I think it's completely true.... how one understands the verse is completely contingent upon what they think Jesus meant by "I" "
(I think He meant it in the first personal way you meant it.)
Daniel
"Not something to ignore certainly, that is, if you are a literalist."
(Or not a literalist. Ignoring it matters little to it.)
Emproph
"Who says that all inspiration to love your neighbor isn’t coming from Jesus. By that definition, even an atheist would be accepting Jesus when doing so, they just would (not) know it...
(An atheist becomes a christian by accident, saved by doing what comes naturally anyway, and then never knows it? Then why come just to die?)
"I’m going to heaven and you’re not" is NOT loving others the same as God does..."
(As God is the only one who may utter such words, it is exactly the same. And that is the problem.)
Dash
"....no one acts in love and compassion except by the Spirit of Christ in them."
(Until they take all the credit, bidding His love and compassion adieu.)
Baldness65
"Dogma is not high on his priority list contrary to popular opinion."
(Nor is changing His simplest of words.)
Dash
"Some things are meant to be outgrown."
(...and some, grown up with.)
Daniel
"The trick is to see past the plot at times."
(Those times when you want to get lost or hang back.)
dewdrop world
"traditional Christian theology is eminently logical... up until the point some tenet of the faith can't be logically proven. Then logic is cast aside in favor of the necessity of a credo."
(Logic always fails, and a credo always takes its place. Proof ends this.)

Words such as He said, must be accounted for, accommodated and obeyed, or intentionally, daringly shunned, or, corrected to mean something other than what they say. They are an ultimatum we all will end on one side of, or the other.

"But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)

Eugene
"Throwing out Christian theology while retaining a nominal Christianity doesn't seem very solid to me."
"Your analogies imply that traditional Christian theology is inferior to pluralism (which is what I suppose you mean by "transcendent faith in Christ")."
(Thank You, Eugene. From out of nowhere you rose to the occasion, and did most of my dirty work for me. And did so in a caring and intelligent way...You have my gratitude and admiration.)

PLURALISM: Multiplicitous; The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life. (American Heritage Dictionary)

The unified answers here, and shared thought process, can account for at least one of the phenomena of life... What do you call a billion pluralists?

In becoming the resident "fundamentalist" around these parts, I have silenced myself, over-edited, censored, second guessed and toned down many a post as to not offend, give the impression of proselytizing, or single myself out too much. The mindset of SF is less merely Christian than I anticipated, and I am fine with that. I relish variety and have no idea where any of us are going to end up. Judging sucks... But the Ghandi-esque "liberal" slant of the so called more 'enlightened', mature and sophisticated, fundamental-free Mess passing for Christianity, has gotten on my last residual baptist's nerve... Traditional, miracle laden, mind mending, M.L.Kinging and soul saving BELIEVING, is boxed, wrapped, labeled 'Right-Wing' and stamped for bashing with old angers, childhood stereotypes and milked resentments... Please don't look at 'them' as narrowly as they look at 'us'... Some of my best friends are Christians, assume they'll see you in Heaven and have bigger problems than who you're bedding...

As for the original sentence, I believe The Christ Jesus is the surest, easiest and best way. I do not know if He is the only way. I do not know the final thoughts of anyone, their relationship with God or His with theirs. If Jesus is the ultimate way, that is enough.

Sorry 'bout the aggressive defense, and missed inclusion of last couple posts. Probably had plenty of me by now any way...:cool: Thanks for the ear to b*tch in...

[NonLemming]

OK, does anyone have a Xanax?:eek:

[Eugene]

my last residual baptist's nerve...

:lol: Love the phrase. I suppose I too am a residual Baptist.

[Zerbie]

Traditional, miracle laden, mind mending, M.L.Kinging and soul saving BELIEVING, is boxed, wrapped, labeled 'Right-Wing' and stamped for bashing with old angers, childhood stereotypes and milked resentments... Please don't look at 'them' as narrowly as they look at 'us'... Some of my best friends are Christians...

[/FONT]

Then keep making noise! Tell ya why I viewed things the way I used to - because it was THE ONLY THING I SAW connected to the word Christian. Until I saw "Christians" behaving any differently, that WAS Christianity for me. Coming here to this forum is great for dispelling that. Some days I study the news and see tremendous horrors committed by Christians in the name of Christianity and it triggers a 25 year old button of inaccurate belief that you really don't want to see described. It is very hard to get rid of. There are people using the name of your religion as the reason and excuse for incredibly heinous crimes against life and love itself, do you express anger at them too? Or just at those of us who see the horror of what they do, take them at their word that this is what Christianity is about, and therefore believe Christianity is connected to their cruelty?

I am all the time revising my opinion of Christianity itself - interested to learn and understand more - but there are people using the same self-description that you do as a basis for monstrous wrongs, and every time they do I start to slam the door on the whole thing. Or, what's the famous analogy about bathwater babies? That.

You are helping me separate Christianity itself from wrong action, so you are already being a solution to the problem that troubles you. Keep making noise and don't let those other folk get away with proclaiming themselves the only Christians. Then the rest of us will be able to see you (those who are willing to, as you've undoubtedly observed there are closed minds in every community.) But nothing is so black & white. You are here to remind us. And hopefully we do the same for you.

[pnggrad79]

All of you have very interesting viewpoints. After seeing The DaVinci Code, I was left with a lot of questions about who Jesus is, how much was lost of the Bible, how much the Catholic church suppressed, and what exactly is going on here. Sometimes it is hard for me to make sense of the world and all that goes on in it, good and bad. With all the stimuli out there, one basically has to decide for him/herself what they believe, stick with it and move on.

Personally, I think that all we know about God doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what He really is. I do know this-no other faith/religion/belief system has a SAVIOR that did what Jesus did for us. If there is one, please enlighten me(or confuse me). There may be truth in all religions, but that is just what it is-religion. Religion is man's way of making sense of God, when He said Himself, "My ways are not your ways, my thoughts, not your thoughts". So the result is we have a bunch of arrogant legalists running around spouting off their learned religiosity and it really has nothing to do with God, or the saving power of Jesus, it has to do with their ego and power. Religion is not relationship, and I believe that is all that God wants with us. Above the DaVinci Code, Islam, Southern Baptist hoo-ha, Judaism, Catholicism, everything-all God wants, all He has ever wanted is communion with us, his creation-gay, straight, black, white, Asian, in a word-human. I don't believe he cares two flying flips about anything esle. satan likes to make this harder than it really has to be. Remember who the author of confusion is and who the author of light and love is.:)

[Eugene]

I guess I don't understand why a movie or novel should test anybody's faith. It is fiction, after all.

Years ago, when I was in high school, I think, a similar TV movie had everybody all up in arms. It was called -- if I remember correctly -- The Word and it starred David Jansen (I think). The premise was that a "lost" gospel was discovered, apparently the work of James, the brother of Jesus. The "lost" gospel claimed that Jesus didn't die on the cross, fathered children, etc., etc. A lot of evangelicals were all hot and bothered over this fictional movie, as it if were an attack on faith.

The Bible and the Christian faith have survived enough attacks, that I'm sure they will withstand movies, recovered gnostic gospels, and the like. And the church will go on long after everyone has forgotten about The DaVinci Code.

[Emproph]

I believe The Christ Jesus is the surest, easiest and best way. I agree with this. But so far I have not been able to determine a solution to being able to share this understanding without taking STRICT precautions to not appear as one of the “so-called Christians” that some of us complain about so often. The problem is that the mere mention of the word God or the name Jesus is enough to give that proselytizing condescending impression. I know this because I still experience that knee-jerk gut reaction. Even though I’m supposed to know better.

Things like that Madonna stunt don’t bother me because I identify with it. She’s not making fun of Jesus or the importance of Him, she’s making fun of the anti-Christian fundies and the damage that they DO DO to the idea of the importance of Jesus. I’m not excusing it, but my issue is with those who blaspheme WORSE for calling on blasphemy. 'The Book of Daniel’ was shut down for blasphemy. I take that as their seal of approval that eating horse intestines is perfectly acceptable.

Trashing the idea of Christianity in the NAME of Christianity.

The atheist who loves their neighbor as their life rule is sacrificing hope for people like this, they are living examples of Christ for the ‘fundies’ to see and be witness to. It’s tragic, on both sides. And if all the so-called Christianity today was consistent with Christ, there would be no atheists. WE would be their witness of the God/Jesus/Christ, and we’d automatically be providing the hope that non-believers so desperately need.

I know that God looks upon the atheist who obeys God’s commands with favor because I look upon them with favor. They choose to obey without the promise of life after death of any kind let alone hope of everlasting life in heaven. I have never had to doubt that and yet I am a poor excuse for the expression of such certainty of security. Security as in safety as in salvation, but NOT ‘because the bible says so’ but because everything screams so.

I don’t hate the Bible, I don’t believe it’s not true. It’s not true enough for me. The parts of it that I am not witness to I could interpret as “inerrantly true” in a thousand different ways and all of the information necessary to understand that is right there in the Bible too. The fundamentalists are misinterpreting the most basic parts and doing more damage to the witness of the very meaning of God and Love itself than all celebrity stunts that have ever been done combined. That’s where my anger lies and yes I am in a position to say so because I know better. I know what they know AND I know what I know.

And it’s not just anger. When I think about the moment that they realize the magnitude of the damage and harm and fear that they have caused, beyond that which they may even secretly intend, I then understand the meaning of hell. The unbearable horror of that unrelenting guilt that will be known in full and without warning.

I can honestly say I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy. And when I see the horror of that guilt that people are experiencing everyday when they die and what is about to happen en masse to those like them, like us, who are living, I finally understand the meaning of the compassion Jesus has for us, no matter what we do. Because he knows and understands the nature of the illusions we are mired in.

It’s all pride, and the insidious part is that pride is the result of the survival drive, necessary for us to haven gotten to this point. But after the need to physically survive has passed, “You are a threat to my life” becomes “you are a threat to my thoughts.” Those thoughts of course motivated by the desire to be better than, the reflection of God’s creative touch. perpetual improvement.

No segue.

Ok here’s our impetus, we know better than them about God. Therefore WE are responsible for fixing them. But Please, there’s got to be an easy way to show someone the truth and cut through all the Bible attitude crap. A formula. A formula of questions and answers designed to provide a given result, as in grade, as in judge, therefore the questions must be about the nature of judging. We literally could rate ‘them’ based on their answers. Then “recruit” the appropriate logicians or Biblical enthusiasts to enforce pride neutralization. For the good of all., and yes I know how arrogant and condescending that all sounds.

Somebody stop me before I go on an ego killing rampage. :lol:

Well I’ve blathered on long enough. Boy it was fun though.

[Zerbie]

IOk here’s our impetus, we know better than them about God. Therefore WE are responsible for fixing them. But Please, there’s got to be an easy way to show someone the truth and cut through all the Bible attitude crap. A formula. A formula of questions and answers designed to provide a given result, as in grade, as in judge, therefore the questions must be about the nature of judging. We literally could rate ‘them’ based on their answers. Then “recruit” the appropriate logicians or Biblical enthusiasts to enforce pride neutralization. For the good of all., and yes I know how arrogant and condescending that all sounds.
h.


Emproph. Much of brilliance and beauty in your message - a few "flaws" I want but don;t have time (ARG) to get into.

'Cept this last bit - we cannot be the acting force in causing someone else to "realize" recognize change or accept something, ANYthing. That happens on its own. Sometimes we might be the catalyst, but not because we've chosen to be, because life happened to work that way. All we can do is offer to share what we see/know/experience and simply be what we are and *allow* others to be swayed by it, if it's their time to.

And I gotta run! The bats are waiting. . .

[Daniel]

Ok here’s our impetus, we know better than them about God. Therefore WE are responsible for fixing them. But Please, there’s got to be an easy way to show someone the truth and cut through all the Bible attitude crap. A formula. A formula of questions and answers designed to provide a given result, as in grade, as in judge, therefore the questions must be about the nature of judging. We literally could rate ‘them’ based on their answers. Then “recruit” the appropriate logicians or Biblical enthusiasts to enforce pride neutralization. For the good of all., and yes I know how arrogant and condescending that all sounds..

All too often I find myself thinking the same thought as you ie 'we know better than them about God', though it does sound a tad bit arrogant, doesn't it? If one took the 'ego' perspective out of it, the 'we' that is, it might might come out as the better view. Your logic in how to approach the matter, ie having questions at the ready is something worth having in the tool box. Though, like Zerbie, I agree that one can lead a horse to water, but it's awfully hard to get it to drink if it doesn't want to. In matters like this, I fall back on the adage: Be the change you want to see. It's tedious to embody, but based on practical experience. Try badgering one's boy or girl friend into doing what they don't want to do- ie making them 'change' and one sees the consequencies of that: the gain isn't worth the cost of the trust that is lost in the relationship.

[dewdrop_world]

Returning for a moment to the original subject of this thread --

This man was mad with power, or he was God... He intended to leave no middle ground...

Interesting, very thought provoking. I haven't posted on this thread for awhile because this demands some serious thought. It reminds me a bit of C. S. Lewis's rebuttal to Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian," namely that the claims are so preposterous that they are either completely deluded, or they must be true.

I think where I disagree is in the meaning of "I" (with apologies to Bill Clinton). We know that Jesus spoke figuratively throughout the gospels in metaphors and parables. Most of the time, he was disguising the heart of the truth, and only sometimes explaining the meaning further in private with the apostles (and even then the explanation is only seldom unambiguous). It wouldn't surprise me if Jesus used himself as a metaphor also.

If the gospel of Thomas is a reliable source, that interpretation becomes even more plausible:

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

[... side note: this is not too far removed from Pure Land Buddhism -- and, I read somewhere that it's historically likely that Jesus had at least a passing familiarity with Buddhist philosophy]

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

I guess we might have another disagreement here -- is "com to the Father through me" different from "know[ing] yourself... understand[ing] that you are children of the living Father"? I believe they're different metaphors for the same ineffable reality (which, if you try to grasp it conceptually, you are doomed to miss it forever, hence the need for obscurity).

[i]77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

Similar in boldness to the passage in John, but this would seem to rule out an anthrocentric reading!

I hope I'm not stepping (again) on that Baptist nerve. I don't wish to disparage Christianity -- in fact, I'm very very happy whenever I hear that someone has found a spiritual path that really works for them. I'm also very interested in the common ground between world religions, as I believe the core of the truth is to be found there (it's one way to split the piece of wood!). Christianity and Buddhism are at the top of my list, since I was raised in one and actively practice the other.

"I’m going to heaven and you’re not" is NOT loving others the same as God does..."
(As God is the only one who may utter such words, it is exactly the same. And that is the problem.)

Can't agree here... when someone other than God makes that statement, he is making himself into God (or a proxy for God). That's blasphemy. Not the same thing as agape love by any means.

A last comment to Emproph: I'm dubious about the prospect of a formula to break through the shell of fundamentalism.

- Spirituality is not one size fits all. In any communication, the message and the receiver are important. If the message is not appropriate for the receiver, there is no communication and the effort is wasted.
- When people cling to the inerrancy of scripture, they're deriving some psychological benefit from it. Chatting with some of these folks over at the UMC forums, it's pretty clear to see how scared some of them are of giving up those benefits. This has to be addressed -- as I read somewhere, if you're going to destroy someone's faith, then it becomes your responsibility to help them to the next stage.
- No change of attitude is possible without listening and understanding.

That's all for now --
James

[Emproph]

we cannot be the acting force in causing someone else to "realize" recognize change or accept something, ANYthing. That happens on its own. Sometimes we might be the catalyst, but not because we've chosen to be, because life happened to work that way. All we can do is offer to share what we see/know/experience and simply be what we are and *allow* others to be swayed by it, if it's their time to. I understand and I agree. I’m suggesting that “catalyst factor” can be more effective AND more routine.All too often I find myself thinking the same thought as you ie 'we know better than them about God', though it does sound a tad bit arrogant, doesn't it? If one took the 'ego' perspective out of it, the 'we' that is, it might might come out as the better view. Your logic in how to approach the matter, ie having questions at the ready is something worth having in the tool box. Though, like Zerbie, I agree that one can lead a horse to water, but it's awfully hard to get it to drink if it doesn't want to. In matters like this, I fall back on the adage: Be the change you want to see. It's tedious to embody, but based on practical experience. Try badgering one's boy or girl friend into doing what they don't want to do- ie making them 'change' and one sees the consequencies of that: the gain isn't worth the cost of the trust that is lost in the relationship. I understand, too tedious for me though. But I’m not talking about badgering either. I’m talking about replacing some of those tools with ones that will be used more often because they are easier to use and are more effective. The “reframe” tool. Forget the one’s who don’t want to drink after being lead, remember the ones who are listening to the conversation about where the water lies. "I’m going to heaven and you’re not" is NOT loving others the same as God does... (As God is the only one who may utter such words, it is exactly the same. And that is the problem.)
Can't agree here... when someone other than God makes that statement, he is making himself into God (or a proxy for God). That's blasphemy. Not the same thing as agape love by any means.I’m sorry, there are two separate statements here. Which are you not agreeing with?
(P.S. I'm so excited, you have no idea how long I've been wanting to do a three tiered quote... :lol:) A last comment to Emproph: I'm dubious about the prospect of a formula to break through the shell of fundamentalism. After that last round at UMC, so am I. But then again it brings it back to those who are fundamentalist out of fear or pride.

Those only motivated by fear would be more than willing to know “better.” At least those are the lines I’m thinking along. And hopefully, if they can be reached, they might be in a position to reach those who are motivated by pride.

[Emproph]

-In any communication, the message and the receiver are important. If the message is not appropriate for the receiver, there is no communication and the effort is wasted.
- When people cling to the inerrancy of scripture, they're deriving some psychological benefit from it. Chatting with some of these folks over at the UMC forums, it's pretty clear to see how scared some of them are of giving up those benefits. This has to be addressed -- as I read somewhere, if you're going to destroy someone's faith, then it becomes your responsibility to help them to the next stage.
- No change of attitude is possible without listening and understanding.
James
That sums up exactly my last experience w/pastorsteve. So much potential, yet went out of his way to convince himself I'm an idiot for the sake of protecting his own "understanding." All the while attempting to convince me that this was not the case. -I'm not through there yet...:cool:

[dewdrop_world]

I’m sorry, there are two separate statements here. Which are you not agreeing with?
The idea that "I'm going to heaven..." is the same as "love thy neighbor."

James