John 14:6

[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]

Originally Posted by awediot

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.

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

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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 --

Originally Posted by awediot

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[ing] 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).

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.

Originally Posted by emproph and awediot

"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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

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... )

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

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]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

-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...

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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