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]

Originally Posted by awediot

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by Eugene

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"? 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]

Originally Posted by Dash

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]

Originally Posted by Eugene

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.

Originally Posted by Eugene

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]

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world

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]

Originally Posted by Eugene

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... Thanks for the ear to b*tch in...

[NonLemming]

OK, does anyone have a Xanax?

[Eugene]

my last residual baptist's nerve...

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

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by awediot

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.