Challenge Your Traditional Christian Beliefs

[DeLamar.J]

http://www.jesusreligion.com/p1LC.html

I have enjoyed this web page so much. I was wondering how some of the hardcore Christians at martial talk feel about this type of teaching? The way this person describes Christianty makes alot more sence to me.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

A very interesting site, Del. I'm more than comfortable with the author's presentation of his ideas, many of which I have pondered myself. Religion is, of course, a construct. I've found that spirituality and the direction of that spirituality to be far more important.

Thanks for the link.

 

[IcemanSK]

Del, this guy does have an interesting perspective. Its very similiar to folks like Brian McLaren & the "Emergent Church" movement. "Modern" thought had a largely negative impact on Christianity in my (& other's opinions). A lot of folks have felt they've had to "prove" Christianity & have a completely "reasoned" faith.

The Emergent Church is an attempt to speak to the post-modern concerns that, well post-modern people have. God is too big for us to boil down into sound-bites & too big for us to comprehend completely. Trust in God & grey areas can co-exist. In fact, its a necessity (sp?).

Thanks for that, Delmar.

 

[Elayna]

I would have to say that the article was very much how I believe. I didnt read his whole site, but just based on his article, it was very refreshing to hear(see) what he had to say.

I respect the Bible with my whole heart. I do not follow it however. I am a christian. I believe that Jesus Christ saved me from my sins and the he is the son of my God.
However I believe that the Bible holds a lot of falsehoods and for one main reason.
It was written and translated by men. It was re-translated and re-done how many times? Men are imperfect in every sense of the word yes? So how can we follow a book that is made by imperfection?

To me religion is like the government telling you what you have to believe think and do no matter what, or your going to jail.
I believe that the Bible is like the consitiution. A wonderful outline for laws and requirements but a document that can be amended.

Anyways....I dont want to get into alot, only saying that you should be 100 pecent happy in the way you believe, for that is true love.

 

[heretic888]

*shrugs*

Honestly, it sounds like an attempt from a typical mainstream Christian to reconcile his "faith" with modern knowledge and sensibilities. Which is all well and good, but it should be recognized for what it is. I prefer John Shelby Spong's approach myself.

Personally, I moved beyond a lot of this nonsense years ago. When I want Christian insight, I read up on people like St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, or Thomas Merton. What is actually discussed at the highest levels of Christian contemplation would probably be quite suprising (and disturbing) to most "believers".

Laterz.

 

[zDom]

However I believe that the Bible holds a lot of falsehoods and for one main reason.
It was written and translated by men. It was re-translated and re-done how many times? Men are imperfect in every sense of the word yes? So how can we follow a book that is made by imperfection?

I also wonder how much as been distorted by man and translations. The sins of adding to or subtracting from the word of God are set aside for special punishment, according to the book of Revelations.

I wonder how much knowledge that we NEED has been withheld from us -- for example, I know there was a lot more written on angels/fallen angels that "somebody" felt should be ommitted from the canon.

Personally, I think that is critical information we should have readily available.

Part of the blame, however, is on *us*. We are simply too lazy to learn the languages original texts were written in and "rightly divide" the word of God. Whole lotta work, learning ancient languages.

I believe that the Bible is like the consitiution. A wonderful outline for laws and requirements but a document that can be amended.

Hmmmm. I kinda disagree on this point. I think that is exactly the attitude that got us in the mess we are in today.

The true word of God is something that remains the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

The Messiah did pass on some advice that is perfectly applicable here. When it all gets too confusing, it all boils down to this:

Love the Creator with all your mind, heart and soul.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Whether or not you believe is between you and the Creator, but even if you DON'T believe, life ends up being better, more pleasant for everybody when those two rules are followed.

 

[heretic888]

I also wonder how much as been distorted by man and translations.

As "the" Bible from beginning to end was written by men, the answer to this is: all of it.

The sins of adding to or subtracting from the word of God are set aside for special punishment, according to the book of Revelations.

By the way, the Revelation of John itself was a Christian "revision" of an intertestamental Jewish apocalypse. Therefore, by the criteria you have set forth, the very author of that work is going to be "set aside for special punishment". Ironic, huh?

In any event, Revelation (it's not plural) was heavily disputed among Christian communities for a long time. It has never been fully accepted by Eastern Orthodox and Syrian Christians, and the Catholic Church didn't accept it until the 9th century or so.

I wonder how much knowledge that we NEED has been withheld from us -- for example, I know there was a lot more written on angels/fallen angels that "somebody" felt should be ommitted from the canon.

You don't "need" any of that, as it's all allegorical language anyway.

Part of the blame, however, is on *us*. We are simply too lazy to learn the languages original texts were written in and "rightly divide" the word of God. Whole lotta work, learning ancient languages.

The language of the New Testament is Greek. A lot of people speak it.

Hmmmm. I kinda disagree on this point. I think that is exactly the attitude that got us in the mess we are in today.

Yeah. Sure. It's social constructionism that has caused the world's various ills and wars, not religious fundamentalism. Right.

The true word of God is something that remains the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Only if you believe in the fantasy of a primitive Christian monolithism.

The Messiah did pass on some advice that is perfectly applicable here.

The "Messiah" here is just quoting the Old Testament. It's nothing new.

Laterz.

 

[zDom]

The language of the New Testament is Greek. A lot of people speak it.

I said ancient, not dead. But some scriptures were writtin in Aramaic, too -- right?

Anyway, I won't debate with you: I'm not a Bible scholar.

I do hope the Creator reveals Himself to you. You remind me a lot of Saul (not that you are persecuting anybody, just in that you are educated and passionate in your beliefs), and after his conversion, became the most influential apostle, Paul.

Or maybe C.S. Lewis.

Anyway the Messiah was sent to fulfill Old Testamentt scripture, not refute or replace it

I guess, for you, it is easier to believe we evolved out of primordial sludge.

Talk about a belief requiring a leap of faith

 

[heretic888]

I said ancient, not dead. But some scriptures were writtin in Aramaic, too -- right?

Except perhaps for the Revelation of John, none of the New Testament was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It's all Greek.

I do hope the Creator reveals Himself to you. You remind me a lot of Saul (not that you are persecuting anybody, just in that you are educated and passionate in your beliefs), and after his conversion, became the most influential apostle, Paul.

Or maybe C.S. Lewis.

As I said previously, I outgrew a lot of this nonsense years ago. The "Creator" was "revealed" to me when I was a child raised in a Baptist Church in southern Georgia. Since my childhood, I have moved beyond much of literal-mythical belief structures and have a more nuanced perspective on reality.

When I am interesting in garnering something in the way of Christian insight or spirituality, I peruse mystical works like those of Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, or more recently, Thomas Merton. The fundamentalist idiocy has long since bored me.

Anyway the Messiah was sent to fulfill Old Testamentt scripture, not refute or replace it

You should read Paul's letters sometime. Suffice to say, he disagrees with you.

I guess, for you, it is easier to believe we evolved out of primordial sludge.

Talk about a belief requiring a leap of faith

You are free to believe such fantasies (i.e., evolution having little empirical evidence to support it) if you wish. I mean, it's perpetrated by the same amoral opportunistic thinking that created "the" Bible in the first place. Why should I expect it to stop now??

Have a good one.

 

[zDom]

Heretic, you really need to discuss these issues you have with someone more knowledgable.

I'm not really a fundamentalist in the way you seem to think I am. I don't even regularly attend church presently (I have my own reasons I'd rather not get into).

All I have is faith.

If it is all a fantasy, at least it is a pleasant one: that there is a Creator, with a personality, that knows me and so loved me, that He sent his only begotten Son to pay my debt so I could be saved.

And what is so bad about treating people like you would want to be treated?

If I am crazy to believe in what you call a fantasy belief, at least it is a harmless insanity, ne?

Beats the heck out of "Do what thou wilt" and hedonism, IMO

 

[heretic888]

Heretic, you really need to discuss these issues you have with someone more knowledgable.

Contrary to what you might like to believe, I do not have "issues" with any of this.

I'm not really a fundamentalist in the way you seem to think I am. I don't even regularly attend church presently (I have my own reasons I'd rather not get into).

All I have is faith.

A fundamentalist, in the way I am using the term, is someone who holds to sociocentric values (i.e., that the segment of humanity they belong to is "chosen" or "saved" or "the elect") and subscribes to a "blind" faith in the absolute truth of their religious texts and doctrines. Another term commonly used is literalist.

From what I have seen, you certainly seem to fall into that categorization.

If it is all a fantasy, at least it is a pleasant one: that there is a Creator, with a personality, that knows me and so loved me, that He sent his only begotten Son to pay my debt so I could be saved.

It seems so at first glance and there are certainly worst fantasies to subscribe to, but....

What most people don't realize is that, for all the posturing of evangelicals, mythic-literal belief structures are still highly narcissistic and self-important in nature. With the archaic-instinctual worldview, the individual orients him or herself solely on physical sensations and motor responses (typical of infants). With the magical-animistic worldview, this prior narcissism is lessened as the individual realizes there is a world "out there", but this world is still fused with the individual ego. As a result, the individual believes that the world changes in response to his or her impulses and wishes, thus resulting in a belief in "magic", and preconsciously projects his or her subjective impulses out into the world, thus resulting in a belief in animistic "spirits" within inanimate objects.

With the mythic-literal orientation, this narcissism is severely lessened as one no longer directly manipulates the world with magical wish-fulfillment. Instead, one petitions a deity figure with prayer and rites to indirectly change the world or gather information about the world. However, this structure is still very self-centered in that the deity "favors" certain people over others on the basis of a set of rules society has created, absolutizes the social values of one's in-group into universal status, and is extremely rigid in terms of its "us vs them" dichotomy.

Mythical sociocentrism is certainly not as egocentric as magical animism, but it is still quite immature and narcissistic compared to reason (which has its own problems, but we needn't get into that here).

And what is so bad about treating people like you would want to be treated?

Nothing, but the Golden Rule is not the property of Christians. It is an ethical principle common to many religious and philosophical systems.

If I am crazy to believe in what you call a fantasy belief, at least it is a harmless insanity, ne?

Actually, ethnocentrism and sociocentrism can be quite dangerous, depending on the circumstances and opportunties available. In the United States, one needn't look farther than such controversies as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, global warming, and intelligent design to see proof of this.

As it currently stands, religious fundamentalism has been very harmful to our society in recent years.

Beats the heck out of "Do what thou wilt" and hedonism, IMO

Which, of course, has nothing to do with my position.

Have a good one.

 

[zDom]

Which, of course, has nothing to do with my position.

Didn't mean for you to infer that it did

But hedonism, for example, IS another form of narcissim. Since I seem to be caught in an immature, narcissistic rut I might as well subscribe to one that is more pleasant for those around me.

I'll try my best not to take part in any crusades if that will make you feel better

 

[heretic888]

But hedonism, for example, IS another form of narcissim. Since I seem to be caught in an immature, narcissistic rut I might as well subscribe to one that is more pleasant for those around me.

Technically speaking, the hedonism you describe is pure narcissism or egocentrism, while mythical-literal beliefs form a type of sociocentrism or mediated narcissism. The former holds privileged status to the self and the self alone, while the latter extends privileged status to the group (but not to members of other social or political groups).

Rational-analytic beliefs, of course, are even more removed from the prior narccisism than mythical-literalism is. These types of structures manifest in the religious mind with such orientations as the Deism of the American Founding Fathers (i.e., Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin) or the Christian Existentialism of Paul Tillich.

Ultimately, it is a matter of developmental context.

Have a good one.