Pete

I cannot speak for all PCs or anyone else. I can only speak for me and that maybe simple if you like. I see nothing wrong with picking and choosing or syncretism and believe this was done from the beginning and all religions contain an element of it. When I call myself a Liberal Christian I do not speak for all Liberal Christians or attempt to insist that all Liberal Christians should think as I do. In this I believe I differ strongly from fundamentalism. In the strictest sense the word Christ refers to Jesus as a Messiah or anointed one and I feel more happy with being a Jesus inspired person but if I say this then, in modern lay terms, I am called a Christian. I am interested in my spiritual journey and in this help others on theirs rather than dictate what that should be and believing God is bigger than a petty man made religion. I therefore take what resonates with me rather than what others feel I should take. In my experience fundamentalism criticises PCs and challenge them to assert their tenets because these are things fundamentalist thinking thinks are important. They cannot accept a spiritual journey unless there are clear rules established and which they can argue for or against. I do not want to play that game and and I am happy to walk with God where ever that takes and accept truth from where ever I find it. Fundamentalism is about asserting a creed or a set of beliefs that all should agree upon rather than grasp at the mystery of Jesus and God and trust in spirit that to lead one. You can see this when one challenges one of their tenets and their follows great efforts to prove one should agree with them and sometimes the explanation can appear to me to be turning somersaults, distorted ways of looking at things and oft (IMO) whacky explanations in order to make the discomfort of the challenge or challenger go away. As for me I do not care of the discomfort and if someone has something that challenges me then I do not see it as always negative or feel my faith will fall upon such challenges. I am happy to take my path even if this leads to paths untrod by others. Simplistically put I see God guides the spirit where there are lessons for me and guides others where there are lessons for them. So rather than see syncretism as an insult I just do not care what others make of what I believe. If a truth is found elsewhere it is found (IMO). I left fundamentalism because it could not grasp that the bible could be sometimes in error and they kicked me out because I would not condemn gay people. I now just do not care if they want me to assert tenets, creeds or whatever. I do not want to play their game. I left fundamentalism.

I have already mentioned " The idea of a human sacrifice, drinking even symbolic blood of human or animal sacrifice, dying in the flesh to rise in the spirit and sharing the existence of Jesus are not Jewish concepts but are pagan. The idea of human sacrifice or drinking even symbolic blood is right up there with eating pork." Such concepts are alien to Judaism but not to hellenized pagan beliefs which many believe made them more acceptable to the Gentiles. I believe Paul took such concepts from other beliefs and combined them with his view of Christianity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2Wbu9ZpTSs Sorry about the inappropriate music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqlSuvAAjkM

I just believe that although Paul may of spoken against other views I believe his concepts on Jesus were from his Hellenized experiences of what it is to be divine from being brought up in Tarsus rather than from that of Judaism.

Paul said he met no one :- Galatians 1 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. It is only in Acts 9 ( a much later document) that we have a story of him meeting the disciples and this contradicts Paul comments above. My belief is that Paul's message influenced the thought of the Gospels so that they reflected his view rather than that of the background of Judaism found in the disciples and Jesus. Note also that in Galatians 2 Paul talks about returning years later to find Peter still behaving as a Jew with the customs of Judaism. I am quite convinced that the disciples of Jesus remained in Judaism and it is Paul's message which presented as more acceptable to the gentiles that formed the common view of Christianity today. I do not believe Jesus planned on starting a new religion and neither did those who knew him.

I am not sure that Paul even knew what was in the Gospels. Paul started writing before they were written and he never refers to anything in them except Jesus' death. I believe Paul influenced the Gospel writers but I do not think it happened the other way around. Sorry Matteoam but I could not look at the link you gave as my antivirus said it contained malware and blocked it.

The idea of a human sacrifice, drinking even symbolic blood of human or animal sacrifice, dying in the flesh to rise in the spirit and sharing the existence of Jesus are not Jewish concepts but are pagan. The idea of human sacrifice or drinking even symbolic blood is right up there with eating pork. I really do not trust Paul's jewish credentials at all.

I would also believe without Paul's understandings that I believe were taken from his experiences of Pagan religions in Tarsus (a Roman Free port) and his picking and choosing his form of the religion which I think differs from Jesus the so called traditional Christianity spoken about would not exist..

I kinda of go with each person finds the belief system that is right for them. For me religion is just the road a person takes to try to achieve enlightenment, live morally, or relate to the divine. Belief systems have a purpose for the individual. What may be right for one may not be right for another. I personally do not believe in a God that only relates to one belief system, but that is just about me and my belief system. There are some lovely people from many belief systems and I think it would be a petty God who could not see the love an individual has because they are blinded to all but one single belief system. I am a Christian but I hope to meet Gandhi one fine day.

Steve I am sorry but I need to get ready for work and have to keep my answers short, but I would say all religion is based on a historic synthesis and fundamentalism no different in this.

I think I am with Joseph on this. I am not so much interested in the why but the meaning that has for each of us. Steve I would also go with Progressive Christianity allows for the personal vision of the mystery for each of us rather than enforcing a single doctrine on others. The so called orthodox view is (IMO) only what the church wanted to be established at Nicaea rather than the view ever Christian had back then.

Hi Jane Austen Fan. Welcome to the forum. I hope you are able to find a way through your dilemma. I remember reading about one person who when challenged by a strong viewpoint just used to listen and the under their breath say to themselves "You're very right my friend - according to your model of the world". Fundamentalist viewpoints are hard to shift I agree but I hope that does not prevent you from being who you are. I look forward to hearing from you. Pete

I am sure your right. I also think the church has used it as a control device for centuries. It came as a shock to me when I found out that followers of Judaism do not believe in hell and it seems it started with the church. I also think some people have suffered hell already such as the women you spoke of and childhood soldiers and suffers of war and famine and some of the horrible conditions in health that exist. It is sometimes for some people hard to know if love really exists. That and the idea of condemning anyone for ever in hell with no reprieve seems to say something about the condemner too. I mean I am no friend of Adolf Hitler and believe he needs punishing for what he did but forever torture is a long time and for someone to do this and be aware of the suffering taking place for eternity takes something I cannot do. I personally do not believe in hell. Sorry about this Matteoam but Bishop Spong again. I think Bishop spong puts this so well (IMO) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

I am sure your right and he has done this for many years now and I know I will not change anything. It just feels weird to me to be faced with such a horror as stoning and burning someone and his ability to reconcile this with God. He talks about justifying it on the ground that the women has committed deceit and therefore being as God is so just and so righteous the women deserves her fate. I just think for pity sake how does even deceit equate with stoning someone and yet he says he believes it does. I think Matteoam also has a point that it dwells in the tribal concept of owning women. Again another ugly concept (IMO). No one should own anyone.

It is that arguement that God is justified in commanding such things that is what I am being presented with. I understand the Jews saw it as a hypothetical extreme but did their best not to carry it out. but because the fundamentalists pay little attention to jewish culture instead of admitting it is a barbaric thing to do they justify it as part of God's plan to make his people holy for when Jesus would arrive. Even Jesus is said to have said that those without sin should carry it out which from a literalist perspective appears to me to contradicts God ever saying such things. In that in their perspective Jesus who was also God did not want it carried out by anyone because no one is without fault. It seems a person could be stoned for the following:- Mishna[edit]The Mishna gives the following list of persons who should be stoned.[3][4] "To the following sinners stoning applies – אלו הן הנסקלין one who has had relations with his mother – הבא על האם with his father's wife – ועל אשת האב with his daughter-in-law – ועל הכלה a human male with a human male – ועל הזכור or with cattle – ועל הבהמה and the same is the case with a woman who uncovers herself before cattle – והאשה המביאה את הבהמה with a blasphemer – והמגדף an idolater – והעובד עבודת כוכבים he who sacrifices one of his children to Molech – והנותן מזרעו למולך one that occupies himself with familiar spirits – ובעל אוב a wizard – וידעוני one who violates Sabbath – והמחלל את השבת one who curses his father or mother – והמקלל אביו ואמו one who has assaulted a betrothed damsel – והבא על נערה המאורסה a seducer who has seduced men to worship idols – והמסית and the one who misleads a whole town – והמדיח a witch (male or female) – והמכשף a stubborn and rebellious son – ובן סורר ומורה" from:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning I also understand it stands for someone who changed their religion too. Also if a daughter of a priest who becomes a prostitute then they are to be burned. The sickening idea of stoning someone to death or setting fire to them does not seem to make the person who I talked to think about it. He still says that this is somehow righteous and part of God's justice. All I can see is stoning someone at all let alone for not being a virgin on their wedding night is for me barbaric but try to justify it they do. I mean what so special about virginity if there is real love in a relationship and where does stoning a person come into that. I just cringe and cannot figure it.

I often wonder how it is that sex often seems a far worse a sin than even murder. I have been speaking to a person who I regard as very fundamentalist and he was justifying the stoning of women for not being virgins on their wedding nights (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). He saw this as God;s will to make his people holy. He says God made this rule because God was just and righteous and he want his people to be. I just cringe at the very thought, but how is that some can justify this?

Hi Michael, good to hear from you. Welcome to the forum.

Welcome Robert. I think we are all developing and your not alone. I look forward to hearing more from you. .

We all have come here from differing inspirations and for you it seems the names you quote. If you want to start a topic about what you feel about those authors and what they mean to you then I would be interested. We would then be discussing them. What do you think?

I find this a hard question. Sure I would not like to see the church fold but when I look at its political aspects in the UK, its arguments against women bishops, its split over women ministers, its attack on gay marriage and its attempts to change the law to support it, the bar against practising gay people who are ministers, I cannot help but feel it has lost its respect with the public. I feel that as Spong says Christianity has to change or die and I feel that also means the Church of England too. The trouble is it seems to me to be very reluctant to debate change or to take it on board. There is a split hovering over it with a US led movement towards liberal/progressive theology and an African led movement towards fundamentalism and a clergy who appear unable to deal with it but suppress debate. We now have an Archbishop of Canterbury who publically has said he is against gay marriage and wants a return to fundamentalism. I also see it using the Alpha course and I know for me as a liberal this is not something that sits comfortable with me. I feel the public more and more are going to look on such views of the Church of England as an irrelevance and stop going.

I can see how you have arrived at your view Joseph. I guess when I say free will within parameters we start from differing views of what we mean by free will but in the end I think I can see what your getting at. As I have said I admire the compassion and respect it gives to you. That said I have meet people who would wish harm on others and go out of their way to do so. For me that still comes down on my need to forgive them rather than see it all as a product of the unfolding universe and dismiss it. I think they have a choice to harm or not. That said I also think being human is not so easy sometimes and compassion is a much needed quality.

I remember a story (not sure if it true or not) about Richard Bandler (Co founder of NLP) . He was talking to some psychologists who were insisting that the persons personality was fixed after the age of five. They went insisting until Richard pulled out a gun and asked if this would change their personality or not. I am not saying that this is a good thing to do but the question hangs, if extreme events like having a gun pulled out on one can make one adopt differing patterns then how come other more gentler ways are so readily dismissed. The one thing I know is that I am not the personality I was as a child or as a teenager. Today they mostly say that although the greatest and fasted changes occur when one is young the possibility of change is present throughout life.

I know much is said about free will and the self being illusionary but I would go with many things holding the possibility of an illusion. Firstly the mind does not connect to reality. It draws in impulses through the senses to the brain. The brain then tries to make sense of what these impulses mean and then forms a cognitive representation or a map in the mind of what it thinks of the stimuli it is getting. So one can say that these cognitive maps are useful for us to negotiate our way through life but it is also a fact that these cognitive maps are not the actual territory. So the concept of self and free will in the mind may be illusionary but equally that does not mean the self and the belief of having free will does not come from the reality of existence. It just means we cannot be 100% sure of what we perceive as reality being reality in a sense because perception is cognitive we each build our own reality. The mind can also be tricked and these maps in the mind took time to develop. A young baby can be tricked with the presentation of three dots (representing two eyes and a nose) attached to it cot as being its mother looking on but in later life this would not suffice. However, there are ones adults struggle with :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_illusion Being as we each make sense of the reality we each have formulated in our minds each can come to differing conclusions as to what is reality. Where one can say that free will does not exist and it is the universe unfolding another like me will say that although the universe unfolds we do have free will as to what we make of that and seek to do within the realms of the universal environment we inherit and the cognitive maps we have produced.. Now I do not believe I am going to convince someone that they are wrong because according to their model of the world a thing is such and such but equally according to my model of the world the self and limited free will exists. We each make our own reality and what is perceived as illusion or fact may also differ from person to person. Given enough research all things are provable.

I do not believe we have absolute free choice just a qualified free choice based on what we inherit. What we inherit maybe genetic, evolutionary, or socialised but I do not believe all choice is based just on that. I do not believe we are totally programmed to do what we do and nothing more. CBT, NLP and other cognitive therapies look at that programme and the client then uses what insight they have to alter their way of thinking. This discussion started with a point on forgiveness and whether a person needs to forgive as all are just unfolding what they were programmed to be. I do not accept that premise as it does not allow for any freedom of an individual self to actualise to something greater or differ and drawing on my experience to note that people can change from what fate has determined them to be to other ways. Maybe we are just discussing the degree of self will.

I remember as a child a baptist church splitting over a similar debate (similar but not the same). The argument went along the lines of - If God created all things and can see all things then God knows what his creation would do and therefore free will did not exist and the notion of being saved by belief did not exist either because God would have already be aware of who He would save even before one is born. Therefore evangelical zeal to save all was not necessary and was pointless. God has already determined what will be. Such an argument also seems to make life choices and moral choice also pointless as one is only fulfilling what will be. I know this is not one of the most sophisticated arguments in philosophical terms but I go with the that of God in all and a choice in all to relate to it or not. In giving that of God in all then God is blindfolded as to what each will do with it. One can seek the moral good or the moral bad as in freewill both possibilities are desirable. There may be gratification from stealing food from a child but whether a person resists that urge or not is free will and determined by the individual (IMO). All be it that individual is shaped by socialization and the universe one still choose whether to go with that programming or not. Can one choose to change such programming? I would say yes but whether they will or not depends on the person desire to do so. I would go with free will existing but limited by our being and situation and that which we inherit. Some things are changeable and somethings are beyond our control.

Hey, I said that a quote made sense to me. I did not say that Marx made full sense to me.