Jump to content

Common Sense Christianity


Guest wayfarer2k

Recommended Posts

Great insight, McKenna! I don't like the Great Judgment because it is appealing to people's fear of punishment as their motivation, rather than the motivation of loving God. However, fear is a powerful motivator...and just because it is a challenge for me doesn't mean there isn't some truth to be found in it. I agree with Bill that it is obviously a metaphor because of the sheep and goats thing.

 

Bill, should we start a separate thread for church-bashing :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest billmc
Sorry to be a bit behind - but I just read Chapter 4, and briefly, my reaction was that I agreed with his criticisms of some dismissals of miracles, but I didn't find his alternative thoroughly satisfying. Of course, it's one I've heard before, but at least when applied to the Resurrection I just find it kind of a cop-out. But, I guess we'll see when we get to Chapter 6, which deals with the Resurrection specifically.

 

As for Chapter 5, I agree with others' criticism that he oversimplified the matter of what a Christian is/believes. Still, I don't have a problem with him laying down the basic definition of a Christian, since that's useful for the rest of his argument. And I too felt uncomfortable when I read that "the Great Judgment" was one of Jesus' core teachings, but when I thought about it a bit I realized that just because I'm uncomfortable with it doesn't change the fact that Jesus probably did use that kind of language. I guess I just have to think about it in terms of the spirit behind such words - in other words, the essential core teaching that we are accountable before God for our actions. I don't think that means God will punish anyone eternally. But it means He can hold us accountable. I like to think that was the basic idea Jesus was driving at - which would naturally sound good to the poor and oppressed, to hear that their oppressors would be held accountable before God. Maybe?

 

Yes, good insights, McKenna. You reminded me of something that I have been thinking about lately and for which I would be burned in prior centuries. :lol: How much of a product of his times and worldview was Jesus?

 

I was raised to believe that Jesus was, if not omniscient, then at least accurate in everything he knew and taught. Therefore, the teachings of Jesus were to be interpreted and implemented, but never questioned or criticized.

 

I've noticed that alot of more liberal commentaries on Jesus' teachings resort to some kind of methodology for determining what was an authentic teaching of Jesus (which would have made it true) and what was the voice of the early church (which would have made it, if not false, then at least questionable).

 

But I tend to think that Jesus was a product of the Judaism of his time, that he grew up learning his own religion as do most of us. Sure, God's spirit led him into truth. No doubt about that. But he was raised within a Jewish eschatological framework just like many of us were raised to think that Jesus is coming back soon. Some Christians even believe in a "Rapture" and have bumper stickers than warn others that the stickered car could be uninhabited at any time. :huh:

 

How much was Jesus influenced by his own religious paradigm? His cousin, John the Baptist, certainly looked for a holy-jihad type messiah who would burn up the Romans. If Jesus incorporated alot of first century Jewish beliefs into his own worldview (rather than being omniscient), then it stands to reason that he would have taught some things that are "the doctrines of men" rather than things from the spirit's enlightenment.

 

Just something I'm thinking about.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
Bill, should we start a separate thread for church-bashing :-)

 

:lol: Hey, we Protestants have a long and semi-distinguished history of cutting off our noses to spite our faces. ;)

 

So what do we call those who protest against the Protestants? Post-protestant? Neo-protestant? Protestant 90201?

 

Anyway, I have my 95,000 Theses ready. I just need a list of church doors on which to nail them. :rolleyes:

 

TCPC's resident heretic,

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

Can you come by First United Methodist in Fort Collins? I think we would welcome your theses! Start a new thread where we can think more about how we would reform the church, if you have the energy. It could be fun! :D

 

I think Jesus' message was totally shaped by his worldview. If not how he said it, the way it was recorded by people trying to start a new religion out of his message.

 

Finding the kernals of value in the message is the challenge. Do we just write a teaching off because we don't like it, or is that the very message we need for growth? I used to write off the one that said we shouldn't worry because the flowers and birds don't, but now I love the idea that Jesus thought to include "Don't Worry!" in his sermon on the Mount. Too many of us are caught up in worry, when God will be with us no matter what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much was Jesus influenced by his own religious paradigm? His cousin, John the Baptist, certainly looked for a holy-jihad type messiah who would burn up the Romans. If Jesus incorporated alot of first century Jewish beliefs into his own worldview (rather than being omniscient), then it stands to reason that he would have taught some things that are "the doctrines of men" rather than things from the spirit's enlightenment.

 

Yes, I agree completely. I think we have to recognize the fact that Jesus spoke within a certain framework and had certain biases as a product of that culture. I like your point about how this means that it's not necessarily accurate to distinguish between the "true" teachings of Jesus and the "biased" teachings of the early Church - rather, both may be biased.

 

:lol: Hey, we Protestants have a long and semi-distinguished history of cutting off our noses to spite our faces. ;)

 

So what do we call those who protest against the Protestants? Post-protestant? Neo-protestant? Protestant 90201?

 

Anyway, I have my 95,000 Theses ready. I just need a list of church doors on which to nail them. :rolleyes:

 

TCPC's resident heretic,

billmc

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Thanks for making me laugh! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
Let's move on to Chapter 6, and I'd like to try something different. I'd like to listen to your thoughts before making a comment this time.

 

Me first, huh? Okay, out of the frying pan and into the...

 

Ross titles this chapter, "The Resurrection: Historically Probable, Religiously Insignificant." And, after reading this chapter, I don't really think he elaborates much more on Jesus' resurrection than what his title has already done. :lol:

 

Ross writes: "I regard it (the resurrection) as historically probable that something happened on that first Easter, something not too unlike the Biblical resurrection accounts. And I also maintain that what happened is not of any theological significance."

 

In brief (which is always best for me), I agree with him on point 1 and disagree with him on point 2.

 

Okay, Janet, your turn...

 

What? You wanted more than that? Okay, you asked for it!

 

First off, I place the resurrection into a "suspense account." I've suspended being dogmatic on the issue. How's that for being evasive.

 

Secondly, I look at the resurrection through 3 basic viewpoints: physicality, eschatology, and spirituality. That way, if I get at least one viewpoint right then, as the great theologian Meatloaf said, "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad." :rolleyes:

 

Physicality - no matter how much some of our brothers and sisters whine about it, Jesus' resurrection could not have been a resucitation. Yes, according to the text he ate and Thomas touch him and he denied being a spirit. But he also walked through walls and was able to transport himself (without the help of the USS Enterprise) to different locations. Not to mention his ability to disguise himself. Neither Lazarus nor any of the other people who were "raised from the dead" could do what it is said Jesus did. So I see no way to say that Jesus was simply "brought back to life" and then floated off to heaven. Maybe the resurrection is "trans-physical", but, then, we start using words that don't really tell us much, do they?

 

Eschatology - within the Jewish story of the first century, many Jews believed that God would actually physically resurrect the faithful dead to walk again in "the kingdom of God" on earth. This was a physicality. But it also involved living forevermore with no real explanation as to how that would happen except that God was able to do it or that people ate from the Tree of Life. It seems that many of the early Christians (especially Paul) thought that Jesus was the "firstfruits" of this "general resurrection." Jesus was, for them, proof that God would bring the kingdom to earth and raise the faithful. I suspect this became important to the first Christians who were dying for their faith. As I've said early, whether Jesus believed this about himself or the church believed this about him, I don't know. But the scriptures themselves do testify that they often didn't understand Jesus and were forever trying to force him into their messianic expectations. It's possible that the resurrection stories were, as many liberal scholars suggest, attempts to interpret Jesus' missing body in such a way that, not only was his death on behalf of his people, but his resurrection was also.

 

Spiritually - here is where I disagree with Ross, if I understand him correctly. If religion is defined on how we connect with the Divine and with each other, then Jesus' resurrection is, for me, a powerful word-picture. I don't have to interpret it literally (anymore than I have to believe that blood can actually wash away sin or guilt) to find meaning in a new, transformed life. For me, this is the meaning of the resurrection, that love cannot be extinguished, that it will find a way to continue. It might change it's methodology, but it will find a way to "endure forever." Spong seems to think that Jesus' resurrection is not about getting his body back, but about being taken into the Being of God, about becoming completely One with the One. This notion attracts me and I don't have to believe in a physicality in order to find the resurrection meaningful.

 

Okay, that's enough from me from now. What about everyone else? What do you think of the resurrection? Do you agree or disagree with Ross's take on it?

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
I like your point about how this means that it's not necessarily accurate to distinguish between the "true" teachings of Jesus and the "biased" teachings of the early Church - rather, both may be biased.

 

Exactly, McKenna. Back when I was a Christian, such notions would have sent me into a tailspin. What? We don't know what Jesus actually said? We don't know what Jesus actually did? We can't tell what are Jesus' views and what are the views of the church? My God! What do we believe? What do we do if we suspect that "human views" are mixed in with the divine?

 

But I don't feel that way any longer. Part of growing up is learning to get past binary thinking, the "either/or" mentality. As adults, we develop a sense of "discernment" that helps us to pick, out of all the information we are presented with, that which is meaningful to us while discarding or storing the rest. I don't insist that any of my friends speak only the truth for me to value their input and insights. And I certainly don't claim to do so myself. So why should I impose upon Jesus such a standard?

 

This doesn't mean that I think that Jesus was a pathological liar. Far from it. I just suspect that he, like all the rest of us, was trying to figure this "God-thing" out in the midst of his own culture and religion. And his "way", the "way" that John claims that Jesus claimed he was, was not a set of beliefs, but a "way" of relating to God within a personal framework instead of going through the religious institutions of his day. Even if Jesus was influence by his own religion, which I think the scripture make clear that he was, he still sought to put the spirit first, to elevate relationship above rules. His last act on earth was to give his life rather than see his disciples killed as rebels. This, to me, speaks more of his "theology" than trying to sift through the gospels to figure out what is "authentic" and what is not.

 

Just my 2c.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Resurrection: Historically Probable, Religiously Insignificant."

 

I don't know. I wasn't there. It is not a requirement of my faith. Irrelevant to me.

What is important is that I found in the recorded teachings of Jesus (whether he really said them or not, I neither believe nor disbelieve) enough teachings to point to God to utilize so that I was able to approach and connect with God for myself. In doing so Christ is come into my life. The rest is dogma and doctrine and what need have I of it if I indeed have Christ?

 

Just an extra 2 cents I received from the other 2 I gave away. :lol:

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chapter 6:

 

I agree with Bill, in that I agree with Ross that the Resurrection is "historically probable" but disagree that it is "religiously insignificant."

 

First of all, I disagree with him that Jesus' Resurrection shouldn't change how we perceive Jesus. After all, there are many great people in history whose actions and words I admire, but their deaths were not followed by such a dramatic experience. To me, that indicates that there was something particularly special about Jesus. I don't know exactly what it shows - I agree that it isn't what makes Jesus the "Messiah" - but I don't think it is utterly insignificant.

 

Furthermore, I completely disagree with the point Ross is trying to make in this paragraph:

 

But while our belief in a loving God can be symbolized by the resurrection, it cannot depend on the resurrection. Neither our belief in salvation through faith, not our confidence in God’s forgiveness, nor our affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, can depend on the resurrection. It proves none of these. It is essential to none of these. It simply can’t bear the weight that Paul, and so many since him, have wanted to put on it.

 

So what? Just because the Resurrection isn't "essential" to, and doesn't "prove," God's love, it's therefore irrelevant? No. The one doesn't follow from the other. It doesn't have to prove it to be significant! Granted, this means that it is not necessarily significant, but it doesn't mean that it is necessarily insignificant. And, IMO, we as Christians are the people for whom it should be significant!

 

Just my initial reactions :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
I don't know. I wasn't there. It is not a requirement of my faith. Irrelevant to me.

 

I think I’m more “wiff ya” than “agin ya” on this one, Joe. Spong says, and I think it’s true, everyone is welcome to form their own beliefs…but not welcome to form their own facts. Even if we just used the scriptures themselves to try to gain insight into the historical validity of Jesus’ resurrection, we would find that the accounts simply don’t corroborate one another’s stories.

 

I no longer believe in a supernatural, theistic god. And the resurrection accounts strongly lean upon this very type of theology – that Jesus came from God (who was in heaven) and had to somehow get back to God (who was in heaven). Living within a theistic framework, this is a problem that the early Christians had to solve. It’s not a problem that I have to solve.

 

What I do believe, however, is that the disciples believed it. But I’m not a restorationist, I don’t think we need to get back to the beliefs of the early church to try to reclaim some kind of “pure Christianity”. After all, these people also believed that blood could remove sin, that sickness was caused by demons, that women were inferior to men, and that what God really wanted from his people was for their males to cut off part of their penises. Hmm, was God trying to make sure that no one could trump him? 

 

I’ve heard some Christians say, “The resurrection had to have happened because the disciples would never have died for a lie.” That claim in itself is a lie. Soldiers die all the time because they believe that God is on their side or that their nation is superior to other nations or that their race is superior. The terrorist of 9-11 died believing that Allah would reward them with 70 virgins in the afterlife. People will die for what they believe to be a good cause (even if that cause is evil) or to protect someone else. Humans will willingly die without any belief in a resurrection, if they are motivated by some other belief strongly enough. So I don’t find it convincing that just because the disciples may have believed in the resurrection, their willingness to die means that it is a historical fact.

 

And I certainly don’t agree with Paul that “if Christ be not raised from the dead, your faith is in vain.” In the first place, my faith in not in my future resurrection. I’m an agnostic as far as the afterlife goes. It would be nice, but I’m not banking on it. In the second place, Paul statement is analogous to saying, “If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi or Mother Theresa be not raised from the dead, then nothing they said or did is worth considering.” If people are God-filled and speak the truth or point to the truth, then that is enough, I don’t require a reanimated corpse to validate that they pointed to God. 

 

So, yes, in a sense I find the resurrection of Jesus irrelevant to my faith (such as it is or is not). But I still find the fact that the disciples believed intriguing and I would love to interview each one to see what difference their beliefs made in their lives. I’m personally more interested in WHY people believe as they do than in WHAT they believe.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For me, this is the meaning of the resurrection, that love cannot be extinguished, that it will find a way to continue. It might change it's methodology, but it will find a way to "endure forever"

 

Bill - yes! This is what it means to me as well! You've written it in a better way than I would have. The "resurrected" Jesus has made a difference in my life. Death could not contain Jesus. So, too, the work I do for God's kingdom will survive after my physical death.

 

I'm so glad I let all of you go first :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
I'm so glad I let all of you go first :-)

 

Well, that certainly doesn't let you off the hook. :lol: Do you have anything else you would like to contribute concerning this chapter? If not, I guess we can proceed to Chapter 7 - The Question of the Divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

I really appreciate everyone's thoughts and contributions in this book discussion. The goal is certainly not to canonize Ross's book, just to consider what he has to say and whether it resonates within us enough to help each of us think, not only about what we believe, but about how our beliefs make a difference in our lives and in our world.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. It doesn't let me off the hook, but at least I don't feel I'm dominating the conversation.

 

I just read Chapter 7, and I didn't have a big problem with what Ross said, because I have always thought the "fully human, fully divine" idea was a way of expressing that God was uniquely present in Jesus. However, I recently read (somewhere??) that the idea of seeing Jesus as God helps us in the following way:

 

We often think that God has never suffered in the way we have, and therefore that God cannot understand our suffering. Through Jesus, God did suffer (and feel abandoned in the way we often do during our suffering). I didn't try to wrap my brain around the fact that God would have to feel abandoned by God. :-) I just thought it must be helpful to somebody else!! Or maybe to me at a future time...

 

It does seem to me that the theology of the Trinity was a compromise that included many ways of thinking about how Jesus fit into the whole God picture.

 

At one point, someone told me God was like an egg: An egg is made up of three basic parts (shell, white, yolk). All of them together are an egg. My feeling is that the ideas of Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are all windows through which we can view aspects of God, but there are more than 3 windows. I'm not real big on the Apostle's Creed, as you can probably tell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Resurrection: Historically Probable, Religiously Insignificant."

 

I don't know. I wasn't there. It is not a requirement of my faith. Irrelevant to me. What is important is that I found in the recorded teachings of Jesus ( enough teachings to point to God to utilize so that I was able to approach and connect with God for myself. In doing so Christ is come into my life. The rest is dogma and doctrine and what need have I of it if I indeed have Christ?

 

Joseph - I forgot to mention... I LOVE this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
We often think that God has never suffered in the way we have, and therefore that God cannot understand our suffering. Through Jesus, God did suffer (and feel abandoned in the way we often do during our suffering). I didn't try to wrap my brain around the fact that God would have to feel abandoned by God. :-) I just thought it must be helpful to somebody else!! Or maybe to me at a future time...

 

Yeah, Janet, it can drive us nuts trying to wrap our brains around some of these things. Especially as I don't have enough brain to even wrap around my pinky finger!

 

This subject, like the subject of the resurrection of Jesus, can be so polarizing and so devisive to people. I'd would rather discuss the meaning of it than the existential/ontological problems of the concepts.

 

So I'm kinda with you in that in the doctrine of the Trinity (interpreted in the best light possible), we see that God is not relegated to heaven up there, but manifested here with us in human life. Of course, the Bible is written from a theistic point-of-view where God lived primarily above the clouds and in the Jewish temple. But I think the early Christians were trying to say, "This God that we thought was so transcendant, well, he has become immanent. We thought we could never see him because 1) he lives in heaven and 2) we are too sinful. But we saw him, despite our sin, in Jesus of Nazareth. We don't know how this happened! But we have met God in Jesus." If this was anything like what they were trying to say, I agree with them. But this is not typically how the Trinity is taught.

 

I guess where I am quite unorthodox is that I tend to think that the incarnation continues. If God is in our world, if he still acts here, if he is still present here, then it is not in our buildings. It is not in our sacred writings. It is not in our priests and holy rituals and liturgies. It is...of all the strange places..in us. It is "Christ in you". The Trinity says that if we want to see God, we can find him in three persons. But my Plurinity says that if we want to see God, we can find him, to some extent, in all persons.

 

So I appreciate the truth that the doctrine points to, but I don't like the limitations that it places on God. Aren't I quite the heretic? ;)

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh "The divinity of Jesus of Nazareth" ? Chapter 7

 

It seems to me to be a concept/question that requires no answers but only questions.

 

If Jesus was indeed fully man and had the capacity to encompass divinity then we as fully man/woman, would we not have that same capacity?

 

If Jesus came from God, Where did I come from? Chicken soup?

 

If God is no respecter of persons and Jesus was a person, than am I also not a person?

 

If God is unconditional Love, then am I not the equal of all in his Love?

 

If Jesus is divine, am I also not divine?

 

If Jesus is not divine, am I also not divine?

 

What does it matter whether I believe Jesus is divinity or is not divinity, do I worship a man or Spirit?

 

And if God is complete and without parts then where is my separation from God or Jesus?

 

Why is the question even relevant?

 

Just some questions to consider.

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
Why is the question even relevant?

 

Because this is a book discussion and we are discussing concepts in the book. :lol:

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
Why is the question even relevant?

 

On second thought, Joseph, you're right! Why is any of this discussion relevant? I stand corrected!

 

Enjoy!

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because this is a book discussion and we are discussing concepts in the book. :lol:

 

billmc

 

 

Yes, it is Bill and you are correct we are discussing concepts in the book. It seems to me I was discussing Chapter 7. I was expressing my view in questions concerning the question of Chapter 7. One can draw their own conclusions based on my questions or just ignore them as another view. I surely didn't mean to insinuate that discussing the book is irrelevant. You have my apology if that is what it appeared to say to you. This discussion has gone quite well and I appreciate all the participation and insights given. Hopefully none of my remarks were personal in nature as you know that would be unacceptable even if it came from me. :lol:

 

 

On second thought, Joseph, you're right! Why is any of this discussion relevant? I stand corrected!

 

Remember it was a question for others to answer. I refrained from doing so but yes the insinusation from my questions is that whether one believes one way or the other it may not be pertinent. If we love God and are inclusive then the way we behave says more of what we believe than taking either position therefor you could assume my view says believing Jesus's divinity or non divinity is irrelevant to MY walk. It is not a case of being right or wrong to me and I believe I have made no reference to this thread being irrelevant whatsoever. Hope you understand what i am saying.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph asked me to change my post as it does not address the book topic.

Just a few notes I wanted to add on Ross' chapter 6, with my comments in brackets --

"I regard it as historically probable that something happened on that first Easter, something not too unlike the Biblical resurrection accounts. Whatever its precise nature may have been, it provided the impetus for the movement that became the Christian Church. But this event does not have religious significance."

[to me, it's more like the opposite; but he's focusing on the development of the church rather than personal transformation]

"That Jesus went on to eternal life is certainly not proven by his few days or weeks of post-death appearances on earth. This can only be accepted on faith. "

[Paul Tillich says "eternal life" does not mean "the hereafter" or life after death, but the eternal now, above time. The same applies to the term salvation - not the distant future but the present - at least that's how it seems to me]

"Jesus of Nazareth was the antithesis of the messianic warrior-king prophesied by Isaiah and others... "

[yes, but as many theologians have noted, the real foreshadowing of Christ is in the "suffering servant" passages of Isaiah]

"Christianity does not depend on either the nature or the historicity of the resurrection.... we can allow for the historical probability of the resurrection without denying our common sense." [i see this as is a helpful, constructive view, much like Borg's or Spong's. At the same time, I feel that the author is a bit too dismissive of the need for emotional involvement with and response to the bible narratives.]

"Finally, while ruling out any religious significance for a bodily resurrection, we leave open the possibility that, to the extent the Easter event was of spiritual insight, it just may have had something to do with God." [i appreciate that he allows an element of mystery, beyond human certainty, to remain.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Finally, while ruling out any religious significance for a bodily resurrection, we leave open the possibility that, to the extent the Easter event was of spiritual insight, it just may have had something to do with God." [i appreciate that he allows an element of mystery, beyond human certainty, to remain.]

 

Rivanna, thanks for joining in! Let us know what you think about Chapter 7 before we move on too fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Janet,

If you are ready for Chapter 8... Here is something I really liked in that Chapter.

 

Chapter 8: Being Right Vs. Being Christian or The Distinction Between Faith and Doctrine

 

I have by now dismissed as wrong the beliefs of a vast number of Christians. But please note: I have not said that these beliefs are unchristian. All too often, lacking the charity and wisdom of him whom we call the Christ, we have labeled as unchristian those who do not believe as we do. We call into question the faith of those who do not follow with us, those who do not echo our particular doctrinal line. But it is very evident in the lives of those around us that there is no necessary connection between believing correct doctrine and living a life of faith. You know as well as I do that the two cannot be equated.

 

I find it definitely progressive in nature and in line with TCPC Point 5.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service