Jump to content

Common Sense Christianity


Guest wayfarer2k

Recommended Posts

Both your replies gave me new insights. Bill, changing (lowering) my expectations of people and situations has resulted in much new peace in my life. Joseph, the explanation of how suffering disappears was fascinating. At first it sounded like eastern philosopy to me, so I really appreciated the link to Jesus' teachings.

 

Should we rush on to Chapter 4, or do we want to discuss Chapter 3 more?

 

 

Janet,

 

Even some of the Pauline writings speak of this rest like Hebrews Chapter 4. Paul is recorded saying.. "There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His."(KJV) 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

 

In my experience it is eastern and western together as in western thought it seems to require a disidentification with the old creature (figurative) and an identification with the new creature in Christ which is hid in God where the rest resides by faith. Whereas (Eastern thought might call this Absolute reality or the Unconditioned) Here in this rest one is aware one has a body and mind but one is also aware that one is not the body or thinking mind but something more that cannot be moved by adversity so that suffering in a sense is extinguished. It is my view in western words that this is entering the kingdom of heaven here on earth and in eastern teachings described as enlightenment or 'Satori' which is kind of a temporary state of enlightenment which I am more familiar with.

 

Love Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hey all,

 

I haven't been on the boards in a few months but I just read through all the posts and got caught up on the reading and I'm excited to join in the continuing discussion if that's ok! :)

 

-McKenna

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chapter 4:

"Jesus did in fact perform faith healings, at least early in his ministry, and that he intended them as "signs". For instance, the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 is specifically intended "that you may know that the son of man [i.e., himself] has authority on earth to forgive sins," However, it developed that people were more interested in the signs themselves than in what the signs pointed to. That is, people were more interested in the apparently miraculous healings than in Jesus’ message to which the healings were supposed to bear witness. People came seeking signs, not to hear about repentance and forgiveness and love. They came seeking entertainment, not truth; a spectacle, not a way to live. No observer of humanity can be the least bit surprised at this."

 

Welcome McKenna! I'm glad you're joining in, and we should keep encouraging others to read this. Most of this chapter was not new to me, because I have studied Bultmann before. I find myself agreeing with several of the positions presented in this chapter:

 

I think Jesus was able to help people with physical and spiritual ailments. I think some of the reported miracles may have a scientific explanation, given that the Bible came from a pre-scientific worldview. I think some of the miracles may have been exaggerated to lend creedance to the divinity of Jesus. Right now the miracle stories are not the ones I learn the most from when reading the Bible, although metaphorically I can see how Jesus "sets me free" from destructive patterns of behavior or how Jesus can assist in miraculous life changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph,

Thank you for helping me relate the Christian and eastern terms. My confusion before with "enlightenment" as a goal was that alone it doesn't seem to imply action to help others, which I can see as one of Christianity's central messages. If we are going to discuss this further, it may belong on a page of its own. I have a desire to understand each of the world's religions better and find what commonality we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good idea Janet. I am enroute from Florida to home right now but when I get home I will give it my attention to start a new thread concerning similarities unless someone starts one before I arrive.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
I think some of the miracles may have been exaggerated to lend creedance to the divinity of Jesus. Right now the miracle stories are not the ones I learn the most from when reading the Bible, although metaphorically I can see how Jesus "sets me free" from destructive patterns of behavior or how Jesus can assist in miraculous life changes.

 

I'm with you on this, Janet. For me, most of the miracle stories get in the way of my faith, mainly because I don't see God or Jesus doing the same thing nowadays. So the miracles, if taken literally, make me wonder where God/Jesus went, especially as Jesus says his followers would be able to do even greater things than he did. ;)

 

On one hand, I believe in miracles as life-giving or life-affirming epiphanies or experiences. Me finding a wife was a miracle. :P Seeing the birth of our children was, for me, a miracle. It is participating in sacred events in life, things which remind us how small and yet valuable we are.

 

But on the other hand, my definition of miracles has little to do with the way they are portrayed in the Bible. In the scriptures, miracles are the suspension of the laws of nature or physics in order for God to do a supernatural act, intervening from outside our world instead of working from inside it. I'm very much a skeptic when it comes to these types of miracles. Why? Because, even as the scriptures say, despite all their flashiness, they are not really very transformative. And secondly, they no longer happen, if they ever did. God just doesn't seem to work that way.

 

In church yesterday, the pastor thanked God for the rain. I guess that's an okay thing to do if one thinks of rain as part of the natural process of our world that God set up. But I get fidgety when weather is spoken of as God acting from outside our world to either make it rain or make a drought. I just don't think it works that way. Then God becomes directly responsible for tsunamis and tornadoes. So I find it a little odd to make it a point to thank God for the rain as something that, like Zeus' lightning bolts, comes directly from heaven. Most of the other people that I sit next to in church aren't as crazy as I am, though, so I'm sure they're comfortable with it.

 

Well, I've gone to rambling again so I'll comment further after I've reread the chapter.

 

Looking forward to hearing from Mckenna. Jump in at any point!

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

A personal reflection: When I was younger, I was in the charismatic movement, Pentecostal Holiness to be exact. These folks believed that “the age of miracles” was not over and that God was still in the miracle-working business. It was very exciting to me to believe that after 2000 years, God had not changed, that Jesus truly was the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that God would do today what he did in Bible times…if one had enough faith.

 

While in the movement, I heard of a lot of faith healings and miracles. But upon reflection, the healings all seemed to be of the unverifiable variety – head-aches going away, menstrual cramps disappearing, the disappearance of pain in a joint after the elders have anointed the head with oil and prayed, etc. None of what I ever saw of healings was of the “miraculous” kind that the Bible portrays – the blind seeing, lepers healed, the deaf hearing, the dead rising again. So while these good folks claimed that the age of miracles was not over and that God still healed, everything I witnesses was either unverifiable or very small potatoes compared to what Jesus allegedly did.

 

On the one or two occasions where I actually dared to question why we didn’t see the kind of miracles nowadays that we do when Jesus walked the earth, the answers I was given fell into these categories:

 

1. We live in an evil age when no one has the faith for God to work like he did during Jesus’ day.

 

My response: Jesus called his own age an evil age and called his generation a wicked and adulterous one. That didn’t stop him for doing miracles (according to the text). And while there are instances where faith seemed to be required, there are also plenty of instances where Jesus simply healed people because he wanted to.

 

2. Miracles are distracting to real faith in Jesus and in God. People tend to follow the miracle-workers for the miracles themselves instead of for a relationship with God.

 

My response: Okay, so what? It happened in Jesus’ day too, didn’t it? It didn’t stop him. After all, if he was God, then he would have known exactly how the whole miracles thing would have played out from the beginning of time. He would have known what a distraction to real faith miracles are. But according to the text, he did them anyway.

 

3. It simply wasn’t God’s will for a miracle in this instance.

 

My response: Ohh, sticky one. After all, the elders were called for. The oil was dispensed. Two or three agreed on earth. Faith was demonstrated. All of the biblical “prerequisites” to a healing were met. But still no healing came. Therefore, God’s sovereignty is appealed to? Gimme a break. If God sets up a condition and conditions are met and he fails to hold up to his end, then he has lied about what he said he would do.

 

Non-charismatic Christians don’t seem to focus too much on miracle healings. Sure, they pray for healing, of course. It would seem callous and uncaring not to, wouldn’t it? But they make sure that they stress that they are ASKING for a healing and that God’s will will be done regardless of whether a healing takes place or not. Or, in some cases, they simply say that we live in a different dispensation when God no longer does the miracles because we have the canon of scriptures and we should believe that.

 

Sorry to be so blunt, but all of these “excuses” for the lack of miracles are, in my opinion, a bunch of crap. I’ve seen doctors do more “healings” than God does. Christians are so quick, after a successful surgery or dose of pills to thank God for the healing while criticizing the doctors and nurses for charging too much. The doctors do all the work, God gets all the credit.

 

Maybe God does still do healings of the miraculous kind. But I’ve never see it. I’ve never seen an amputated limb grow back…or someone who has been dead for three days come back to life…or someone cured of cancer with no help whatsoever from the medical community. Maybe some people have seen these things. If so, then good for them. But I’m too postmodern to think that something God did in one person out of 500,000 “proves” that God still works miracles.

 

So, in a way, if the "miracle-working God" portrayed in the Bible doesn't exist, then it opens the door to question whether God exists at all, doesn't it?

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it does open the door, which is why so many have decided to throw it all out, without checking to see what is baby and what is bathwater.

 

I agree with your perspective, Bill, that miracles are in the transforming events that cause life and love and goodness to triumph. Miracles can be seen when someone helps another for no benefit.

 

All of us see God only dimly. The Bible is one way to see God through a pre-scientific filter. In my opinion that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but rather that God is too awesome to fully capture with human language. And we all come from our own perspectives, so the language is heard with the hearer's ears anyway.

 

God doesn't need propping up with exaggerated stories of miracles. Following Jesus has transformed me. That is miracle enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
I suppose it does open the door, which is why so many have decided to throw it all out, without checking to see what is baby and what is bathwater.

 

I agree with your perspective, Bill, that miracles are in the transforming events that cause life and love and goodness to triumph. Miracles can be seen when someone helps another for no benefit.

 

All of us see God only dimly. The Bible is one way to see God through a pre-scientific filter. In my opinion that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but rather that God is too awesome to fully capture with human language. And we all come from our own perspectives, so the language is heard with the hearer's ears anyway.

 

God doesn't need propping up with exaggerated stories of miracles. Following Jesus has transformed me. That is miracle enough.

 

To be honest, Janet, I'm quite tempted to throw it all out also. Historical Jesus scholarship tells us that we can't know very much about the "baby" at all, only other's impressions of him. We can't be sure of what the "baby" said or did or did not say or do. In short, there is no way to reliably tell what is baby and what is bathwater.

 

While my definition of miracles works for me, again, it doesn't hardly line up with the scriptural or tradition definitions, and I don't need a "God" to experience them or explain them.

 

So I kinda feel like a child who has just discovered that Santa Claus isn't real. He was just made up to help keep me in line or to convey some type of spirit of good will, not a bad thing, of course, but just something with no basis in reality. And, again to be honest, it is heartbreaking to know that something one has believed all one's life is just a figment of the imagination, just a fairy tale to help keep imaginary boogiemen away. There is a certain amount of tragedy in no longer believing in Santa Claus, in throwing out the bathwater and discovering that the baby wasn't what one was told that he was.

 

Who or what God is, at least for me, isn't the kind of God I find in the books of the Bible, not even in some of the portrayals of God put forth by Jesus. Sadly, the Bible itself doesn't give us much option for exploring "another" kind of God. According to the Bible, if you don't believe in the kind of God found there, you go to hell without even passing GO and getting $200.

 

Perhaps I am mourning "the death of God" in my life, I don't know. Maybe I just took all this God, Jesus, Bible, and religion stuff way too seriously to begin with, especially with being told that heaven and hell were in the balance. But I just find very little baby left to believe in or even to follow. I'm one month away from my 50th birthday and it has taken me half a century to realize that I've wasted my life on a farce.

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

bill mc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

Just my opinion but I don't think you wasted half your life. It brought you to where you are now and perhaps there was no other way. Finding out about Santa Clause is a part of growing up. You broke loose from fundamentalism and fairy tales. You are making progress on your individual journey which is unique, sometimes very lonesome and scary but I have confidence that whatever is working in you will do so to its completion.

 

Love Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
Just my opinion but I don't think you wasted half your life. It brought you to where you are now...

 

But I hate being where I am now, Joe. I don't fit in with fundamentalists and there are no progressive churches in my area (and even if there were, my wife wouldn't attend there with me). I'm not trying to throw myself a pity party, just saying that, in contrast to the author of "Common Sense Christianity", losing the supernatural, theistic view of God is not personally freeing or comforting to me. And I guess, to some extent, neither is it "Christian". Jesus himself believed in a supernatural, theistic God.

 

I may or may not find a new way to believe in God. But whatever the case, I can't go back to believing in fundamentalism and whatever sort of God that I find meaningful in my future will not be "Christian", it won't be the same view of God as what Jesus had or what the Bible teaches.

 

Thanks for the encouragement, Joe, but I am not making progress. I am in deconstruction and there is very little left to rebuild with. Add to that that even if there were something to rebuild with, there is still no guarantee of anything meaningful or right.

 

bill mc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I would love to start a new topic within Progressive Christianity on "rebuilding after deconstruction". If I start would you help me with this?

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
Bill,

 

I would love to start a new topic within Progressive Christianity on "rebuilding after deconstruction". If I start would you help me with this?

 

David

 

David, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this, but given where I am in my journey I wouldn't have much constructive to say about reconstruction. :lol: I just haven't done it yet. I feel like someone who pulled out the wrong wooden peg in Jenga, the whole thing has come crashing down, and I'm too tired and burnt out to want to do anything with the mess.

 

bill mc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I'm very sorry that reading this book has caused your faith to come crashing down. We are not supposed to be stumbling blocks to others in their faith!!! Ay!

 

None of us really knows.... This is all human conjecture that there is no ZAP! God. The idea works for me because I see too much randomness to believe it is all caused by a loving God. However, the majority of folks who call themselves Christian would disagree with this book. It is comforting to me to think of God being ever present, cheering me on, crying along with me, giving me energy and strength, encouraging me to love no matter what - good times and bad. I have certainly felt God working on me in the bad times, and my evangelical friend would say that we just don't understand how the things we see as "bad" are actually loving challenges given to us to make us better. She says our knowledge of what God is doing and why is like how a dog percieves human action.

 

It's a lifelong quest, and there has been much good coming out of my trying to reconcile the Christianity of my youth with my adult understandings of the world. I'm sorry this is tough and would love to help however I can.

 

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Thinking more about this, I want to let you know that I do a lot of reading and am careful what I let into my personal "spiritual canon" (writing that is sacred to me). I'm not saying that things that rub me the wrong way are not truths, but sometimes I'm not prepared to handle them yet, or maybe they are not even meant to speak to me on my personal faith journey.

 

It sounds to me like maybe you've been drinking from a firehose spiritually.

 

The problem with this book is that it is written with the bent of denying other possibilities of truths about God. Since it is in line with other readings I took into my personal "canon" in my late 20s, it has had very little effect on me, personally. I believe God is a very personal God, and I'm wondering where in the reading you were hearing that God is not.

 

I agree that maybe you personally have read enough of this book for now.

 

Janet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I would love to start a new topic within Progressive Christianity on "rebuilding after deconstruction". If I start would you help me with this?

 

David

I to would be interested in a new topic as well as continuing reading this online book. The dilemna I have is not to different than many new Progressive Christians. I am a member of a evangelical(quite fundamental) church full of people who are supernatural theistic. I love these people and have to be very careful not to rock the boat too much because of the close knit community we have. I do belong to a small group that meets after our services where what we discuss is a little more authentic and we are safer to search. Being a closet PC in a fundemental community makes me think that I am still in the pre rebuilding stage but I can use guidance. thanks bob ve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I to would be interested in a new topic as well as continuing reading this online book. The dilemna I have is not to different than many new Progressive Christians. I am a member of a evangelical(quite fundamental) church full of people who are supernatural theistic. I love these people and have to be very careful not to rock the boat too much because of the close knit community we have. I do belong to a small group that meets after our services where what we discuss is a little more authentic and we are safer to search. Being a closet PC in a fundemental community makes me think that I am still in the pre rebuilding stage but I can use guidance. thanks bob ve

 

Hi Bob,

 

I guess you missed it but That topic was started and is open at http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1510&st=0 for your participation.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
Bill,

Thinking more about this, I want to let you know that I do a lot of reading and am careful what I let into my personal "spiritual canon" (writing that is sacred to me). I'm not saying that things that rub me the wrong way are not truths, but sometimes I'm not prepared to handle them yet, or maybe they are not even meant to speak to me on my personal faith journey.

 

It sounds to me like maybe you've been drinking from a firehose spiritually.

 

The problem with this book is that it is written with the bent of denying other possibilities of truths about God. Since it is in line with other readings I took into my personal "canon" in my late 20s, it has had very little effect on me, personally. I believe God is a very personal God, and I'm wondering where in the reading you were hearing that God is not.

 

I agree that maybe you personally have read enough of this book for now.

 

Janet

 

Hi, Janet. To be honest, and to be brief, I’m not too sure I’m a Christian any longer, not even of the Progressive kind. But it seems that it’s okay if I post here as long as I abide by the rules, which I’ll endeavor to do.

 

So if you would like to continue the discussion of this book, I’m up for it. I still think working through the book is helpful for me, even if I do it on my own. It is just difficult to be where I am right now. But probably the less said about where I am in the journey, the better. So I’d prefer to just discuss the book, if you’d like to continue.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK,

Chapter 5 has lots of interesting ideas about how to determine whether a belief idea is "Christian." The discussion is indeed appropriate, because I have several friends who do not consider me a "Christian," even though I think I'm doing my best to follow Jesus. One of my friends has asked how I sort out which teachings are for Biblical times and which are for now, and I told her that my test was Love. I'm sure that's all up to personal understanding and maturity, though, and each of us could disagree about a loving response in varying situations. It's what makes life so complicated, but so interesting!

 

I'm not sure what I think yet about how Ross boiled down Jesus' teachings to The Great Commandment, Sermon on the Mount, and Great Judgment. I have a problem believing that God would sentence anyone to an eternity of suffering in hell, so I can't even buy into all of these. At one time I wrote down a list of teachings that inspire me right now. I'll include them at the bottom of this...

 

 

It will be interesting to see how Ross uses his two rules (below) in a practical discussion of the resurrection in Chapter 6:

 

Ross Christian Belief Rule #1: A belief may be considered Christian (i.e., appropriate for Christians to believe) if it is consistent with the Great Commandment and with the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth to our religious understanding.

 

Ross Christian Belief Rule #2: A belief may be considered required of Christians only if it is necessarily implied in the life and teachings of the Christ or if it is necessary to accepting his message.

 

--------------

Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength

Love your neighbor as yourself

Do unto others as you would have them do to you

Followers need to have right attitudes in their hearts; not just on the outside – specific

examples include alms giving, prayer, and fasting

Become like little children – the last will be the first

Reconcile quickly with those who anger you

Do not retaliate; non-violence modeled by Jesus even in death

Love your enemies and forgive,forgive,forgive!

Give to everyone who asks

Do not store up treasures for yourself on earth – you can’t serve God and wealth

Seek to please God; self-denial; how you live this life DOES make a difference.

Don’t judge others – focus on making yourself righteous – don’t cast stones unless your

are sinless.

Jesus came to seek the “lost”, not throw out the law – he ate with “sinners” and outcasts

There is a special place in God’s heart for the underdog in life

Need to be hearers AND doers of Jesus’ teachings – followers will be known by their

actions. Let your light shine before others and keep your zest for life.

Don’t squander your gifts/talents

Don’t be too busy when God calls you

Serving God is not always the easy path, and not everyone chooses that path, but it leads

to life!

Don’t worry, and always pray for what you need

Don’t be a stumbling block for others’ faith

Jesus became a way for people to feel forgiven of their sins, and faith in Him relieved

their sufferings

God loves all of us, and giving us Jesus is a great expression of that love!

Don't let your religion get in the way of your relationship with God and with other

people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

I, too, am a little bit concerned about Ross’s goal of defining what is a “Christian” belief and what is not. I know where Ross is going with this, of course, because he is trying to distill the complicated religion of Christianity down to its simplest or core concepts. Still, I suspect that he is sometimes unnecessarily dualistic, similar to those who are overly concerned about what makes one a Christian or a non-Christian. The truth of the matter is that in 2000 years of Christianity, such criteria have never been solidified, despite many attempts of the institutional church to do so.

 

I also tend to think of the Great Judgment as a metaphor. After all, Jesus is speaking of sheep and goats, so we know that he is probably not discussing something literal. I tend to think of the final judgment not as a future event at the end of time (an apocalyptic view) but of the ongoing purifying and transforming process that goes on in our lives as we mature as humans and realize that we should not exist simply for our own sake and welfare. I’m sure my views on this don’t line up with orthodox, traditional Christianity, but I just can’t envision Jesus casting people into hell. I rather interpret hell as a wasted life, a life spent serving one’s self and one’s own needs only. This is, to me, why the word-pictures of the Great Judgment seem to stand in opposition to Paul’s teachings on justification. I haven’t worked it all out yet. I probably won’t live long enough to do so.

 

There are a lot things in your list, Janet, that are meaningful to me, also. As I’m sure you know, I struggle somewhat with separating Jesus’ good teachings from the other ones that I don’t feel are very loving, peaceful, or just. But this is why I suspect that he, just like us, was a product of his time and culture, and that he was trying to work this all out also. One’s religion, right or wrong, put a lot of pressure on us to conform to that religion’s ideals and worldview. If I told my Christian friends that I don’t believe in the rapture or the second coming, they would look at me like I am nuts or a heretic because these doctrines are part and parcel of the Christian belief system in our time. It takes either a lot of courage to stand up and say, “I don’t believe that way” or a lot of patience to just keep one’s mouth shut for the sake of peace if one doesn’t hold to popular religious notions. I suspect Jesus may have faced the same struggle. If we take the text literally, he certainly seemed to believe that God’s kingdom would fully come during the lifetime of his followers. What did he really believe about eschatology? We will probably never know. But I tend to think his teachings were much more centered on this life, on the “here” rather than on the “hereafter.” Again, this goes against the general thrust of modern Christianity, but I think it is helpful to try to discern, as Ross is attempting, the difference between Christian teachings and what Jesus tried to enlighten us to. One seems to be a worldview whereby God eventually sets everything outside us to rights (as NT Wright would say), and the other seems to be an invitation to discover what God is doing within us now.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning what defines a Christian, I would agree as Bill that "The truth of the matter is that in 2000 years of Christianity, such criteria have never been solidified" One could argue that the Nicene creed accomplishes this but there seems to me too many denominations with differing views.

 

In my simplistic view, if one claims to follow Christ, he/she is a professing Christian which is more in line with the Greek word Christianos which is merely a follower of Christ. It seems to me whether in reality a person professing that is really a follower of Christ is not my determination and I would excuse myself from such judgement as to do so serves no useful purpose for my part. IE. Peter is considered a follower of Christ but there were times it was in doubt. So I think it is wise to allow a person the latitude to profess what they believe because the significance of the word 'Christian' to me can in truth say no more in linguistics than that they profess to be a follower of Christ.

 

Just a view to consider in line with the subject matter

 

Love Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc

Another thought that came to my mind is this: as humans, we love categories and labels. Labels are short-hand ways for us to store information. They are probably helpful for information communication...but they fail miserably for relationships. "Labeling" people is generally not a good thing. We are more than the labels we may wear.

 

In this sense, it doesn't really matter to me whether someone calls himself/herself a Christian or not. In our society, being a Christian can mean "someone from the Western culture" or "someone who was baptized into a certain denomination" or "someone who goes to church on Christmas and Easter" or "someone who goes to church every time the doors are open" or "someone who believes in Jesus." The label is so broad that it means almost nothing. The first followers of Jesus were not called Christians, they were called "Followers of the Way." While this is still a label, it tells more of how they lived than of what they believed. And, to me, that is one of the problems with the label "Christian"; it may tell us what someone believes, but it really doesn't tell us much about the way they live.

 

So it's my opinion that we even need to get past the label "Christian" to the heart of the matter. How does the person live? I am not saying this in a judgmental way (because I don't think we should go around judging others), but the question I ask is not, "What does this person think of Jesus?" but, rather, "What does this person think of the best attributes reflected in Jesus' teachings and life?"

 

I don't want to meddle too much (well, maybe just a bit), but it seems that most Christians in America supported our pre-emptive war on Iraq. They felt, following the leadership of our country, that the Iraqis are the enemy and evil and needed to be attacked before they could attack us. They supported Bush's claim that the Iraqis had all these weapons of mass destruction and actually felt that it was God's divine will that we go to war. This was the view of many people who claim to believe in Christ. But is this what Christ taught? Is this, in the words of Sheldon, "What Would Jesus Do?" Does our countries actions after 9-11 more reflect the historical teachings of Christianity or more the character of Christ?

 

So as we consider what beliefs might be "Christian" and what beliefs might not be, it's my opinion that it is often necessary to separate what Christianity and Chritians believe from what Jesus taught and how he lived. Beliefs can often get us into trouble. I dare say that most wars are fought over religious beliefs. But good and godly character is a light in the darkness. If someone wants to wear the label "Christian", then they need to go past just trying to have the right beliefs; they should mature to where they exhibit the character of Christ. And, truth be told, I've sometimes seen more of the character of Christ in those who don't necessarily believe in him.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's where the label might possibly matter:

 

Some people who call themselves Christian believe that if you don't say a particular prayer, you are not saved and will go to hell when you die. Those people might feel they would only truly be loving others if they spent their spare time trying to get others to say that prayer.

 

Other people who call themselves Christian may believe there are many roads that all lead to God, and that they are called to spend their time meeting the physical needs of the downtrodden and helping others to understand how Jesus' teachings can help people lead a meaningful life.

 

Still others who call themselves Christian may believe that God cherishes life from the time it is conceived and see the enemy as those who provide abortions. There are many other examples...

 

Since we can make a greater difference en masse than individually, it is natural for people to want to be able to understand what "Christian" means, so they can understand if they want to affiliate with those ideas.

 

I am uncomfortable identifying myself as a Christian, since I do not share some of the orthodox beliefs, and I feel many of those beliefs have separated us from others rather than connecting us to them. I am a follower of Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest billmc
I am uncomfortable identifying myself as a Christian, since I do not share some of the orthodox beliefs, and I feel many of those beliefs have separated us from others rather than connecting us to them.

 

Exactly. In the secular world, if you tell someone that you are a Christian, they are liable to respond, "Oh, so you are one of those people who hate gays and are anti-abortion."

 

In reality, Jesus said nothing about either of these issues. But somehow Christians have become known for what they are against rather than good things that they might be for -- like reconciliation, forgiveness, understanding, acceptance, transformation, joy, peace, love, patience, etc.

 

Julia Sweeney, in her book and one-woman show, "Leaving God", tells of a time when she felt she just had to leave her denominational church. She sat on the steps, crying out to God, saying, "I'm sorry, God, but I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to get out." And God replies, "Don't apologize, I could hardly stand it there myself!"

 

Not to turn this into a church-bashing thread, but it does make one wonder where the "good news" ever went to?

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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