AletheiaRivers

LOL! Sorry, I was just being cheeky. My point is that "privilege" is a relative term. Someone who lives in a cardboard box may feel that someone who lives in a wooden packing crate is privileged. Someone who lives in a wooden packing crate may feel that someone who lives in a car is privileged. I know there has to be a cut off point, but where should we draw the line? At what point can what I have be objectively defined as being privileged? I live from check to check, BUT I'm living in and paying for a home. Should I sell the home and live on the street so that I'm not more privileged than those that do live on the street? Do I need to go "down" to their economic level or should we attempt to bring them "up" to a better economic level? Jesus did say to (to a particular individual) to sell all that he had in order to follow him, but the scriptures also tell us to take care of widows and orphans, etc ... etc ... which is much more easily done with money and resources than without. What it all comes down to is - I don't think point 8 on the list is particularly well thought out or worded.

So privilege = money or possesions only?

I admit I'm not sure I completely grasp the distinction you're trying to make between what you said and what I said about attempting to read NT scripture thru a Jewish, first century, religious and cultural lens. All my life I've only heard "one side" of the story so to speak - post reformation, protestant, end-times, western influenced Christianity. I'm really coming to appreciate that there is another perspective, that makes more sense (to me), and that fits quite well with progressive Christianity. I think fundamentalism has made things very complicated (even if THEY think they are keeping it simple). I have read "The Meaning of Jesus" and would you believe I agree more with what Wright says in that book than Borg? I appreciate liberal (historical/critical/Jesus seminar) Christianity's attempt to deal with scripture by making much of it metaphorical, but I don't believe (anymore) that is necessarily the best way, because I've come to appreciate that much of what is being argued against are misinterpretations and misunderstandings (imo). I'm just learning this stuff. I wish I had the schooling you do.

If you haven't read it yet, check out "Generous Orthodoxy" by McLaren. I've really enjoyed "Reaching for the Invisible God" by Phil Yancey.

I was coming at it (for "arguments" sake [not that I'd ever argue with my Sis ]) from the point of view that Jesus might have said and done those things. "If he did, then what might it have meant?" - point of view. That was mostly my point Des, that much of it is cultural and we can't always take it at face value. And I don't mean "metaphorical versus literal" either. Even when many say they try to read the texts "plainly", it begs the question of "Plainly from what point of view? A first century Jew or Greek point of view? Or from a medieval point of view? Or from a modern point of view?" I'm at the point where I think we can take much of what's written at "face value", but that we should attempt to understand the face value position from a first century, middle eastern, Jewish POV. Now how do I go about doing that? Anybody read Sanders? Is he readable? I really like NT Wright, but he's so dang wordy!

I think there was more to Jesus' condemnation of those that were saying "you fool" than just their using the words "you fool". Perhaps the cultural context of what was happening has been lost and we'll never know. I think the picture of why Jesus called certain religious leaders in his days "vipers" and "hypocrites" is a little clearer than the "you fool" situation. And I think the cursing and withering of the tree is a parable. I'll need to reread it and google it to see what it's all about. Perhaps it would have been a more effective visual teaching tool if the tree HAD been in season?

Consider, too, books that aren't really "liberal" or conservative, but somewhere in the middle. Authors like Philip Yancey, Brian McLaren, CS Lewis and Tony Campolo. They all fall into the traditional, moderate to conservative category, but they all think outside the "fundamentalist box". PS - I'm glad you are back. I'd wondered where you'd gone. Don't you dare leave again!

I absolutely loved him (and his outfits) in Starsky and Hutch.

Henri Nouwen . org

We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over. -- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29 We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA. -- Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991 There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore. -- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993. We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality... It [terrorism] is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us. -- Pat Robertson, oblivious to the statistical (and obvious) fact that no nation or group of people has ever enjoyed a higher degree of personal, political, or economic safety than the Americans enjoy today, Robertson engages the fearmongering typical of Christian preachers by blaming the Americans' lifestyles for bringing upon themselves the judgement of the God of Everlasting Mercy; this is Robertson's explanation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in a three-page statement released Thursday, September 13, 2001, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists (September 14, 2001) Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him. -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office I never said that in my life ... I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that. -- Pat Robertson, Time magazine, after having been confronted regarding his statement on The 700 Club of January 11, 1985 When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are." -- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 218 You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them. -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991 It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation. -- Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986 The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992 Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together. -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993, ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to. -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 199 I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 1998 How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top? -- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 227 Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history. -- Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993. Worse than the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Worse than the plight of the Natives and the African Slaves in North America. Worse than the plight of the "witches" and the "atheists" in Europe and America.

Awesome DCJ! Thank you!

Thanks Fred. Good to know. All my life I've thought that everyone believes Revelation to be a "blow by blow" of future end time events. I'll have to do a google search on a book. The amateur scholar in me wonders what some of the symbolism in Revelation might mean from a historical perspective as it applied to Rome.

PS - Or is is mostly scholars (of all Christian bents - conservative, moderate and liberal) that view Revelation as applying to Rome, while most lay people people believe otherwise?

So would you say that viewing Revelation from a preterist or partial preterist view is the NORM rather than the exception? I only ask because until I came on this board, the only interpretation of Revelation I'd heard of is that Revelation fortells "the end of this world". What Christian denominations hold a fully future view of Revelation? Any? Or are JW's unique in that regard? And do you have a book you'd recommend that discusses Revelation from a preterist or partial preterist point of view? (If I've asked that of you in the past, I apologize, I don't remember.)

PS - Here is a great article, snipped for space's sake. JewishEncyclopedia.com - Baptism

Sorry for not expressing myself better. It's what happens when you try to write while dealing with a migraine. I apologize if this post isn't coherent either. I know Jesus wasn't Christian. I very much appreciate that Jesus was Jewish and I agree that he didn't come to start a new religion. My post was somewhat stream of thought (and this one probably will be too), but basically I was trying to tie together how a Jew is born a Jew (and already part of the covenant, symbolized by circumcision) and how baptizing infants (now) could be viewed this way (as a symbol of joining the covenant). I know that wasn't Jesus' reason for being baptized then. Poor word choice and sentence structure. As Cynthia and I were discussing a while back in another post, Christians have a tendency to see Jesus as their personal savior. It's all about "me and Jesus". But Judaism was about a PEOPLE as a GROUP being in a relationship with God and with each other. I haven't read a lot of NT Wright's stuff, but he was the one that made me go "hmmm" when it came to Christianity's being a covenantal/familial religion (like Judaism) and that it has lost sight of that. He also thinks Paul has been completely misread and misinterpreted (which I'm not so sure about, but am willing to withhold judgment). All that said, I don't actually have an opinion about infant baptism one way or another. I don't believe that joining into a covenant with God (as an adult or as an infant) is in any way “salvatory”, but I do believe it would be beneficial for the strong sense of community it provides. (Much more than “me and my own personal Jesus.”) [Thank you Depeche Mode ] (I would think that NT Wright believes joining the covenant does have salvatory benefit since he is relatively conservative and traditional. I’m not sure though, because I also know he is a partial preterist and might not have the same view of “end times” as many Christians. So I don’t know what he might think the person joining the covenant is being “saved” from. Anyone know? Anyone really familiar with Wright?)

edited for major brain related errors, will post again

I'd have to say #1 - "Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus." Otherwise I'd be a "progressive Buddhist" or a "progressive Pagan". In response to October's question though, I need to say that I'm here because of a person calling himself NEOPAGAN CHRISTIAN on a Yahoo chat group about a year ago. I've been wanting to find out who that is. If you are out there and are reading, I just want to say thank you. Question: Are you a city person or a nature person? What I mean is, would you be more at home in NYC or in Alaska?

That's a good point. Jesus was born a Jew, so he was under the "old" covenant already. By being baptized, he outwardly expressed his joining of a "new" covenant. And gentiles, not being members of the Jewish covenant, could join this way. I think I need to re-read the gospel accounts of Jesus baptism. I might be retro-actively reading a "Pauline" view (or a JW view) into the account. I really appreciate NT Wright's view towards Christianity being a covenental/familial relationship with God (and with each other). It's something that Christendom talks about, but unless you've studied Judaism, isn't really understood.

The man is nuts! As I understand it, even fundamentalists have had it up to *here* with his comments.

Here's a cut and paste. This websight lists 5 mistakes (it leaves out the "life after death" one). Common Mistakes About God (Hartshorne was saying, I think, that God IS sympathetic and relational and involved.)

I haven't read the book per se, but I have read quite a bit online where it has been quoted and discussed (mostly on philosophy websights). I'd say I agree overall with Hartshorne's list in that classical theism's view of God is not all it's cracked up to be.

Welcome to the board OA and Matt. Welcome BACK to the board Socius. (I lean a bit toward open view theism, a view which I came to on my own, not from any sort of biblical reasonings or "proofs", which many OVers do.)

Hey guys, welcome to the board! Nice to see new faces around here.

There was an interesting exchange on beliefnet last year between Elaine Pagels and another theologian that was pretty good. It discussed the Gospel of Thomas and whether it was Gnostic or not and why each of the authors felt the way they do. (I imagine Crossan considers Thomas to be Gnostic and so believes that chastity and asceticism are necessary?) Here is some of Elaine Pagel's reply. I snipped it where I could. From: Elaine Pagels To: Ben Witherington III Date: May 1, 2004 Dear Ben, Thank you for your letter, which helpfully clarified various viewpoints on these early gospels—and on the early Christian movement. As I read it, you make two basic points: First, that sources like the Gospel of Thomas, being "Gnostic," must be late sources—coming from the second century, or later—and therefore have nothing to do with the beginnings of the Christian movement. Second, that what we find in the Gospel of Thomas is "at odds with what we find in New Testament texts"—that is, confession of Jesus as the "crucified and risen Lord." What those of us working on these texts have come to conclude, in the course of extensive research on the Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament gospels, is that the first point is wrong, and the second is questionable. Instead, we're convinced of the following: First: The Gospel of Thomas is not "Gnostic," but a "gospel" compiled from various sayings traditions, probably around the end of the first century (my dating). Second: Instead of being "at odds" with what we find in the canonical gospels, the Gospel of Thomas presupposes what Mark tells of Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrection—and claims to go beyond it. Thomas depicts the Risen Jesus speaking not of "forgiveness of sins" and "faith," but encouraging each one to "seek, and you shall find" a relationship to God. Both of your points are assumptions all of us, I would guess, were taught in graduate school. The earliest editors of "Gnostic" texts thought that they were dualistic, escapist, nihilistic, involving "esoteric ideas about aeons and demiurges," as you yourself write. As my former teacher at Harvard, Krister Stendhal, said to me recently about these texts, "we just thought these were weird." But can you point to any evidence of such "esoteric ideas" in Thomas? Anything about "aeons and demiurges"?Those first editors, not finding such evidence, assumed that this just goes to show how sneaky heretics are—they do not say what they mean. So when they found no evidence for such nihilism or dualism—on the contrary, the Gospel of Thomas speaks continually of God as the One good "Father of all"—they just read these into the text. Some scholars, usually those not very familiar with these sources, still do. So first let's talk about "Gnosticism"—and what I used to (but no longer) call "Gnostic Gospels." I have to take responsibility for part of the misunderstanding. Having been taught that these texts were "Gnostic," I just accepted it, and even coined the term "Gnostic gospels," which became the title of my book. I agree with you that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas—or, for that matter, with the New Testament Gospel of John which our teachers said also showed "Gnostic influences." (snip) A further indication that Thomas is not "Gnostic," by your own definition, is that it does use the Old Testament in a very positive way—just as the Gospel of John does. Both frame their views of the gospel with midrashic interpretations of Genesis 1. Recognizing this has led scholars far beyond what you learned as a graduate student from Bruce Metzger, and what I learned in graduate school. That's why those of us working in this field have come to recognize these texts not as "Gnostic"—whatever that fuzzy term meant—but as early Christian, and immersed, like all the early Christian sources we know, in the Hebrew Bible. (snip) Instead of offering a wholly different teaching, then, the Gospel of Thomas, like John's "farewell discourses," claims to go beyond what one already has learned. Nothing here suggests that faith does not matter—in fact, it is assumed; but what is also assumed is that some will now want to go beyond belief—beyond the elementary teaching—in a process of spiritual inquiry. Teachers like this cited Paul as their model—as in I Corinthians 2 he declares that, so long as he was speaking to immature Christians—"babies in Christ"—he "decided to acknowledge nothing, among you, except Jesus Christ crucified," although, he says, "we do speak wisdom among those who are mature—the hidden wisdom of God, which God ordained before the ages (aeons) for our glory." Paul goes on to allude to matters that can be discerned only by those who have attained to a level of spiritual insight—"the deep things of God." The gospel of Mark (Mk 4:11f) has Jesus explain to his disciples that "to you is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, but to those outside, everything is in parables." So we find in the New Testament gospels and in Paul's letters hints of teaching that are not among the elementary and essential ones on which these writings focus. (snip) Like you, I love this tradition, and work on these sources because they work on me as well. The fact that we do not agree on every point has much to do with the difficulty of making certain historical judgments about first century sources—and also with the various ways we understand the beginnings of Christianity, and what it means for us today. Many will take up these questions in the future, and teach us to see new elements in the history of the faith that we share. Thank you for the spirit of collegial discussion in your e-mails, and for stating your views so clearly. I look forward to continuing our discussion offline, perhaps when we meet at conferences. Yours sincerely, Elaine Oops, here's the link to the whole exchange.