NORM

Curious to know if it changes the flavor of the interpretation.

I believe that it does. The New Testament compilers were very shrewd in placing the Gospels ahead of Paul's writing. It gives us the impression that Paul's letters are commentary on the Gospels rather than the other way round: the later Gospel writers were fashioning their stories to keep in line with Paul's "revelation."

NORM

To me, "the God of the Bible" is not the GOD who is, GOD as GOD knows GOD to be. Rather, he is Yahweh or the Father of Jesus, both human conceptions of GOD. This doesn't necessarily make these images wrong, but it does mean that they are limited. As humans, we are limited.

Bill, I like your analogy of the Wholesale GOD and the Retail GOD. I think this is the way most Christians approach the concept, whether they choose to admit it or not. Some would call this "picking and choosing" or some such negativity, but that's just to mask the fact that they are doing the exact same thing.

I disagree, however, with your final comment that we, as humans, are limited. I don't think this is the case. I think that it is WE who created the idea of G-d in the first place out of our fears of the natural world and our realization that we are mortal. So, to suggest that we are limited in our understanding is to betray our role as G-d's creator. if we are limited, it is a self-imposed limitation. We have willingly submitted ourselves to the oppression of the GOD we created! Perhaps the reason for this is so that we can level blame at this "Creator" who allows the horrors of "evil" to abound.

I think that the reason the G-d of the Hebrew Bible seems to evolve as you progress historically through the narratives is that the concept of G-d in the mind(s) of it's creators (authors?) has evolved and the role is edited as time passes.

I think that it is within our power to create a G-d, GOD or god that embraces homosexuals as the beautiful people that they truly are.

NORM

I use a Hebrew Tanakh, and I can confirm this as well.

Not only is the OT altered in its order, but the NT also. Paul's letters should come first, since they were written much earlier than the oldest gospel (Luke). Paul's letters are also out of order - they were arranged with the longest first, and shortest last. That means that James (one of the earliest New Testament books) is placed toward the end, while Romans (written in the middle to end of Paul's ministry) is placed first.

When you read them in chronological order, you get a very different perspective:

 

I Thessalonians, Galatians, I Corinthians (early 50s), Philemon, Phillipians, II Corinthians (mid 50s), Romans (58), Mark (70), James (unless you believe it was written by Jesus' brother, which would date it prior to 70, but since it is written in quite sophisticated, even elegant Greek - an unlikely talent for a Galilean Jew - it is more likely a different James), Colossians, Matthew, Hebrews (80s), John, Ephesians, Revelation (early to mid 90s), Jude (? mid 90s ?), Luke and Acts (late 90s) I, II, III John (100), II Thessalonians (100 - possibly written by a student of Paul, but most definitely, not Paul), I Peter, I and II Timothy (110-20), Titus, II Peter (115-25). - Marcus Borg: A Chronological New Testament

For example, in the Tanakh, one can see how the description of G-d mellows over time. G-d is vengeful, wrathful and mean in the earliest writings (Job / Pentateuch) and mellows out by the time of the Minor Prophets (Nevi'im). In Jonah (one of the last books written - but, not last in order), G-d is downright folksy. In Jonah, the lesson is that G-d is more concerned with taking care of your fellow man than placing importance on nationalism or religious piety.

BTW, it should be noted that Jews view "prophets" differently from Christians. Prophets don't just predict future events, they interpret, criticize and reflect on how Jews should respond to G-d. They even petition G-d for mercy and redemption. They hope for a moshiach to usher in an era of peace and harmony (in contrast to the upheaval of the Babylonian captivity, the divided kingdoms and the diaspora of the lost tribes). Jewish followers of Jesus imagined him in this role (fleshed out in the symbolic imagery of the gospels), although Paul took it in a totally different direction.

NORM

The only thing missing was actually calling Obama the Antichrist!

 

I would have thought that God could be regarded as the ultimate socialist!

Over the Memorial Day weekend, a couple of members of our family got involved in a discussion of Islam after watching the film Argo. One of them began asserting that Muslims are the Antichrist.

Where in the world is this stuff coming from?

NORM

My personal favorite is the Book of Enoch

http://www.hiddenbible.com/enoch/online2.html

It was widely circulated during Jesus' time. The Watchers is perhaps the most interesting section. It is quite apocalyptic in nature. The letter of Jude even quotes from it:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” -Jude 1: 14-15

This book was ejected from both the Jewish and Christian canons. I suspect because of all the sex with angels and humans. I have read somewhere (Elaine Pagels, I think) that Enoch was the inspiration for the book of Revelation.

It was found with some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and is dated:

The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to
date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably
was composed at the end of the 1st century BC. - source: Fahlbusch E., Bromiley G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P–Sh page 411, ISBN 0-8028-2416-1 (2004)

NORM

My best friend growing up was Roman Catholic, and as long as I can remember, there have been divisions within the RCC. This was during the era of Gustavo Gutierrez and Liberation Theology. The "official," orthodoxy frowned on the practice and formally admonished against it in the 80s.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Opus Dei and the Catholic Traditionalist movement who reject all the reforms of Vatican II.

So, it is laughable to hear someone accuse Obama of "causing" division in the RCC.

Ironically, when I visited the Catholic Church with my friend, it seemed to me that Catholic doctrine leans toward socialism by its very nature.

NORM

As short hand 'sin' can be a useful tool for discussion, but I agree with you. 'Sin' can become a very destructive idea when used to imprison. I vote for 'obstacle' as a more useful word. An obstacle to a full and abundant life; that is how I wish I could always understand 'sin.' It would do me good rather than getting caught up in the 'woe to me' I am horrible sentiment.

Chado,

I like it! Obstacle. That is exactly how I would characterize the really stupid things I do. It is an obstacle to my full enjoyment of life. I spent far too much of my life feeling guilty for merely being human.

You are my new best friend!

Welcome to PC.

NORM

Norm,

 

Do you think we'd stand a better chance of 'de-canonizing' the bible than educating people about it?

 

Personally, I don't think so, subsequently I don't even entertain the idea. I would like to see people come to a different understanding of its 'status' rather than use it as the full and final 'word' of God.

 

Cheers

Paul

No, I don't think there is a chance in hell the Bible will be de-canonized in my lifetime. There are too many folks who worship its pages.

I am currently reading Spong's Reclaiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World. I think publications like that are a first step in the right direction. Rather than de-canonize it, Spong prefers to de-mystify it.

NORM

I think the whole concept of anything humans do that someone in ecclesiastical authority deems a "sin" is a very destructive idea.

I think we should repent the sin of sin.

NORM

Ignoring passages doesn’t remove them from the Bible. Creatively interpreting passages doesn’t change what they say. Nor can well-intentioned Christians guarantee that people a hundred years from now will be willing to either ignore or whitewash the superficial meaning of various OT passages.

 

By continuing to revere the OT, by using it to support moral or political arguments, Christians keep it alive. They reinforce its status as an authority. In this way, we aid and abet anyone who uses the OT to support moral or political ideas -- including ideas we disagree with.

 

To protect the future from a literal interpretation of the OT, Christians today only have one reliable tool: decanonization. Only by undermining the OT’s perceived status as an authoritative document can Christians today hope to influence the way it is read in the future.

I couldn't agree with you more. As long as the Bible wears the stink of infallibility, it will be a source of division for humanity rather than the balm of Gilead some of its authors, I think, were seeking.

Why stop with the OT? I would de-canonize the NT as well.

I think, as you point out elsewhere in this thread, that it is overly optimistic to believe that there are enough "enlightened" souls within Christianity to make this kind of process even remotely possible.

I recently had a conversation with a young lady who was raised in a very strict Catholic church, but has recently begun attending a modern, non-denominational church that she says is "extremely non judgmental and open to new ideas." I challenged her to express to them her lack of belief in supernatural phenomenon like virgin births, talking donkeys and revivification of the dead and see just how non-judgmental they really are.

Like it or not, there is an incontrovertible litmus test for what it means to be a Christian. And that test includes things that are incompatible with a modern understanding of the known world.

NORM

Norm,

 

I have not been around this forum much of late, but i have to agree. We do seem to manufacture our own hell. But this is not necessary is it?

 

Myron

It is truly hard to imagine a world without some notion of eternal punishment or guilt. However, fortunately for us, there are those who can

Imagine there's no heaven

 

It's easy if you try

 

No hell below us

 

Above us only sky

 

Imagine all the people living for today

 

 

 

Imagine there's no countries

 

It isn't hard to do

 

Nothing to kill or die for

 

And no religion too

 

Imagine all the people living life in peace

 

 

 

You, you may say

 

I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one

 

I hope some day you'll join us

 

And the world will be as one

 

 

 

Imagine no possessions

 

I wonder if you can

 

No need for greed or hunger

 

A brotherhood of man

 

Imagine all the people sharing all the world... John Lennon, Imagine

We're not the only ones...

NORM

My thoughts:

Hell!!!... huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh
Hell!!!! ...huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again...
Hell!!!..., huh good God, y'all...
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing,... listen to me

I would agree with Paul concerning the matter of lying.

Additionally, I would posit the following: if it is true that G-d created us Imago Dei, then G-d imprinted within our hearts the wherewithal to lie and commit "sin." If it is also true that G-d is perfect and omniscient and omnipresent, omnipotent, etc..., then any kind of so-called "fall" would be a failure, and thus; impossible.

It is my thought that all of our human traits - flaws, foibles and greatness - are contained within the master plan.

If there even is one.

Fear not!

NORM

I have had this fear for some time now, ever since I read it in the bible. On that day I frantically asked two people close to me what it meant. They told me what she thought it meant and I said "but what would you actually have to say?!" It is that franticly fear driven sentance that I regret more than anything else I have ever said in my life.

 

Since this time I have read into the matter and found that even fundamentalists don't take this passage literally, but my question is why? Blasphemy is always easy to do against god or jesus, it can be as simple as using someone's name in vein. Why then is this different?

 

Yours fearfully

 

Rhino

In another post you expressed fear that you might be missing something by having doubts concerning the reliability of the Bible.

I can only tell you what I think about that. This is something that one must determine for his or her self.

Consider this: Why would an "infallible" deity trust life and death decisions (of the immortal kind) to the vagaries of the printed word? The Bible is a collection of religious and philosophic human ramblings compiled over a roughly 2,000 year time period. There are contradictions upon contradictions - even within one particular linguistic translation! Imagine the Asian Bible reader who has no concept within his or her language of a disembodied spirit as the Bible appears to posit? How are they to come to a so-called "saving knowledge" of the message of Christ, as the fundamentalist is fond of saying.

As for those who claim the Bible is the literal Word of G-d; do we really think that they obey every command and exhortation contained within those leather covers? I have yet to come to the outskirts of any city in America or the rest of the world where the bodies of rebellious children litter the ground along the borders (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Fear and guilt are the tools of those who wish to keep humanity in line with their own way of thinking.

As far as the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Again; why would G-d do that? A curse of eternal torment for questioning authority sounds all to human inspired to me.

Welcome to Progressive Christianity Forum.

Fear not!

NORM

Eric, that is quite possibly the most elegant, thoughtful and thorough distillation of what it means to be a Christian I have ever had the pleasure to read. I could care less if it qualifies as PC or not, but in my opinion, it does.

I have not attended church services (Christian or Jewish) since becoming non-theist in my beliefs. Your words, I think, have given me pause to reconsider.

The thing I enjoyed most about attending a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue was the camaraderie of tackling difficult human tragedy and struggle collectively. It is where I felt most profoundly a part of the Community.

Thanks, Eric, for sharing this.

NORM

But my more general question is how Bible literalists can rationalize this?

First, many Christians are likely unaware the passage even exists. I know that in the church I attended for quite some, the pastoral staff spent 99% of exegetic time in the New Testament. Which makes sense, since there is a major difference between the religion contained in the Tanakh vs. what you find in the New Testament.

For those Christians who are aware of this verse, the "New Covenant" conveniently negates all the bad stuff in the OT. It's called selective dogma.

NORM

On another forum, the term Heterosexist was posited as an alternative to Homophobic. It more accurately describes those opposed to allowing full marriage privileges for homosexuals.

I think that the justices, should they embrace the spirit of the Constitutional ideal of equality under the law, will have no choice but to overturn both DOMA and Proposition 8.

A friend of mine suggested that there ought to not be state support of marriage; period. Selecting out one group of people - married couples - and giving them special tax treatment and all kinds of goodies that no other single person or group is patently unfair.

I don't agree with him on that score, because I think society has a valid interest in supporting marriage between two people. It is BECAUSE of this idea, that I think we ought to embrace marriage of same sex couples. There have been all kinds of studies that conclude that there is equal benefit to children of same sex couples as heterosexual couples. In fact, children of gay couples fare better than children of a single parent.

I can honestly see no valid argument for disallowing two couples - irregardless of gender - from marrying. Your right to express your religious beliefs ceases where it impinges upon my ability to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

NORM

I think there is a danger in believing that a deity is speaking directly to you.

....what? ...what did you say? ?...

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Oh. OK.

But, I could be wrong.

NORM

Whether or not Jesus is a historical figure is about as important to me as whether or not Robin Hood was real.

What matters to me are the lessons each of these characters can impart.

I have little patience for those who make claims that their god is better than others' god, or that their rituals bring you closer to the creator of the universe.

I think that all religion comes from the mind of humans, and therefore is always of value.

When it becomes a competition of ideas and ideals is where the controversy arises. When we realize that religious ideas are the spawn of our own imagination, and not the dictates of a supernatural being, we can begin the process of compromise and cooperation in solving the world's ills - the supposed goal of the religious life.

NORM

Today I've wanted to post some thoughts about the bible, its historical account and how we can interpret it.

 

My main idea would be that the book of Genesis has a literal meaning that evokes a profound but ultimately unfactual image of history as it really happened....Any thoughts?

Heh - you would make a good Kabbalist Jew, Skyseeker!

Some of the mystics in my Minyan tell similar "profound, but non-factual" histories gleaned from Genesis. They will weave their knowledge of Evolution in the stories, and they can be quite creative, as is your narrative.

I am non-theist, so my Genesis story would have a different theme. However, I think we will all arrive at the same conclusion: love and live life to the fullest, do what is right to your neighbor, and help those in need.

NORM

Initially it was a relief to join in a service with no reference to the Bible / Jesus. On second thoughts, I miss these references, and the rousing Presbyterian hymns of my youth.

I used to think that too, until recently actually READING the lyrics to those old hymns. Oy!

NORM

Today was interesting - a 'water ritual' was held where people brought water from a place meaningful to them and added it to a communal container, while explaining their choice.

Funny that you mention that - this was what happened during my first UU service. I guess it's a popular one. I brought water from my fish tank (don't ask).

NORM

I am a “Progressive” Christian, a true hypocrite and/or agnostic, who attends a Christian and Missionary Alliance mega church because there are members of my family who still worship the way they were taught in their younger days.

I am curious as to how long you have been Progressive / Agnostic. I existed in a similar state of being for about five or six years. I became so comfortable in my subterfuge that I began teaching an adult education class. Well, some of my progressive thoughts accidentally fell out of my head and onto the floor. That ended my SS career.

It was not too much longer before the church went through a conservative makeover that pushed away everyone who was even the slightest bit progressive and eventually the church folded.

My wife and I held out to the bitter end for some of the very reasons you find fulfillment in your current church - the social outreach of the community. However, it was always the more progressive members who consistently volunteered for these types of things. As more and more of those folks left the church (we felt they were pushed out), the programs began to fall by the wayside. There was an increased emphasis on more evangelical efforts (groups like Campus Crusade for Christ, Promise Keepers, etc...).

I tell you all of this because I wish that I had spoken up sooner and not kept my ideas to myself. I would have discovered (as I did way too late), that there were plenty of other folks who had the same progressive ideas that I had - even as far back as I first started on this track.

So, let your freak flag fly!

(Besides, I kind of enjoy the music.)

Yeah, I'm a sucker for a good choral arrangement.

I believe in Bishop Desmond Tutu’s philosophy: “Perfect Love is not an emotion, or a feeling, it is what you do.”

This should be painted on the front door of every church.

As to why there is not a great migration to Unitarian Universalist churches? I can't speak for all UU congregations, but in my parochial experience, they have moved from a more intellectual discovery to new-age-y spiritualism. I get it, but most pew-muffins in my part of the country are unwilling to abandon the "old language" just yet.

NORM

Homosexuality is sin. But it no greater a sin than adultery or stealing. Paul puts them all in the same category. However, homosexuals should NOT be denied equal rights.

Adultery is potentially harmful behavior to someone who has invested trust in the other person. Stealing is a crime against human civilization in most societies. Homosexuality is a defining characteristic of how some people experience romantic love - not given to choice in the same way you did not choose your sexual orientation. What is the true purpose of labeling it a sin?

Sin is a word that no longer has meaning to me. It is a relic of an era that went the way of witch trials and shunning.

Why do you assume that theism and love are mutually exclusive? Jesus was a theist. His God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You misread my statement. I did not say that theism and love are mutually exclusive. There are plenty of folks I know who embrace traditional Christianity, Judaism or Islam - and can love their fellow man. What I said was quite plain: a philosophy based purely on love is not dependent on whether or not some character in a book is supernatural. Love is a verb, not a theological paradigm. In my opinion, Christianity can blossom and thrive if it were to embrace the Creed of Love (as is so beautifully described in Paul's letter to the Corinthians) instead of the Apostle's Creed.

NORM

Hey,

 

I wanted to ask you about what you think of preterism ...

From the Jewish perspective, the "end times" began immediately following the destruction of the Temple. Judaism hasn't been the same since.

In Reformed Judaism, we interpret the Moshiac as an intellectual "coming" rather than a super / supernatural messiah. IOW, the World to Come is brought about through our hands rather than a super hero.

Looking for something we can rely on

There's got to be something better out there

Love and compassion, their day is coming

All else are castles built in the air

And I wonder when we are ever gonna change it

Living under the fear till nothing else remains

Read more: TINA TURNER - WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER HERO LYRICS

 

So, in a way, I guess you could say that Jews were Preterists before the term was invented!

NORM