Jump to content

Pete

Members
  • Posts

    297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Pete

  1. Welcome Alamar. I see your a fellow Nurse and your also good at asking questions. . I think you will fit in well. A friend of mine once said that most church sermons were like a steers horns. A couple of forceful points and whole lot of bull in between. I think you have noticed that too. Welcome to the forum friend.
  2. Hi KemiJ, Welcome to the forum. I am in the UK and attend the Quakers. Its not registered with this forum but I cannot see that they would have any conflict with people on this forum. I am sure there are other churches and organizations that are open minded too. I hope you find one you enjoy attending. However, just remember your welcome here whether your attending a registered church or not. Pete
  3. Welcome Dennis. It is good to have you join us. I look forward to hearing some more from you. I think one thing that is common with progressive and liberal Christians is their universal acceptance and acknowledgement that we do not have all the answers, only a belief that the journey in the Spirit is worth the taking and we learn from each other. Its a bit like giving everyone at a party a piece of a jigsaw. There are those who just treasure their given piece and there are those who recognize there is so much to learn from getting together and joining the pieces. Welcome to the forum friend. Pete
  4. Welcome Eusebius, I am also interested interested in the early Christianity too. The more I think about things and read, the more I see myself as a Jesus follower rather than a Christian in the conservative sense of the word. I feel you will feel at home here with many like minded people. It is good to have you join us.
  5. Welcome Padre. It is good to have you join us. I was looking at your interests whilst doing your doctorate and I look forward to hearing more. One of the things I have noted is that the liberal wings of differing faiths seem to have more common ground. For example Ghandi was a Hindu but he would of also made a good progressive Christian (IMO). I think we can learn so much from each other.
  6. Hi Ginger, I know from experience it can feel difficult at first when one breaks from the dictates of a church and especially so when one has friends who attend. All I can say is that looking back on things, it was one of the best decisions I made. One is free to believe what one does without being made to feel guilty or ill at ease with what a church is saying. I am personally with Dutch on recommending books by John Shelby Spong. John says what he believes from his lengthy studies and leaves the rest up to you without making one feel obligated to always agree. I found that refreshing and I feel his love for people is shown throughout his writings. He explores the development and changes of the faith and one can see the journey that the church has taken the faith to what it is now and it is not always for the best of reasons (IMO). I enjoy the freedom to worship and believe what feels right to me without having to remain silent because of comprimise due to some dogma that is unable to be discussed at a church. I recommend the journey my friend. It is amazing what you discover. I personally feel more deeper in my faith and able to say that I do not always agree with the churches stance and be more true to myself. I wish you success in finding a more enlightened church and remember we are all here to talk without any obligation should you wish too. Pete
  7. Welcome Adekis, I am really impressed with your intro post and your enlightened Father. It really enjoyed reading about yours and his wisdom and openness to things spiritual. You have made a journey that rings bells for me and most people here. The one thing I like about Progressive Christianity is that it does not include the idea that you must believe this or that in order for God to love you or for you to become saved from God's anger etc. Your free to grow in your understanding and to take truth from wherever you find it. This is one of the reasons I love about this site is that it is somewhere one can go that is not dominated by dogma and bible rhetoric and is full of people one can share ones personal and unhindered journey with. It is great to have you join us my friend. Pete
  8. Thanks Dutch for the pointer and the advice. I am very much interested. I have downloaded a copy of the book from Amazon. I will look at the disks later when I get paid. Maybe my local Quaker meeting would like to watch it with me.
  9. Thanks Paul and Dutch. I have a copy of Common sense Christianity but find I do not agree with all that the book declares but refreshingly the book does not declare that I should. I will certainly look into the book "Living the Questions", but the DVDs ($100+) seem costly to me. When I open the thread I was thinking more about the way Alpha is freely presented in many conserative churches and as such gives over their viewpoint without ever mentioning the fact that Liberals and Progressives exist too. I just wish there was some initiative that was being widely presented that recognised our viewpoint. Too often we are dismissed as just a heresy without any respect to the history of theology and Christianity being not so clear cut as conservatives would like to present it. We then become the unheard voice which often only is found when a persons seeks for a deeper and a more considered explanation of what the faith is without many of the prejudice the conservative theology holds towards differing opinions, other faiths and sexuality equality. I just wish Progressive churches held something that was more liberal/progressive and open minded in order to address many of the views being presented in Alpha and this was also freely available.
  10. I often see fundamentalist churches in the UK using Alpha classes to introduce new people into their view of the faith. Do people think there will ever be such a initiative with a more liberal view and respect for diversity of opinion on issues of faith? http://alphausa.org/Groups/1000047505/What_is_Alpha.aspx
  11. I am similar George, I respect religious freedom of one's choosing so long as one respects freedom of choice for others too. I respect that a person has the right to be respected for their faith as long as that faith respects others.
  12. Hi Jeffry, Welcome to the forum. I am glad you have chosen to join us and I look forward to hearing from you on the forum. Pete
  13. Hi Will, Welcome to the forum. I am not familiar with the "Church of Christ" but I found a link that presents some of the articles of faith. http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/basicBeliefs.html That is a large list of beliefs (IMO). Here you can just be who you are and believe what you trly believe. So pull up a chair and join in and feel very welcome. Pete
  14. I wish they had not but once a thing becomes an organisation it aquires a name in my experience. I understand the original group was just called the "new way" and I believe the group was diverse. Once organised religion gets to dictate things then labels start to be used as to those groups who agree and those who do not. I would be happy just being a Jesus follower but in modern times people would only understand that as a Christian.
  15. It depends on who I am speaking to. It is among conservatives that argue people not accepting their view of the bible are not Christians. If I speak to a conservative then the presentation of contradictions are there for the seeing. Whilst someone having a theory that Paul did not write all in 1 Corinthians is not so apparent to demonstrate. If I am discussing among liberal minded folk such as yourself then I can entertain the theory that Paul may of not wrote all of 1 Corinthians even if it is a theory and other theologians may disagree. The topic is about whether an athiest can be a Christian and for some the conservative definition is often being used which says they cannot be according to their understanding of things from a traditional Paulian persuation and such arguements could be could equally applied to me too. I am sure there are many conservatives and I have met a few who would argue that liberals and Progressives are not really Christians because they do not accept Paulian scripts. For me the traditional Paul is not a figure I can agree with or allow to define my Christianity. Did he write all that he is credited with is another debate (IMO) and on another topic I may be more accepting of your view. The traditional view of Paul exists and it is not up for theory and it is that traditional view I as a liberal and Atheists are mostly confronted by.
  16. A good example of how complicated it gets. I believe son of God is a jewish expression. A bit like calling someone a son of a gun. We do not mean they were actually a son of a real gun. The expression Son of God was used for other folk too. Such as Herod. For me, I believe God spoke through Jesus as God speaks through others such as Ghandi (IMO). If that makes me a none Christian I guess it would also make Bishop Spong one too. I know its complicated but liberal Christians also have a long heritage and conservatives are not the only one (IMO) in park.
  17. Hi George, I am aware that the bible is full of areas which would not meet conclussive proof and on an academic level I am prepared to accept that Paul may of not wrote all in Corinthians. I am sure in my mind he did not write the pastoral letters. I think the mark of a liberal or progressive Christian is their being prepared to question the bible rather than take everthing as read or as traditionally presented. However, when one is speaking to conservative I am faced with either showing Paulian scripts that contradict Jesus and even Paul himself or enter into a debate about the authorship of the Paulian letters and say that some theologians doubt that Paul was the author of all and that some unnamed conservatives accept their view. In choosing from the two I prefer to show the contradictions rather than later. This is not out of disrespect for your beliefs but the fact I can show contradictions to a conservative but I cannot name many theologians who argue that Paul did not write all in Corinthians or many conservatives who have been convinced by their findings. I hope you understand where I am coming from. Pete Hi Romansh, I like your point. As this topic has demonstrated it is difficult to get all Christians to agree on traditional axioms. The fact that an Atheist may have trouble with some of them is therefore not surprising or (IMO) excludes a person from considering themselves a Christian.
  18. Hi George, I think we agree that much of what is said to be Paul's writings is very debatable (IMO). I believe much of the bible has debatable sourses but dispite this I have not seen any conclussive arguement or proof that Corinthians or Galatians are not written by Paul. In the absense of that conclussive proof and the asserted beliefs of conservatives and their presenting of so called Paul's writtngs to be the word of God through Paul and therefore akin to the teachings of Jesus I feel left with a big question mark over Paul. I am happy to accept the other letters you have quoted as most likely not written by Paul and some I believe were written after his death. I think we may well be dealing with Paul the myth rather than Paul the man when we judge Paul but without proof what am I left with. I recognsie that without the presented Paul there is little to justify conservative thought and they continue to assert all writings are genuine. If I had conclussive proof to the support your belief that Paul never wrote the bad things then I would use it but until then I argue how Paul (albeit Paul the myth) is in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus and destructive to human respect for diversity. It is not that I do not respect what you believe George but please forgive me in that I need something more.
  19. Hi George, I think I should point out, although I am not offended, my name is Pete and not Paul. I am aware that a lot of writings that were said to be Paul's are very suspect (IMO). I am aware of the Pastoral writings and others that I believe were written after his death like 1&2 Timothy which was for many years seen as a fraud by the Assyrian Orthodox Church. I am aware that there is a difference in opinion of the said Paul's writings in the bible between conservative and progressive Christians. However, I do not think Corinthians is disputed and it is there Paul demands women to be silent (see:- http://www.ntrf.org/...il.php?PRKey=16 ) .I am also aware of Paul being a man in his time and the wonderful egalitarian quote in Galatians 3, which is (IMO) poorly followed in chapter 4 to say we are all sons and that is the reason we are heirs in God's promise. This may of sounded liberal for the time of Paul but it does sound a tab sexist today. I also struggle with the atonement concept of Paul and variation to the message of Jesus which is not explained (IMO) by saying Jesus' message was for the Jews and Paul's for the Gentiles. http://www.voiceofje...aulvsjesus.html I am happy to recognise Paul has to be taken in the context of his time but I have difficulty with Paul for the legacy he has left us with in conservative understandings.
  20. I really enjoyed Erhams book "Lost Christianities" and agree with your recommendation. I am critical of Paul not because I disagree with all he is reported to say but for me he is just one voice among others. I just do not believe something just because Paul is reported to say something or that some of his letters have found themselves in the bible. Take 1 Cor 13:4-13 for instance, I say yes that rings for me and I love it, but other parts leave me cold. I think of Paul on Women, Paul on diversity, Paul on Gay understanding and I lose respect for his message in these areas.
  21. Hi Vidar, as GeorgeW has described (IMO) there are Christians and Christians. The common denominator in modern times is the teachings of Jesus. In the past I guess one would have to accept that Jesus was the messiah justified by scripture in order to be Christian (Christ in my understanding from the greek for messiah or annointed one). Yet, there were. as Barrie Wilson and others point out. more views about Jesus in the past than those of Paul. The Church of the Roman empire selected Paul's view and a systematic and slow annihilation of all opposing views began. I see no reason to believe that there was no diversity prior to this event and I expect there was even diversity among the disciples. Today we have Christians who believe in the trinity and those who do not, those who believe the bible is inerrant and those who do not. those who believe their church is the only true church and those who are more ecuminical or or universal, those who believe in baptism at birth and thise who do not, those who recognise other denominations as Christians and those who do not, some who accept other religions like the Unitarians and Quakers and some who do not. etc etc. I personally am not willing to conduct my faith according to the dictates and creeds of others. In modern language the view is that a Christian is someone who believes on Jesus' teaching. More conservative churches will also insist that we also accept the teachings of Paul to. So where do we draw the line. If we are to strickly follow Jesus without any adulteration from my personal opinion I suspect we should all be Jews as was Jesus and his teachings. It was Paul who added to this and the church who promoted his views and with the power of Rome started to establish this view as the only one acceptable. I am sure they also had a hand in the burning of the records at Alexandria and destroying other writings that contradicted their perspective on things. As you mentioned Barrie Wilson I quote his view of what was missing from the creed set by the church in their rush to get people to accept theirs as the only view in direct conflict with what Jesus taught :- Barrie asks why does the creed not say:- "We revere our teacher, Jesus who taught us to make the Kingdom of God our highest priority and to prepare for its manifestation on earth, through deeds of compassion and caring backed by an inner spirit of generosity and forgiveness. We follow the example of Jesus who taught us to be sensitive to the needs of others and to respond appropriately. We believe in the teachings of Jesus who challenged us to live the life of the Torah to its fullest, to embrace correct attitudes as well as right behaviour. We acknowledge with gratitude the Jesus who gave us the hope that God's rule would eventually be sovereign over all the earth and righteous will truly inherit the earth. We have confidence in God, creator of the universe, who alone can redeem and who, forgiving us our failings, will resurrect us from the dead to life eternal. Why none of this? There's a lot missing from the Apostles' Creed- all of Jesus' teachings, in fact. This is truly astounding." Barrie Wilson. Reference:- Barrie Wilson, "How Jesus became Christian - The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher into the Son of God", Chapter 8, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. Now if I am to be judged as a none Christian then one has (IMO) to first deny the history of Christianity and its original diversity and influence. A fundamantalist I suspect would not have any problem with this but alas I admit I am not a fundamentalist but I do believe in the spiritual influence that can be seen in many of the said teachings of Jesus and others. I may call that God's infuence but others may say it is the spirit of humanity. My justification for this personal view of Christianity is a solid belief that Jesus' followers were diverse and I see no issue with accepting that diversity and including myself within it. I am sure many conservative churches would not accept me but like yourself, having read the history, I do not care what they or others think of me. I personally do not think Jesus did either. I can accept an atheist as a Christian in the same way I also accept a Paulian Christian despite in my view the apparent contradictions between Paul's teachings and those of reported of Jesus. If they do not want to accept me then, for me, so what. I will still call myself a Christian.
  22. I personally do not follow the 7 Tennents or the 5 fundamentals ( http://en.wikipedia..../Fundamentalism ) and even question most of the 12 fundamentals ( http://www.bible-kno...hristian-faith/ ). Does this make me a none Christain? It maybe different and I maybe not recognised by fundamentalists but I am sorry that matters little to me. I do not believe in the virgin birth, the inerrancy of the bible, the atonment from the sacrifice of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or the historical reality of the miracles. I do not believe in the biblical creation story either or Noah's flood. I do not believe God has a sexual identity and cannot see what on earth God would do with a sexual identity. I personally do not even believe in the trinity or the OT biblical view of God and yet that does not make me an atheist. I am (IMO) just another questioning liberal. I personally believe God is the spirit of love and that God resides in each of us as God did in Jesus. I believe we are spirit too. I welcome in truth from wherever it comes. I do not like dogma as I feel it dictates what a person should or should not believe whether it makes sense to the individual or not. I do not like fundamentalists dictating what my Christianity should be about. In the past there were many followers from differing viewpoints such as the Ebonites, Marcionites, Gnostics, and many others and Paul was not the only voice around. I feel it is just a shame that the church destroyed much of the evidence and writtings that existed from the other voices. I struggle greatly with the idea of a biblical God who was prepared to kill all in a flood and then later try to save everyone. That said I still believe in God but not as fundamentalists would recognise. In my book also I see no problem with an athiest who is inspired by the "mythology" of the bible accounts and I can cope with the idea of an atheist being a Christian even if in my own way I guess I am still a theist. Now I if you feel I am nuts then all I say is welcome to the human race.Take a look around and see the world and tell me if you see a mark of consistency from any religion or faith or belief that has affected any faith like the spirit of love. For me a religion is just a path a person chooses to travel in order to get enlightenment but the path is not the destination. It is just the path. I believe all roads eventually led to God. So why have I said all this? Well just to point out that not all Christians are the same as not all Atheists are the same and I believe there is still room for us all in humanity and in the faith of love which I call Christianity but others may have differing names. .
  23. Welcome TerryB, That is an wonderful introduction and I am impressed by your interests. I look forward to hearing more from you on the forum. It is good to have you join us, Pete
  24. Hi Ray, I think you will find throughout the history of Christian theology that much of what people consider as the mainstay of the faith was started by someone who was considered a heretic in their time. I recommend Robert Van Weyer's book called "The call to heresy" were he lists many of them. I would not worry about being thought a heretic. For me a heretic is someone who can think for themselves and I do not believe there is falseness in that. So welcome to the forum. I hope it brings many blessing to you. Pete
  25. I guess just as God is hard to define so is being a Christian. If it were not so then I wonder how there has become so many denominations. For me I think whatever a person thinks about their Christianity it should be more than just a label. It has meaning to their lives too and one tries to live it. I recognise I personally do not always succeed but I try. I think that is true of most of us in my experience. Life is definitely not easy but we hope in what we believe.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service