Jump to content

skyseeker

Members
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by skyseeker

  1. Hi Dutch, it's more like christians are SUPPOSED to forgive everything, but then they don't.
  2. About pedophily. I see it like the idea of "evil children". It has happened that little children, without understanding, took a knife and harmed someone with it. Why does that happen? The children had some problematic issue in their character, perhaps a weird curiosity or aggressiveness, and they didn't have experience and wisdom. There was no one watching over them at the moment. Their parents didn't take enough time to teach their children about the badness of violence, so their conscience wasn't developed enough about such things. Do we teach teenagers that they should never be pedophiles? And if they had the urge, they should go to a therapist? This doesn't seem to happen, and in fact if someone were to tell me these things as a teenie I'd feel it's freakish, that someone would want to teach me this. But the real pedophiles, well they are freaks, the sick feeling that we get about pedophily is true. But maybe the pedophiles actually know this. And feel the same about it, only for them now it's an impossibility to bear and to confess to someone. I mean, suppose you went to a psychologist and say, I have the urge to harm children. She'd probably get mad and call the police. I have looked into pedophily recently online and found a site where it said, "Don't be an Doer of evil - if you have the urge, tell us, we will help you before you do something unspeakable." I think this is the right way to go about these things. Only people presume that everyone feels the same joyous love for children as most of us in fact do. They think that everyone, unless he is a dangerous madman, feels the same way about children. But pedophiles don't feel that simple joyous love about children. They give in to some weird temptation and if they are conscious of its evil, they don't go to people who could help. Therefor we should do like the website and talk about these things openly and on TV, AND assure pedophiles of our help if they come to us before they did this evil. At that point, when the crime hasn't been committed yet, we can talk about the reasons why there is pedophily. We can talk of our ignorance, of what our parents did wrong, what the devil can do to the unwary, about the shitty life we're often thrown in, about the love we need and only few gave to us, and so on. That is all valid because at that point the pedophile is an ill person that is pitiful, not someone who has to be locked away to protect children. He is the "evil" child that is difficult and desperately needs more help and being watched over. About homosexuality, that is love between adults. Pedophily is not love, it's a twisted and sick thing, it destroys a natural love for our human offspring. It's the absence of such love. Homosexuality is love, if done right. Same as heterosexuality, only a tad different. But the passion, the tenderness, the erotic attraction, the wisdom, the love suffering, and so on, it's all the same. The christian part of it is that we're keeping sex and romantic relationship holy, no matter if it's heterosexual or homosexual. Holiness has to do with "heal", which in the german translation also means "unhurt", "undisturbed", "pure". It means that we honor the other and his feelings and fears and will and desire and shyness and especially the human need that is in the other. That is how we are supposed to have our sexual relationships ... respecting the needs of the other and making your own needs known, and fashioning this into real amour. Is this possible with pedophily? No, it means extreme disregard for children, it is never holy. The need for children is for us humans to love them in the way that is good and proper for them. Warmth, sympathy when they hurt, LOT'S of empathy with their little minds and ways of feeling, protecting them, working for them, feeding them, sharing life with them in a wise and meek way. Seeing them in the image of God too. That is my spiritual perspective. I'm not a very much scientifically educated man so I don't know what the scientific perspective would say. I only want to avoid the easy answer that you hear in the streets, like castrate pedophiles or burn them at the stake. I want to protect children from these things and yet also heal those pedophiles where this is still possible. With the criminal pedophiles, this must happen in prison though, and I don't think they can be let out again. In the prison though, they should receive kindness and forgiveness by people who have an understanding what horrible things can happen to humans and how, I venture to say, pedophiles also suffer from their condition and obviously couldn't help themselves out of it.
  3. Hey Dutch, that's great input you give me here with the quote. You have a very interesting way of thinking. My approach was rather etymological. "Forgiving", at least in the german translation of it, seems to say that when there is a wrong done to me, I give so much to do the wrongdoer that the wrong is covered and overwhelmed. The wrongdoer would then apologize. I give him something that does away with the sin. That is what I perceive in Christ, there was sin and He forgives it by giving Himself into even a crucifixion. Like, God is in Heaven, sees that we're in a rut and exalting ourselves beyond love, and He says I can do the giving too, I can do something that you will marvel at. And goes to the cross, for us, and goes to sheol, the afterlife, and brings with him all who are there, and rises from the dead, for us again. It's like a big kiss, a big hug from God. The distinction between christian and jewish forgiveness would be that the jewish forgiveness was tied to a legal concept, because the jewish law was involved. But in Christ the law was fulfilled and put on the cross too. So now forgiveness is not a legal requirement, it is a life of giving, at least in Jesus, and we emulate that in a smaller way. We always forgive anything, like I described it above. Or at least should do so. And so many conflicts that would arise about sin normally (eye for an eye, until everyone is blind), is doused. If you would make clear your theology with the roof and the bed and the paralytic to someone who didn't hear about it, and he could relate to it, it would mean forgiveness to him. He would feel that God gives him insight and liberation and new life, ie God gives this man so much that his suffering and the failures of his life are overcome and don't matter anymore, and maybe Jesus will even throw in a healing.
  4. Inerrancy is at odds with sincerity. We would need to interview Paul if he wanted his letters to be thought of as inerrant or inspired. In the jewish book of Proverbs, the words of the wise were seen as riddles. The bible is a book of original riddles that promise truth. But we don't know fully how it will turn out if the "mystery of God is accomplished" (Revelation). The sabbath controversy is a sign of human lameness. We could have two holy days, and work less, but the jews were afraid of their sabbath, and the christians were afraid of their sunday. So Solomon said he should be given a sword. And both mothers were not loving the peasant babies.
  5. Hey Dutch, there is the jewish sense of forgiveness, and the christian sense, and they're different. The jewish system forgives sin, christians forgive everything. Forgiveness is not the answer to a crime, it is an attitude of being overflowing and repairing things for others through prayer and refraining from any condemnation. I see grace as an eternally persistent love, despite everything that happens. That is in God and so it should be in us. If you see this forgiveness through a jewish thinking, you are right, I have nothing to forgive, I would be arrogant. But in the christian thinking I have to forgive always, even things which are no offenses. Forgiveness is just a part of God's love that goes on forever. It is a passion, and it looks ridiculous, but it stays good. It's like going out on the street, entering a house, ringing a bell and giving someone a bowl of strawberries. The forgiveness part of this is that it would make good someone's suffering or sin. Forgiveness is "for giving". We give so much that any evil or suffering or any absence of goodness, becomes overwhelmed. The devil gets drowned in a lake of fire. Thanks, Daniel
  6. Well of course your point is meant, but forgiving something might in some cases be the same as not taking offense. But I do think there's a problem when some people don't accept Christ. I don't see this infringing on someone's salvation from hell or being included in God's love - but precisely the love of God is reason why God wants us to believe in Him. And I think one reason why unbelief doesn't matter so much is because in the end it's a sin like any other and would be forgiven. Still there should be this forgiveness, God's forgiveness, because spiritually it means that God makes good by Himself what we do wrong, and that should include getting the gift of faith so you actually know all this. We do need salvation, not because of some legal urgency most of the time but because otherwise we're lost here and don't quite live in the truth - which is a problem for our authencity as humans who have the Maker of All as their father.
  7. Hi again Glint, I see forgiveness as receiving something from God that would recover the damage that was done by sin. So if someone sins against me, I must give him something from me so that the damage is returned as a blessing, ie a kind word, prayers, that I keep keeping the law of love, food and drink or a gift, and so on. If someone rejects Jesus, they cannot live in full benefit of His forgiveness, because God's forgiveness entails God giving Himself as we see in Christ's way. That is why we must forgive the unbelief or rejection - and this is not a proud stance but a consciousness of the need of God and returning the damage as a blessing. That is like taking a file and filing off the tip of a sting so it can't hurt anyone anymore. The goal for a Christ-followers is to spread belief in Christ, and a Christ-inspired love between humans. Forgiveness is not necessary because of punishment, it is necessary because it is supposed to overwhelm sin and its residues of mistrust, hatred, anger, disappointment, hurt, guilt, fear and worry.
  8. "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life." St. Paul I think the importance of this verse cannot be overstated for everyone who reads the bible and wants to have a good, working notion for who God is and how life in Him is possible. The letter really means a fixed spirit. The letter says this, and we believe it, and at that time we kill. But the spirit is not the letter - he exists apart from the text. We do not only learn from the bible, but also from the spirit, and our bible reading must be spirit-informed. That is how in most versions of a humane and grace-oriented christianity, we leave aside those portions of the text which are too obviously negative. We don't agree with stoning adulterers or outlawing homosexuality or leading a war in God's name. I believe this is all spirit-informed. And the same spirit takes texts from the bible that were originally set in a violent context, and uses it for peaceful purposes. The verse that said that swords would be smithed into plowshares were originally read as a reference to a peaceful messianic kingdom - but in an ancient understanding, that is why the text mentioned olive trees. If we were entirely letter-believing, we would read all of this like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Technology becomes outlawed and we all need a tree in our backyard again. If we are spirit-believing we can escape the fixed letter meaning and break it up with the needs of the time and see a metaphor of olive trees for wisdom. Which means that in our day to make peace requires the need to let anyone sit in his own wisdom. That we do not undertake wisdom battles anymore - Solomon against Rumi, Augustine against Origen, but that we seek a spiritual compromise. The letter alone is not able to give that. The letter is fixed - not just the bible letter, but also other books, my own writings here. But as christians we have access to other words than this, the words of life. Which are about Jesus' forgiveness and healing for all who believe, and for anyone else because we are all God's offspring and God works from a hidden space and is active on His own. A christian has in fact the unique advantage of being able to forgive. We can go on a mission, to convert people to our faith, but if they don't want it or if they cannot listen to us, we can just forgive. And when we forgive, according to Jesus we are forgiven as well. The words of life that have both the concreteness of the letter and life-giving ability of the spirit, are always words of forgiveness. The old letter had forgiveness tied to a legal concept of righteousness, threat of punishment, demand of repentance. But Jesus took that out of the way with the Cross. Now we can see forgiveness, and also the notion of God's grace that is tied to it, as a persistent love even when being faced with evil. At this point we must cling to the spirit, because He works patience, and not escape to letters like the mosaic ones that would eradicate evil along with the still precious human beings who did it. Instead we follow Jesus by following the spirit, under the influence of the sanctifying Holy Spirit, and that means we survive the inabilities and problems of the fixed letter, and turn to the words of life, and apply them to ourselves. When we forgive others, we can also forgive ourselves. When we forgive ourselves, we can turn to the eternal life that we see described in the Gospels as "do not steal, do not murder, do not lie, do not commit adultery, honor your parents, and if you want to be perfect, follow me (Jesus)". And in that we are safe, because even just these few commandments describe a life of great spiritual quality. And almost everyone of us except those which are mad in evil, would enjoy it if we give them something, if we add ot their life, if we tell them the truth, if we praise them for their love, if we remind them to their parents, and if we follow Jesus in their stead.
  9. The difficulty I perceive in christianity also has to do with having to go a faith route. In a child's understanding, and in many things I still am a child, it seems to me that God would answer to me in some way whenever I pray to Him. I could ask, God, do you exist? And He would answer, certainly, son, I do exist, what is it today? And this dialogue would continue forever. But in reality it's like I have to walk somewhere in faith and at some point I would say, now I got something from God, because church dogma says this or that and this jives with what just happened. IE, I read the bible, I see a particular faith idea, I accept it and carry it with me, then I experience something in my life as an input from God. At worst you need to have a thorough knowledge of the bible and a complete theology before you get anywhere with God. And the bible is in many places an invitation to become a theologian - whether you can explain every contradiction and arrive at a system that harmonizes scripture with a sense of life as we know it, so we can "apply Jesus" in our lives and get somewhere with him. This is a bit like asking an angel to carry a statue of Jesus to you and moving it before your face until one day you come to believe that He looks nice. That's how monotheism seems to be an idol variant of the faith that it actually preaches. We have a theological system and it is the yoke that we're supposed to bear. And because our theology either follows the bible literally or doesn't follow it at all, we don't even know what to make of scripture and never quite arrive at that deep and magical moment of KNOWING God and LOVING Him immediately from your heart. That is why we can neither have a thoroughly biblical or a thoroughly unbiblical christianity. We must seek to know the truth of scripture. We must understand these people who are in these writings. I think that is a call for prophecy about the past, that we engage in art and theology with the aim of getting through the clouds of unknowing until we have a clear idea who Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus etc, really were. The protestant reformation made people return to the bible. Now we need a return to the truth that the bible writes about - without forgetting that the bible uses humans to speak who may have gotten things wrong. That is how we must get over the simple sin and punishment / righteousness and reward plot of the bible. Jesus shows us a God who rather dies than to lash out against his murderers, and who ended a religious system that worked through sin, punishment, righteousness and reward. But at that point we still feel clueless. And it becomes apparent that everything we ever asked from God was usually bound to be something from this religious system of sin, punishment, righteousness and reward. It's like we always just ask God for a kindergarten.
  10. Thank you for posting these quotes, Glintofpewter. I'm not sure if I can explain this right, but my main reason for why I became a christian was, firstly, the discovery of a Maker of this world who is still interested in us, and secondly, the belief that this Maker would do something about our death so that there would be a deep and infinite afterlife, which I connected to Jesus and His cross and resurrection. I am liberal only insofar as I am rejecting hellfire doctrines, and I am rejecting the morality of ancient Israel as outdated at many places as well, except for the 10 commandments and the 2 love commandments which I personally follow because my conscience loves them. To that end I don't think it is useful to deny the resurrection - although I know that not everyone can affirm it positively without being given the gift of faith. New Testament scripture was written primarily for people of faith, not for people of reason. The upstart christian religion had many troubles to overcome, in some ways similar to what afro-americans went through in the last two centuries, and they felt a sore need for justice and that is how we got to a concept of soteriology - man needing salvation, including legally. But I think that Jesus' sacrifice occurred exactly to get the legal images out of the way, yet Paul made the legal problem a permanent one that would extend until the Day of Judgment, and if you add condemnation theories, it goes even further than that for the condemned. The problem is in finding that in scripture which is not an attempt to erect the legal orthodoxy that I perceive as erroneous. The problem is understanding Paul and finding out where exactly he erred in his thinking - "saving" the good Lord that damns no one and getting into a life and faith of love that overcomes evil better than a threat of punishment. That is why I sometimes feel uneasy about Jesus as a "strangled Savior". He was cut short before completing His mission of salvation. That's how it looks like objectively. But then there is spiritual salvation, the problem of death, the problem of the certainty by which we all can consider ourselves saved. And this spiritual salvation was accomplished at the cross and in the resurrection. Basically, if Jesus wouldn't have chosen the Cross, he would have been the lone fearless hero that had to become king of the world. But with Jesus choosing the Cross, we can see in the resurrection how evil does not win out in the end and that there can be many fearless heros of whom no one needs to be king of the world, who can remain ordinary people doing what is good and right while being assured of God's companionship and having a transformed knowledge of death - which becomes a door to the next world. The ideas of the Day of Judgment I perceive as outcries of persecuted people. They needed to have something that would outweigh the evil that was done to them. Some like Stephanus and Jesus Himself were able to forgive their murderers, others cried out, "their blood be upon them". Because of the positive afterlife that awaits us all, we don't have to think retributively beyond measure like Augustine thought. This is the fallacy of the good and evil thinking that survived Christ's cleaning influence on mankind's religion.
  11. What I sometimes feel missing from liberal christianity is the belief that God is a person that can act in this world. IE, there is the Father, there is his son Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit, and that we can interact with this triune deity and that He interacts with us. In that regard, fundamentalistic christianity, even though I reject many of their doctrine, is ahead of us. That is also why I often simply retreat to an informal piety that was prominent historically, the idea of the "good God", as some people still exclaim it when they're overwhelmed by something. Fundamentalistic christianity says, God is not simply the good God, and liberal christianity says, there is no God, there are simply some worthwhile ethical teachings, and nothing more. God is, for me, a good power in whose centre Jesus Christ is sitting. I see it a lot like in Art Nouveau, and in other art, it feels a bit like fairytale but I jump into it and say it's true. And I've made spiritual experiences in that regard that were really profound. My favourite scriptures are the letters of Apostle John. Unlike Paul, he made justice subservient to love. And now our call is to make something out of love, which is at once the highest and the lowliest human virtue. Babies love food, adults love their spouses, old people love God.
  12. Jesus Christ made the remark to his jewish audience that none of them nor their ancestors had ever seen God. I don't think this means a vision or a theophany or something, it's a term for knowing God, knowing who He is, and understanding Him. This basically relegates the jewish religion to a religion that had sought God - but just like the pagans, they didn't really find Him. I'm not sure what this makes of the Israelite's treck through the desert, but Jesus' words stand, the Israelites hadn't seen God yet. Much of what is repugnant to moderns about the christian worldview is rooted in the law-scriptures. Apart from them there isn't much that could be considered bad, and even the law had some light in it, for example the 10 commandments that I find really good for society building. I don't think we could live well together if we stole, lied, murdered, robbed each other of our spouses, etc. I'm really baffled as to what exactly these Israelites experienced in Egypt, at Sinaii and in the desert. The way God acts in it is only laudable if we assume an Egypt that was really lost in magic and occultism (and that magic and occultism are real dealings with an evil devil and with demons). It is only interesting if justice objectively demands that homosexuality be outlawed because it's an abomination. If justice doesn't demand it, it's only God's preference, and I don't think this would somehow make it necessary to force it on us as a religious law. I suppose the only way to get to a God who can be our God, to get a God who is better than us in a clearly visible way, is to reject some of the bible. Jesus gave us a beginning, that loving the sinner is better than destroying him, that being merciful to the suffering is something that pleases God, that salvation doesn't depend on man and instead on God and that He makes it freely available for all. But we shouldn't go back to what was before Jesus. Either the scriptures of these times are incomplete or inaccurate, or mankind was so different from now that we might have issues understanding how God just did what He could with a mankind that wanted wars, animal sacrifices, harsh laws to protect them from anarchy, and so on. That's what my mother is betting on in regards to the bible, that it's a book from ancient times and that we have better societies now. Jesus gives acceptable teachings for us, Moses really doesn't. Not if we want to embrace an inclusive ethics of salvation for all, which is really what God is after in Christ, I want to believe.
  13. Hi again, I think the key concept that we need to be aware of is what Paul is writing about in regards to love ... "and a better way I show you". If we begin and end everything with love, and love being what it is, then the spiritual truth about God and man looks entirely different from when you would begin and end with justice. Apostle John also peeked into that and wrote that abiding in love draws us to God. This provides an even larger scope of salvation than what Paul wrote about in regards to salvation through faith. I think that our basic sense and goodness and love would require that God accepts everyone, regardless of what he has and does, in terms of judgment. Jesus proved on the cross that He would rather die than to erect his kingdom in the Old Testament way of doing things. But then there is faith. I don't see faith as something by which we give something to God so He would give us salvation. I see salvation by faith cognitively - I mean, could we forego on belief about God? Would it be good if the message of Christ's resurrection would be forgotten or not believed anymore? Doesn't life with God that we see as our happiness, necessitate that we believe that this God actually exists? This is where I think christian theology needs an update. Not stating a deal of faith for salvation, but making it clear that it's epistemologically necessary to believe in God in order to participate fully in His life. Think of it like being married. If you marry a woman, you would want her to believe in your existence. This allows for the love play to be real. Likewise we must believe in God's existence. God can still be loving and merciful to atheists, and sometimes atheists carry less religious baggage than believers and provide an alternative view that might sometimes be really helpful. But in the same time, and I am phrasing this like an artist, unbelief is a foolishness. Again, if I am married to someone I should know he or she actually exists. Belief is that "magical point" where we take in God's reality. Where we jump up and say, HE LIVES! This seems erotic and inspiring to me, a way for love to become ultra real. When I can look into the future of man together with God, which should be a future that is guarded and helped in many ways. So basically, in our day, if we go by preterism or another variant of modern theology, we know that mankind doesn't have hell to wait for. We have a future instead and in God our love is what matters, and love is just the bottom line we must always "preach to each other", for our solace and wholesome self expression. And we cannot stop preaching faith either. But what matters is that we don't believe anymore in a "deal" idea of salvation, or sacrifice idea of salvation, but instead a covenant idea of salvation that God has made with everyone, and God has made it so that it is valid no matter what happens, because He made it on His own, without anyone believing in it when it was made. It was not a dual covenant anymore to which you have to agree, it's instead a promise of eternal love, which longs for our agreement with it, but doesn't depend on it. God has His saints and angels and the universe to get love from as its Creator, He can handle it if some humans don't want God and He sees the reasons why some might not believe or why some fall into sin. The way I see preterism and the "wrath of God against Israel", it was that God made a show of religion, what it inspires and all that. Both negative and positive religion have bad sides to themselves, when the Israelites were faithful to God they stoned sinners, when they were not faithful to God they were lawless. Both is not exactly good for us humans. So Jesus ended the religion, promised eternal forgiveness, His company for the faithful and kindness to everyone, and a new idea of justice ... for example, like Martin Luther King preached social justice. Jesus really made everything new with this, and it was so puzzling to the first believers that they didn't get anything right and sought a coherence between Jesus and Judaism. This coherence is there prophetically, our connection to the ancient wonders and miracles and divine actions. But the coherence is not there theologically, because Jesus made a cut and brought something new, proving salvation to jew and Gentile, to the religious and to the non-religious. The religious can take the mosaic law and follow it for themselves, and the non-religious can take thier freedom and follow it for themselves. But both must honor love and forgiveness, lest they bring to nothing the love and forgiveness we ALL get from God. This is just mere reason at work, no talk of afterlife condemnation or some such crap, but merely a principle that allows for God and us to orient ourselves in a world where there is both good and evil, in a life that beckons for God's love but isn't always following God's example of noble love as opposed to little love. It's all good though.
  14. Hey, I wanted to ask you about what you think of preterism - the view that biblical prophecy, including those of Christ, have been fulfilled already in 70 AD when Rome sacked Jerusalem and ended the jewish "experiment". Basically, preteristic views allow for a christianity that needn't spread hellfire doctrines anymore, because these were fulfilled in 70 AD, metaphorically, largely. For example, Jesus spoke about His return occuring in such a way that people would stay outside in the outer darkness weeping and gnashing their teeth. If we take that to refer to afterlife judgments, they're horrible words because they leave some people without hope. But if we take them as referring to what happened in 70 AD when christians could walk free without fear of the Romans, while the jewish rebels were hunted down by the Romans, that basically the jews were suddenly outside of God's favor, then this prophecy of the weeping and of the gnashing of teeth is much less threatening. Combine that with the fact that now everyone is in God's love, that "not even the jews" (I'm not an antisemite) have to fear further punishments, that everyone is invited to God's table now and that our afterlife is secure in Christ whose judgments are complete already and who doesn't have to fulfill further prophecies from the bible except those which are "age-during" ... ie the city of Tyre and the judgment it finds in the bible are actually a symbol for hatred for Jerusalem that is always fought by God in the world. IE, we can do purely spiritual interpretations of the bible and thereby find the God of love and peace, who, without damning anyone to afterlife suffering, is still active in the world and executing justice. That God can fulfill His love by securing ourselves an afterlife and giving His company and friendship to believers, and can still execute justice ... ie punish severe evil and make a difference between, say, a christian nazi and jewish Anne Frank. This seems to be a good way of living with the bible and its messages. Doctrines such as eternal suffering for unbelievers can be removed from our repertoire of christian teachings. And without them, and without the mosaic code, we have for ourselves a peaceful life in freedom with Jesus in our very hearts, without having to worry for ourselves and for our loved ones and our and their eternal destiny, because the God of love would surely will that after death we live with Him and with each other in happiness.
  15. Hi dutch, thank you for your kind advices. I find them very reasonable and would like to take them to heart. Before I became a christian I was very independent. I found happiness in being on my own. I already honored Jesus then, but my image of Jesus was that of a kind of anti-hero that preached love and forgiveness, not "righteousness" and punishment. Do you think it's possible to regard the Pauline and other scriptures as imperfect? Sometimes I think my time in biblical christianity really messed me up. That there are better ethics and better philosophies of life to be found outside of the bible. But during my time in biblical christianity it's like I got brainwashed. Doctrines like the hellfire punishments or the idea that human law must include death penalties and all that, they really freak me out but if I just read the bible exegetically the ideas make sense. But I can't forget the tenderness with which I thought before I became a christian. For example, I was sure that Jesus saved all men. That there is no point in nationalism or right wing policies. I was so sure of that. Now I so easily loose hope for muslims. I used to have no issues at all with gays, now I always hear these Pauline words that gays are perverts, or the voice of the mosaic code according to which they are abominable. But how can I see the kind and forgiving Jesus if I must start with the law? And if God is not a friend of the mosaic law, why did He institute it to begin with? I love the 10 commandments, they are good for society building. I also enjoy the 2 love commandments, the festivals and the religious feasts like the leaf hut feast and others. But the harsh death penalties for sinners, they really freak me out. But I can't shake the thought that God wants them. So I feel like being pushed into the rebel's corner. I don't want to be there. I want to live in love with God. But I don't know if that's even possible... it's so tiring. The only light I have is the Taize stuff, it's so peaceful and it feels like they know what holiness is...
  16. Hello, I suffer from some bad mental health problems (schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and depression). I developed these problems in the same time that I was discovering the christian faith for myself. I'm not sure about how much of this is illness and how much it is my personality, but basically I quickly began getting fearful impressions about God. I wanted to believe in a good Jesus who would guarantee an afterlife and who would accompany us into the future, but then I began reading the bible and I started to have many religious fears, ie is God maybe an evil oppressor, must I satisfy God before He loves me, is the severe mosaic law with all the death penalties for small sins really in the will of God, and so on. I had these fears but I saw other christians living rather happy lives ... they were not always exulting with joy and also knew hardship and pain, but they seemed to be largely free of the fears that plagued me. I began thinking of the faith as a means that would restore my mental health, and subjectively sometimes this meant success, although I must say that I never felt as mentally free and happy and normal again as I felt before I got the illness and delved into religion. At this time I am a torn person. After years of thinking and seeking I am trying to live my christianity in the spirit of the french Taize community, ie I am ecumenical, I don't believe in hellfire doctrines, I am rather pacifistic and I try to live in God's love. (http://www.taize.fr/en) But while I put my faith in these things and in Christ, I am nevertheless usually unhappy. I am confused easily, have panic attacks that visit me, disturbing thoughts and emotions, I am depressed frequently and I can't ever seem to be as glad and mentally sound as I was before I got sick. And always my mental malady is mixed with fears of God. Between 2003 and 2006 I enjoyed three years of mental wellbeing, I felt like before I became religious and had pretty much no issues. But in that time I didn't engage in christianity anymore and had distanced myself from the bible. 2006 I started with the faith again and after a short time had the same issues again that I couldn't shake. What would you do in my situation?
  17. Jesus was considered a Rabbi by most of the jews, and Rabbis always tried to fulfill the law. In Judaism, fulfilling the law means finding the right interpretation. So basically, Jesus said he's not gonna dissolve the law, instead He would show the right interpretation. That meant things like Jesus putting faith in God before any law-doing, giving a sacrifice that would be valid once and for all and for everyone, and showing how forgiveness is easily found in God. Moreover I think that Jesus many times uses irony, sarcasm and hyperbole in his sermons. For example, the words about cutting off hand and feet and plucking out the eye. Basically Jesus was speaking about the phariseic notions that were the understanding of the law back then, and He ridiculed them and instead made visible a kind of hierarchy between the commandments in the law, ie the law to love your neighbor was seen as greater than "stone the adulterer". Just perceive how the law was really supposed to work in Israel if you place "love your neighbor" above "stone the offender". There would have to be a culture of love that is stronger than crime and than the wrath of the righteous as well. A truly superhumane ethics that with Jesus help erects a wholy different idea of righteousness that delights in saving everyone from death, including bad criminals.
  18. Thank you for the comments. Has anyone here maybe read Heinlein's novel? In this book the main character of the novel is part of a line marriage. Basically it is a huge family with maybe 10 wives and 10 husbands, and many children. And they form something like a clan, having their own huge home in a tunnel system on the moon. The thing was, the main character expressed how he enjoyed having so many "partners". They all consciously tried to make it work, especially the women who, in the novel, have more authority and political power than men. So for example, they all tried to help each other and while some were closer to each other than others in the family, there was a lot of understanding and mutual support. But maybe it's kind of a dream to have such line marriages, and in reality on this Earth in our time here now it could not work. I'm not sure and can't decide myself. If there'd be a chance to be part of such a big family that is actually working, I'd be happy to join it, but I'm not sure how jealousies and envies are kept in check. But who knows, maybe such line marriages would work better than I can see here now, and there wouldn't be much jealousy and envy. It depends how willing to show love the people in the marriage are. And how they would handle it if one of them felt bad or felt jealousy and wanted to be alone with his "favourite" among the other husbands/wives. I felt especially interested in the other men that would be part of the marriage. I mean, suppose two men love the same woman, could they overcome their jealousies and desires and support each other loving their wife, or would they start to fight?? I saw this movie once, "Gloomy Sunday", about such a menage a trois in Budapest, Hungary. They really helped each other and lived together, and gave each other strength in a life that was threatened by the nazis (the movie played in the 1930's).
  19. Hello, I've wanted to ask you about something that would be really untraditional in christianity. It's the idea of bigger relationships than the 1-1 relationships that we usually regard as the best and also as the only really valid form of romantic relationship. I got this idea mainly from seeing documentaries about some indigenous peoples that still practice it, and from the book "The moon is a harsh mistress" by Robert Heinlein. The idea is, to have a marriage that includes more than 2 people, ie marriages of 3 or maybe even 4 or 5 people. Not like in the OT where a man could have many wives, but wives couldn't have many men. The ideal would be marriags of 2 women with 2 men. I know this idea rings strange in our ears, but it seems to me that it could prevent base fornication and also reduce affairs and adultery. Basically, 3 or more people in the marriage could produce a form of romantic living together that could be really wholesome and healthy for us. I know that indigenous peoples who practice such forms of partnership really enjoy much joy and love and also a whole another sense of peace in the partnership. Instead of being a 1-1 love cell, you could have more people to turn to, and when all members of the "marriage" would stick to each other in such a way, there would be so much love and safety. Am I deluding myself with this idea? I mean, while I can imagine that such a partnership could be as beautiful and good as I wrote above, I also feel like there could be struggle and unpeace, that humans don't really fit to such partnerships, I just don't know. What do you think?
  20. Hi Paul, about the "atonement", I think of it differently. It has many facets. One was, for example, to put a seal on Jesus' life - this guy lets evil men kill him to preserve His ideal of love. And the resurrection is the message that not even death can ultimately destroy us. And then there's the facet of Jesus throwing the devil out when going on that cross. This pacifistic attitude of God Himself on that cross shows that God rather dies than avenging Himself (Father, forgive them, they know not what they do). And I think the Cross must also be seen as a theater play, in a way. It is teaching us about our ideals, and about real life, and for me the resurrection event is true and historical, giving myself a true hope, and not just for me but for all. Tough reality may look like it is winning often, many times good men were broken and evil laughed. But while evil still exists, good still exists too. Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer were crucified by the Nazis, but they got resurrected into the german conscience. There are always lights for those who need hope. And personally I really believe in an afterlife where all of this will make even more sense and where the God of love and goodness has really free hands. In this life here we may not have evidence for that, but I believe in it because I know I have to. All of our pain and love and suffering and misery must find its solution some day. And that's what God said is His "duty" even to show us and to convince us about, either here in this life or later after death.
  21. I would agree that ethics are our own choice. It's how we rise some levels, spiritually speaking. It's also the reason why Jesus Christ always worked with faith. First there is an experience, an observation, getting an idea, getting persuaded by something, and then you need to "keep" what you have arrived at. Sometimes this seems easy, but it also has been hard for me. The thing for me is, I do not have a simple moral rulebook. I try to go by the 10 commandments and by the 2 love commandments because they seem pure and noble and only seem a light and reasonable burden to me. But many times I find myself in a state of confusion by the world and by my internal life (I have schizophrenia), and at that point I know I can't simply march forward but instead must sit at the fireplace of the past once more, so again I'm going to the 10 commandments and the 2 love commandments. And I'm trying to approach Jesus about these things to know He's with me. But I know I can't turn this into a blueprint for another small theocratic group or church. I've just decided at some point there's got to be enough lest I'd become rabbinical and invent rules to keep my Torah pure and untouched. Ethics have to do, for me, with "know thyself" and "know God". In my view, a homosexual should find out if he's really homosexual or if he's just following some momentary excitement. I don't believe that God makes any forbiddance of homosexuality, so the homosexual is free, but again going from my own experience (I've had autogynephilia and got rid of it because it wasn't what I thought it was, it was just a kink thing), sometimes it can be a lifesaver to really know yourself and to find yourself in God. For example, I've studied transsexuality, and there are not only those transgendered people who feel happy in the new gender, there are also those who feel great misery after surgery, and that could have been avoided. I don't mean any wrath of God, just a sincere knowing and understanding yourself. But know thyself doesn't seem to be acknowledged in many churches. You're just supposed to satisfy a standard in the fear of God. This can work for some people but it has broken hearts and meant pointless suffering for others.
  22. KayHarker, in a sense it is like that. I drew the idea from the biblical statement that what the jews experienced in the Old Testament was their school unto Christ. Likewise I think paganism served as the school for the Gentiles. CS Lewis and GK Chesterton wrote about how pagan religions contained myths and stories about gods and heroes doing things very similar to what the bible tells about its people. So in effect God prepared the Gentiles for God just like the jews were prepared. But not perfectly of course. I mean, we believe in a good Christ so if someone follows an evil way, He can say my way was Christ - but he would also have to notice that his walk on his own way was not a good example of walking through life. Whereas other pagans could have said, I did good things, I didn't sell myself short. Again I would use the example from south american paganism - Quetzalcoatl was a relatively good deity and his teachings centered on peace, but Tetzcatlipoca was a bloodthirsty tyrant deity that wanted human sacrifices. The thinking of good and evil remains important, we can't just do whatever comes to us, or we're mistreating OUR way, OUR truth, and OUR life - and in Christ this necessity also has its place when Jesus tells us to love each other and to follow a decent morality as expressed, for example, in the 10 commandments. If we don't do this discerning thinking we're only halfheartedly following our way, we're only halfheartedly seeing the truth, and only halfheartedly living the authentic human life. That's what I tried to explain. You can have a way of life that is really not christian in the way the church would like it, but if you walk this way of life honorably and decently, there's Christ in it. And there are christians who follow this Christ in a christian fashion and yet they have less honor and decency in it than, say, a muslim or pagan who rejects to adopt the christian faith. And I think even in very bad people like historical tyrants and cutthroats or such, there is a remnant of the Christ way, truth and life. For example, I thought a lot about Hitler sometimes and that he was an evil man really, but if you go through his history you can find noble things like him caring for his mother and nursing her when she got sick, as a young man. And just like this, there are always remnants of the good even in very evil men, and that also is Christ.
  23. I think what you have to do is to embrace "spirit", or "Geist", as we germans say. Personally, I find a good example of the spirit at work in the "poetic". As an example, a table with a clean ashtray with a burning cigarette in a pub shortly after opening, and a woman sitting on a chair reading a book. Moments like this appear to me like little bridges into Heaven, into the eternal. The spirit is always about the eternal that is better and even more real, in a way, than the earthly. When we feel real love, like you obviously share it with your wife, we KNOW something about eternity, the emotion is just so massive and if you couple it with spirit, like in good music, poetry, philosophy, you always touch the eternal, at least the eternal in such a form that it would amaze humans again and again and inspire people even in unspiritual hellholes like nazi germany. And about summerland, I had visions once about a christian idea of it. Please look into multiverses, spirit planes and all that, the idea of an afterlife really meshes well with a multiverse. One could see life like a 5th dimension because it is different from anorganic happenings in the universe. In a way, a tree or a bush "grows" very differently than when a new vulcano breaks up. And dimensions like the geometric ones, they don't break up, they are just there and just appear differently. So life also appears differently and changes and morphs, it doesn't simply break up. I'm not sure you can find scientific proofs for an afterlife, but you can find many possibilities, and then you can consult your own spirit where you find the desire for the afterlife, especially because you love someone and don't want to exist without her or him. And in that you have God and His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Your own true humanity's calling you. Trust your wife and explore this matter together. Watch "Ghost" again with Patrick Swayze. Read, study, pray, seek. And understand your own doubts, where they are coming from and what they're supposed to question - not the good and the truly precious, but the bad and the meaningless. Trust your own spirit instinct and be careful before you justify a fear.
  24. I believe that there is a great variance of ways of being a christian. You'll certainly find your place, don't let the ideologues fix you in a cage. Jesus loves you!
  25. Recently I got an idea that I'd like to see if it's really as fruitful as I first thought. It's about this statement of Jesus Christ: Young's Literal Translation John14:6 Jesus saith to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me; ---- Normally in regular christianity we see this verse as Christ saying, I am the TRUE way, etc. IE, Jesus is postulating the perfect because He is God, He brings christianity, the new and perfect religion. But let us take this verse in a universalist context. Could it be that what Jesus is saying here is, that every human has a way, a truth and a life, and that Jesus IS these things in everyone? That basically, when we meet Christ we meet our own way that wonderously stands up and says Hello, I am God and you can talk with me? That our truth stands up and says, Hello, I am God and I have always been with you? That our own life stands up before us and says, Hello, I am God, and I have always loved you? We see the specialness of Christ in His crucifixion where we get an idea what God considers more important - that we get forgiven is more important to Jesus than to preserve His innocent life. And we see he specialness of Christ in His resurrection where God displays His unlimited power which says, yes, my love cost my own life, but I am God, I can take all this crap and still remain, "surviving" even destruction and murder and using this happening as a sacrifice that will aid you getting rid of sin. My idea was, Christ has always been with us, a bit like the book of Hebrews says when it states that Jesus was the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert, not just the cloud column that lead them forward. It's like when a pagan indian says to the missionary, I believe in a truth I have learned in my pagan past, that Quetzalcoatl priest we had gave us sacrifices of flowers, and not of hearts like the Tetzcatlipoca priest demanded. And this truth was Christ to these pagan indians, and the missionaries shouldn't have said this is all pagan crap that you have to leave for christianity, but instead they should have said, see, you and your people already got something from Jesus, let's praise God together that He hasn't been only with the jews but also with so many other people. And it's like when a muslim says, I have always watched my ways, since I was a little boy, I saw the light of justice and righteousness and never wanted to be a criminal. At that point the missionary must say, yes, you knew Christ as the way, the way of the best laws and commandments, and you had made the best of what was open to you. And it's like when an old chinese confucian says, I have always known life, I saw myself in the hamsters I played with as a boy, in the flowers that opened themselves in spring when I was walking through the steppe, I knew that life is tough at times when we must work by the sweat of our brow, and that it is sweet at times when we marry and lead into our home the love of our life. And at that point the missionary must say, yes, you knew Christ as the life, life being what it is and impressing all of us similarly and being our light. But in traditional christianity, we don't say these things. We go to pagans, muslims and confucians not with the intent to show them the God that their heart knew in their way, truth and life, we tell them you never knew anything worthwhile and there is a hell so better accept our precious enlightenment. Mother Theresa was known for the statement that she wouldn't require a hindu to become a christian, that it would already mean so much if she could help a hindu be a better hindu, or help a muslim be a better muslim. The thing is, if we view Christ and the way, truth and life through this lens, then christianity doesn't really have doctrine but that instead it offers Christ Himself - the mercy of God and His love. The everything that culminates in the crucified and risen Lord, just like this bad world here also crucifies us frequently and yet God raises us up again soon after.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service