matteoam

It seems that for some Jews the messiah will be the figure who will restore their people ans make Israel what is is supposed to be. Judaism seems grounded in the here and now and when one loos at Kabbalah there is thus sense that there is the spiritual world and the material are interconnected.

I don't think that the more egalitarian evangelicals overlook passages do my as take them in context. It all seems to come down to what hermeneutics are applied. The troublesome credits which some reject and use as indictments of Christianity are reinterpreted. They and this is as true for Judaism, see the Bible as a conversation between the Divine and human brings which is ongoing. Got done reason more traditionalists seem to think that scripture can only mean one thing and to no ones surprise that meaning agrees with their own view. I would hesitate to suggest any advice about what church to find do long you know yourself and what you seek.

Constantine is an incredibly interesting period which Christians tend to gloss over. He was an Arian, which was eventually considered to be a heresy but which was very popular throughout the Roman world. He may have done some good in telling all the various factions of the faith cut the bs and get their story straight. Yes the early followers were Jewish, but matters got someone complicated when Paul and others I presume tried to make the gospel more inclusive to GentilesI (which basically meant the rest of the world if you weren't Jewish). I am sure the matter wasn't made clearer when the Temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. I can only presume but I think Christianity was more born out of the early church fathers whose supposed teachers were the disciples. These guys really caught the brunt of the persecution and had to work out a religion in order to get people on board. I still feel sometimes that early Christian is not so much a rejection of this or that form, but a synthesis to some extent. I am not a scholar so I cannot prove that. I didn't mean to imply you were bashing anyone. I just have come to the realization that there are people on the boards here who will jump in to bash this or that. I did exempt you from that general statement. Here is a link to a scholar whose podcasts (if you can access a podcast) gives a informative and unbiased (to me at least) overview ofd the historical and cultural period and how Christian and Jewish though evolved. I don't know how to post a direct link. http://www.philipharland.com/

I don't that there was a conspiracy going on. I believe with all their flaws the early Christians reinterpreted scripture in the light of their experience with Jesus and bathe historical context in which they lived. I think if you want to bash people who want to believe (not you Paul but those who express that sentiment) are a bit myopic in their view. They may read the history but I don't think they discriminate enough to let the past be what it is. Sure there is a tension between tradition and the present, and there do many theories of the meaning. At the core if all of it there is a hope that a people will endure and abide. I for one look at scripture as a deep ocean to be explored or an onion with many layers. That is how I see the universe with many many layers. I think the prophecies attributed to Jesus are more than whether or not they were fulfilled. I think they desk with an embodiment of spirit that we as a species can or cannot use to give meaning to our lives. By the way I think this is true of all spiritual texts and traditions. There are prophecies in Buddhism and Hinduism which give their followers hope in endurance.

nyh4225 This is a huge question that you are asking. I don't think you are "missing" anything unless you do not understand why they believe what they do. There is a long history of why they feel the way they do say with respect to women not bring in ministry. My mean they believe they do not believe thst a woman should not teach. This comes from a certain interpretation of 1Timothy 2 in which Paul (some think it was not him) says that a woman should not teach in church. I don't believevthis is sexism as that way of looking at gender roles did not exist in peoples minds then. Today those who generally believe this are called "complementarianists" as opposed to "egalitarian it's". The former think men and women are equal in the eyes if God but have specific roles to play in the church and in life. The later of not think that. There are many egalitarian evangelical churches today thankfully. The later question the former as scripture is full of women who were very active in the early church. Alas patriarchy reigned in all the cultures then and now. It's good that you question this as I think you will find the church that suits your needs and will be filled with holy people. I do not believe all those who hold a complimentarian view are misogynists. I say not all as I think some are. There is a very popular writer around Rachel Held Evans who is part of the emergent church. She and or here's like her (Amy Reeder Worley, Becy Garrison, Joan Ball, Sherri Wood Emmons, and others) who are faithful evangelicals and who have very important things to say about this issue and other. Don't judge those people who you are referring to. Let the Spirit lead you as it appears to be doing and if you try to understand what these people are saying and where they are coming from - and it doesn't make them right - you can make a valid discernment.

The post about a reference in the Hebrew Scriptures that refer explicitly to the Messiah (moshiach) is interesting. Let's ignore Christianity for a second. There is a variety of views on the Messiah in contemporary Judaism- the orthodox, the Hasidic, the Conservative, and the Reform-Reconstructionist. With respect to ancient israel there are references to an anointed one, what he will do, what will be done when he reigns (he is from the line of King David) and what his requirements are. These can he found in Isaiah, 1 and 2Chronicles,Zechariah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos and Psalms. If you look for Jewish Messianism on Wikipedia that is a good place to start. Now my understanding is that Jesus' disciples and the disciples' disviples (the Church Fathers) reinterpreted these scriptures in the light if Jesus. Jesus may or May not have referred to himself (which is part of the whole debate). I think further inquiry on Judaism and its history with respect to messianism is a good foundation about what they mean by the messiah. There is a conflict also between how the Hebrew Scriptures were initially translated into Greek. Gosh imagine if it all boils down to a mistranslation!

Coming to this conversation late but I cannot really judge any church or denomination. I was a lapsed Catholic for a long time but my reorientation with the Roman Catholic Church came through my becoming a Benedictine oblate. It's easy to judge a church and it's members from our own experience but I realized that it a bit disingenuous to do so. Regardless of the views of the RC church which seemingly go against liberal and conservatives culture of the US the RC makes room for authentic spiritual thought. Had I heard of people like Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen, Thomas Berry, Richard Rohr, Jean Venier, as well as the eucumenicalism and interfaith dialogue provided members of monastic orders, not least meaning the rich mystical traditions of these orders, I can come to terms with the more traditional individuals within the RC community. There are "liberal" RCs who are cultural progressives and don't seem to find the doctrines and dogma as foolish. They don't deserve judgement for the differing opinions of laity and the authoritative stance of a certain level of the clergy. The majority of American Catholics don't really listen to their bishops anyway. I don't really buy into most of the doctrine and dogma but it really depends on how you view it. When I hear some Hindus (like Sri Ramakrishna) praise done aspects of the doctrine as something spiritually valid I have to wonder if maybe my view is skewed. I know these are all human constructs and I accept the paradoxes they create as I try to transcend them. I respect Pope Francis I. I respected Benedict XVI though I don't agree with him on issues. As my heart is being opened by God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit I may be a bad Catholic by someone's standards but my conscience is clear with God.

Coming late to this conversation but I have gound the practice of the Divine Office helpful since becoming a Benedictine oblate.

Becoming a Benedictine oblate.

If you have access to podcasts I recommend the 1 year audio bible.

well, I know you were joking. For me this is my sin. And I say this seriously. As much as I like being in the community, I find it hard to maintain myself in it. The reason being that I get depressed when I feel that I have to be a part of one group to the exclusion of another. I feel uneasy about this. I don't know why? I bet I give way too much thought to my beliefs. This is why contradictions arise in my comments. I just want everyone to get along. I feel insecure that I will be susceptible to spiritual pride. I feel that if I don't try to be inclusive I will be exclusive. Maybe it's a shadow part of myself which I'm afraid to really deal with. Maybe like Sartre I think hell can be other people. My biggest fear is what I desire most.

Again don't know why that's happening I hit post once

His stepmother and aunt, Maha Pajapati Gotami, asked to join the Sangha and become a nun. He initially refused her. He relented but made conditions that are controversial today. Pajabit and 500 followers followed him cut their hair, dressed themselves in monks clothes. Then Snanda Buddhas cousin said he would speak to Buddha. He refused Anandas arguments but could not really provide a reason do he relented. Nuns have more rules than rules prescribed to monks as can be found in the Vinaya-pit aka the Tripaka in the Pali Canon. My point is he was a human being and not as special as some make him to be. Scholars argue about discrepancies in the texts and they might have been added after Buddhas passing. Again my point is its a human we're talking about here. Not some otherworldly bring. Same I think is very clear for Jesus and Mohammed for that matter. I mean there's the legend that Allah wouldn't telll Mohammed all his names and told a camel one the 100th one which is why camels look do smugly at us.

His stepmother and aunt, Maha Pajapati Gotami, asked to join the Sangha and become a nun. He initially refused her. He relented but made conditions that are controversial today. Pajabit and 500 followers followed him cut their hair, dressed themselves in monks clothes. Then Snanda Buddhas cousin said he would speak to Buddha. He refused Anandas arguments but could not really provide a reason do he relented. Nuns have more rules than rules prescribed to monks as can be found in the Vinaya-pit aka the Tripaka in the Pali Canon. My point is he was a human being and not as special as some make him to be. Scholars argue about discrepancies in the texts and they might have been added after Buddhas passing. Again my point is its a human we're talking about here. Not some otherworldly bring. Same I think is very clear for Jesus and Mohammed for that matter. I mean there's the legend that Allah wouldn't telll Mohammed all his names and told a camel one the 100th one which is why camels look do smugly at us.

First it what some Christians think it means. Second all the figures of history who have echoed through the ages are humans who don't claim to be any more than that. A "prophet" self proclaimed is still prevalent today as much as a "believer" or a "non-believer". Sorry but Jesus was wrong and so was the Buddha and that is no surprise to many Devout Christians I have come across. Buddha said that women could not attain enlightenment. For me what makes Jesus divine not so much as his unworldliness but his balance of humanity and that divinity (what makes us more human than we imagine ourselves to be). What peoke say about him is another issue that atheism needs to get over and PC does a good but flawed job at perpetuating that. So since fundamentalist Christisns are "right?" about he Bible then PC is wrong. Thing is that fundamentalism has an insecurity problem in that they have too much to lose by doing away with images and idols of their own construction. They need Godvto fit in their pockets. Fine with me that's there thing. I admit my own sins when it comes to idolatry. I don't know what your view of God is do the "warped" is your self-criticism not mine. My goal if you can can it that is to rid myself of all images of God and just be as human as I can. As a Christian I can do that by living in an inclusive way. I don't care so much about what they believe as they do as what they do. I think atheism as a pardifm needs to figure out whatnot is. Western civilization whether it admits it or not has to contend with the Bible. That is it for them. It is impossible to ignore it as resisting it is not going to work. A true atheist would not even speculate on whether or not God exists do much as resist the notion of God and hope he doesn't exist. I don't think one word of the Bible was written for anyone in this day and age but we need to make it relevant for ourselves as a civilization goes. When that really happens then well no one takes The Barton cylinder (Sumerian creation myth seriously as we take the Bible. So Hirchens was right to say everyone is an atheist to some god. I for one think its all (for lack of a better term) God which is to say well it's really nothing. But the SPIRIT I want to live by whether it's a product of neurology or something else IS relevant to me. How I dress it up is up to anyone. I think atheists are spiritusl too. There is no better or worse than there is only in as much of the capacity we are able to manifest according to our growth. Value is merely fore helpful and constructive towards evolution or unhelpful and destructive toward devolution.

I wish authors like Roberts could have their work be more affordable.

I haven't read Spongs reference to it but my familiarity comes from Paul Tillichs use of it. Tillich was a Christisn existentialist philosopher and theologian and made his mark in the 1950s. I don't know how to attach a link with my iPhone but check out Paul Tillich on Wikipedia for a brief summary of the ideas he put forth. My understand is that is not A being but BEING itself. The term is popular in Creation Spirituality - NOT creationism. I'm sure the term is more widely varied. It's worth looking at the work of Matthew Fox which Spong is similar to in a slightly different perspective but the focus is the same. Spong is for lack of a better ten "secular" in his thinking and Fox as liberal minded might be turn off for secularists who might be uncomfortable with spirit talk. Orthodox criticism of Tillich sees the term as being abstract but I don't think do. This same idea is reinforced in early christian spirituality (Gregory of Nysea) but the focus is the authority of the institutional church.

Soma I agree Bill I hear you when you give a reason why you don't believe with Jesus's I Am statement. But isn't that an interpretation. I know Hindus who think that statement is true and they are not Christians. They take it as true because the believe Jesus was an avatar oaks was a teacher of compassion. That statement has nothing to do with a religion for some and it does mean something to some. Even if I were an atheist I would look at the Bible and day hey this is an attempt to be human. Take all the supernaturalist or spirituality out and you have people trying to get over their own limitations and being human with one another. I wish one atheist would use the Bible that way. That would really deliver a blow to the fundamentalism within the atheistic mindset. PC can be this in its inclusiveness.

The Mormons are the most polite. Ive been in conversation with some missionaries but have been avoiding their calls as I don't have time to talk. I feel badly about that. I really should have them over. They always invite me to a service, too. I really admire their purity and faith. I read through the Book of Mormon at their request and prayed as they asked me to. When they asked me if I thought it was true I didn't know how to answer them. Well, yes, I said, I think it's true (being that most of it seemed lifted from the Bible) and I think that it is possible that it all happened the way it reads. Anything is possible. But did I think it showed that the Mormon Church was the true church. I said no. They are persistent too in wanting to meet but not pushy. I am a bit put off by Jehovah's Witnesses (luckily I live in a condo apartment with no way for anyone to knock on the door) as there is too much talk about eternal damnation. I also find Quakers to be very centered, like zen monks without any romanticized notion that they are so perfect. There is a spiritual grounding I sense that I "gulp" envy. The same for the Orthodox Christians. At least the ones I've met.

Actually I love Quaker meetings and attend them. Not sure where I said I don't want to be in a community where people do not sing. In eras of the experience with a PC church I attend it seems that people don't want to sing as the choir sings or don't even say the prays in the liturgy. I have also been to services were there is so much singing and joy that it's pretty overwhelming (not Pentecostal) but there is he sense that people are present as opposed to being there in body. The silence I see in the PC service is not the same silence in the Quaker meetings. Those I can compare. Community for me is not limited to is or that group. Community is the Indian families in my building., the gatherings of strangers at a sports event, and other places in my daily life. If I cannot see al of these as Christ what can I see them as. Sunday is the most depressing day of the week for me because it's the most segregated day and the worst part is that it will never be otherwise.

I don't think science can prove or disprove anything in the bible. I'm with the Dalai Lama who said that if scientific discovery contradicts Buddhism then Buddhism should change. I tend to side with atheists when there is a believer/non-believer debate only to the extent that the non-believer resorts to ad hominen argument, which is why as intelligent as Chris Hitchens I had to roll my eyes at his pointless attacks at people. I not fake the bible literally in the same way a fundamentalist does. I have a much less theistic view of God than orthodoxy does only because I do believe that eventually to truly understand the Divine all images we place on it need to be discarded, as useful as they may be. The arrogance that I see in atheism is the notion of Scientism, a prejorative term I know, but accurate in its meaning. It shows that atheism can create its own religion of sorts. The scientific method should be applied to areas of spirituality and the paranormal, but that will not really happen but those who have invested time and money in a career or have a reputation that might be threatened by serious study in gees subjects. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and now Laurence Krause to some extent have been raised to divine status by atheist-minded people. I love all the work these men have written and I wish they would raise the bar and not diminish themselves by taking part in ridiculous debates. Alas they need to get paid too. I think their impact has been felt thought and they are all relevant for the times but they are passe and have nothing new to offer to the conversation. Well not Krauss. They have done very much for progressive spirituality I think as critical as they. Are of liberal Christianity and people like Marcus Borg and Spong and others who want the faith to evolve. What concerns me about the paradigm of reason they put forth is one that is somewhat intent on shutting down belief that cannot be "proven" beyond Scientism. I don't this is some conspiracy at work but even though their intentions are noble the result may be not what they intend. As far as proving or disproving the miracles of Jesus, well yes the laws of nature cannot be broken. So? I believe In the transformative powers of these stories. Does that make me stupid? I don't care if any of it occurred or not. I really don't. What I care about is how it has saved people. Can anyone really be offended or negatively from the concern of a man who helps those in need of help? Is self-sacrifice such an affront to the sociopathic individualism of our age? In my opinion any negative impact that religion has had on people in the name of God is so beyond that explanation. We may not be guilty of the bad that happens in the world but were ALL responsible for perpetuating it on countless levels to varying degrees. To live with that hope and faith offers is to be truly human. That doesn't mean that you have to believe in a religion that is all bs. I'm talking about being someone in someone else's lives then do it. I sometimes think I don't care if God exists if that (the way god is portrayed by dead civilizations) saw it. I recommend Frans de Waals book The Bonobo and the Atheist. Great read! He considers himself an aptheist someone who doesn't card if God exists. I think the Buddha was one too by the way. "Atheism will need to be combined with something else, something more constructive than its opposition to religion, to be relevant to our lives. The only possibility is to embrace morality as natural to our species." I believe in the possibility that the gospels are true as much as believe that the Buddha meant what he said which is why Buddhism is alive and we'll in the world. My Christianity is not one dependent on creeds and moral prescriptions, or precepts. If other people want that good for them they have tier own karma to work out. I love them anyway. I will not subscribe to hateful remarks about them despite what people have experienced. Anger may be a part of the healing process but it also leaves a deep scar if not balmed with love and forgiveness. I don't buy they idea of righteous anger that Christians pride themselves. It's not useful to the conversation anymore because it has only dominated the conversation and look at all the ego-minded illusion it has perpetuated. We all have to grow up inkwell are going to live together and there is no where else to go to not liverish one another. Love, gratitude, joy, humility, forbearance, patience, these are the only things that matter. Can atheism offer these? I'm not taking morality or even humanism I'm taking about love of humanity. Real genuine love. I think with all it's flaws PC can be more of a genuine faith being as inclusive as it is with atheism. Atheism needs to really grow up just like PC does.

If you were in the same room with a fundamentalist who does what you say they if or believe what you don't you'd gnash your teeth at them. You wouldn't want to ring their neck if they told you how they felt about any issue you didn't agree with? You would think them stupid or delusional for what they believe wouldn't you? Is that love?

You hate them do you not? So you share table with them and aren't get invested in your life? Do you know them or care if they live or die?

I agree that intelligent design should not be taught in schools but that is a debate that has to be addressed like all other issues in a democratic society. I tolerate all forms of belief so long as they are not illegal, despite what my opinion of that belief is. Yes I can see that the events portrayed in scripture are nonsensical and ridiculous. But it is the value imposed on these events that is subjective. So your opinion is your opinion and to go into an "attack" of someone's beliefs is not offering a rational or helpful solution to living in community with people in a democratic survival. I don't care what side of the argument you are on but you ruin the hope of sustainable society with divisiveness and hatred of others.

Thanks!