StillSeekingGod

thormas

I don't really understand what you're trying to say... Could you explain it differently?

Your hypothesis is testable and someone has certainly done it. One can fairly easily analyze the word usage in the original Greek and see how both parts compare.

There are some commentaries online where you can read an academic opinion. It's a good practice to read a couple after finishing a book. There is a lot of understanding that you miss if you don't.

I am planning to read all gospels first and form my own opinions in dialogue with my partner and on here, before I do that but I am planning on it. I've only been reading for a week or two. I'm a Christian baby, really.

Mark is an interesting Gospel in that as the widely recognised actual first gospel, the author does not promote a physically resurrected Jesus. Perhaps the earliest Christians didn't believe in a physically resurrected Jesus?

Well, I don't really believe in a physical resurrection which is why I quite liked the gospel of Mark.

The question of "value" is for me the interesting one. Is the "value" in the text itself, in ourselves, or somewhere in between?

 

Again, "authentic" compared to exactly what?

 

Please don't mind me.......as said elsewhere, I'm harmless.

 

Happy Face.

Well, I feel as though there must be value in the text, cause if it was in ourselves we wouldn't need scriptures... but then we wouldn't know of Christ and what he ministered and stood for. It might be somewhere in between, but I do think that there is value in scripture.

The Gospels are all "according to" and not "authored by". Someone wrote down Mark's verbal history. It's very possible that there was more than one secretary recording Mark's story.

I don't really seem to agree. It could be possible, but the style in which is was written seems to be quite the same throughout the gospel until you get to the 'added' ending and there it seems like someone with a completely different view of Christ wrote it. So... I know it is according to, I recognise that but like I said, it seems to have had one writer that was deemed quite credible considering it ended up in the Bible, and then the added end is like someone decided to write a bit of fan fiction.

During my scripture reading days Mark was always a favorite. The little parables of the kingdom were living words. Now, considering the questions posed here, I wonder just what it means to say that the ending we now have is not "authentic" and was added "later".

 

"Authentic" compared to exactly what?

I guess authentic as in the ending is from the same writer, and also if it is not from Mark, which it really doesn't seem to be, then how much value is there in the content of the text.

I just found it quite... shocking, sort of a whiplash because Jesus suddenly, in those verses, appears to become someone completely different. It was just very strange to me..

I feel picking up snakes is not literal, but referring to people who are afraid of Satan or anything they feel will dirty their soul, but the soul is not affected by dirty hands because it is beyond the material realm. It seems many Christians are paralyzed because they give too much power to Satan and judgments that they think are against God, which says nothing about the judgments but more about them, their fears, weaknesses and lack of spiritual relationship with the soul. I feel it is saying the spirit or God is the strongest force the collective consciousness that repels any negative unit consciousness so don't be afraid of anything in any realm if you are right with your true self.

I am not native English speaker and that is a bit too much for me. Simple English, please? I just really don't understand what you mean.

Are you looking for new arm candy already?

Also I'm gender queer, not really 'female'. So, you're the only woman here, really. LOL

(Don't worry, I know you didn't want to out me as gender queer.)

I believe the consensus of most biblical scholars is that another writer added 16:9-19 to Mark.

 

As for snakes, Moses???? But I would think many do not accept these verses as literal.

Is there a reason you use all those question marks?

Well, yes, probably another writer but it just seems like that writer made Jesus into someone else all together. Is there anything known about the writer? Or not at all? To your knowledge, I mean.

Hi baby

Isn't she marvellous?

Firstly I'm this wonderful womans partner and secondly thank you to all of you who have given her such good advice and providing such a supportive and welcoming atmosphere.

Am I the only one just confused? I mean, I have no clue what Artyop is talking about or trying to say...

Welcome though. You just seem a little frustrated. I was banned from a couple of other Christian sites as well, because of different reasons but it does make you a little angry. I hope you'll respect the rules and find a place here.

Hello

I just finished the gospel of Mark and in a note in my Bible it said that 16:9-19 wasn't there in the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses. It also seems to be in a completely different style than the rest of Mark, at least in my opinion. Also, are there any other references in the Bible to people picking up snakes and not being poisoned because that all seems to be a little out of the blue... (This is the first full gospel I've read, that is why I don't know)

I was just wondering what others find of the last verses of Mark and what they see as the value of this bit of text, what they read into it.

If you can tell them in English just speak slowly. "I....am.....a.....theist...."

In Flemish that isn't really a solution but thank you for your creativity

You say you're looking to Jesus and the bible more as a guiding light as how to live your life. I wonder if your parents would be as concerned about that perhaps compared to say being a Christian believer who believes you must accept Jesus as a persona saviour or you're going to Hell etc etc. Perhaps as atheists that might be more their concern rather than whether you're using this or that philosophy to help you through life. Perhaps.

Perhaps. I could try to explain it like that if I have to. They just see any type of spirituality as dumb and as something for weak people... So it worries me.

People gave you some great advice. I just have to say you believe in the consciousness of Christ so you can say you are a Christian, but having said that you don't have to say a thing, live the mind of Christ and you don't have to say a word. People who are trying so hard to make others Christian are really trying to convince themselves because they have doubt. You are feeling something enjoy it and the ride and people, your parents will feel the joy, let them enjoy it too.

If I gave the impression that I want them to be Christians, then you've got it all wrong because I really don't. I just want to stop hiding all traces of Christ and Christianity and I live at home. I live with my parents and I generally never go out on Sunday and now I would like to go to a church in the city. They are going to start asking questions and then I do not want to lie...

You are right that I don't have to say anything but that also means that I will have to lie at some point and that doesn't sit well with me.

Still seeking God, Nice name and we are interested where you are at, you can help us in our journey and hopefully we can help you especially because you are from another part of the world and can teach us with a different angle looking at life.

I am excited to get to know more people, get to know more about Christianity and as a Belgian I do think I have a different experience of faith then for example Americans. I'm just really happy I found this place, cause the other forums I was on censored me heavily...

 

My apologies on my assumption ...

 

Personally I am an agnostic and not really of any faith other than there is a reality beyond my perception and that my perception is at least to some extent a reflection of that reality. So based on what I have seen the Progressive Christian faith is a reasonable model to base one's actions. I think acceptance in the sense of understanding is a reasoned path to take. That is not to say we will not have adversaries (humans and situations) in our lives and we will have to interact and deal with, be one with etc.

 

You will find that at this forum people will draw from various traditions and texts, not just Biblical when they want to make a point. Again personally I am skeptical of the traditional personal Christian God. I accept Christ as a myth, and here I am not being derogatory. I don't know whether Jesus existed or not, but I certainly don't believe in any literal interpretations. The tricky bit is how to interpret these myths and you will have no end of fun working out your own interpretations.

 

Can I suggest The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell (the coffee table version) It originally was a TV series on PBS and is available from libraries on DVD. It gives an interesting view on how to handle our major religious texts. I did not agree with much of what Campbell wrote but it was interesting nevertheless.

As I see my faith evolving now, I don't think I'll ever believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical texts. I really find using the God, Jesus and the Bible as a sort of guiding light, a sort of way of life very interesting and very useful. Will I ever believe that Jesus walked on water? No, I'm pretty sure I'll never get to that point but I do find it very interesting to find the different possible meanings of parables and texts extremely interesting as well as sharing those interpretations with other people and talking about them.

I will check that out once I do not have to study anymore. Thank you for the tip!

Welcome!

I'm new here as well!

Hi there, it certainly is a sign of the times that - apparently - your parents are OK and accepting of the fact you are gay yet you worry about revealing your leanings towards Christianity. You say your parents will not be "happy" so that is all I have to go on. Like Christianity itself, Atheism has many mansions, from Militant to By Default.

 

It is difficult for me to presume to offer tips as I tend to stumble along myself, often looking around for any tips on just how to take the next step. Happily I tend to be moved less and less by whatever judgement or reaction others have.

 

In your first post you said that you wanted to be a Christian if you are able to. ​I only have the words to go on, but to me they imply you envisage some sort of standard to achieve, to live up to. I can only speak for myself by saying that such a way of seeing things invites trouble. I have known it. For me it is about acceptance, pure and simple.

 

In Buddhism there is the distinction drawn between being a Buddhist and being a Buddha. Everyone loves a Buddha, but Buddhists tend to either bore others or drive them crazy.

 

Anyway, I am beginning to waffle. Best of luck.

Well, I am not at the point where I'd confidently call myself a Christian as I feel like I don't know enough about the scriptures yet to do so. It is just that I feel that one day I'll probably be at that point, but I just really don't want to hide things from my parents and lie. I really don't find that correct...

Either your parents will understand or they won't.

 

You are not entering into a relationship with your parents, you already have one with them. But here is a question or two ... are you seeking a god because you are entering a relationship with your Christian partner? Will he love you any less regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof? Will you (both) be happy?

 

In Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, she had one concept I heartily agreed with, she was gently admonishing Christians for focussing on their belief whereas Christians 'should' be focussing on their actions. This is of course true for those that have a lack of belief or an active disbelief.

 

So both from a parental and partnership point of view, never mind beliefs, what are your actions going to look like?

My partner is female and I am female also.

Anyway, she didn't mind me not believing but it is through her and her church that I started to become interested in the scriptures and now that I am reading them I really feel like it is something I want to follow and find purpose in.

I agree that I should focus on my actions and making them as Christian as possible, but this really is about not wanting to lie nor deny Christ when I fully accept him. I am now, as I said in a reply to another user, literally hiding my Bible.

You know your parents better than anyone else, so you need to ask your voice of reason. But, it seems to me when someone is very excited about a newly found spiritual path (or any other path for that matter), and they suspect they are about to get cold water thrown in their face, it might be wise to hold back for a while.

 

You have no obligation to share your spiritual life with any other human. It's an "inside" job, so it will manifest (hopefully) to others in the manner in which you live your life.

 

Peace,

Steve

Well, I want to wait but right now I am literally hiding my Bible and not reading the Bible out loud when my parents are upstairs, in case they could hear.

I'm not very comfortable with that but I'm also not comfortable with having to explain myself and sort of avoid the truth as well as avoid lying. I also don't want to deny following or wanting to follow Christ, as I don't believe that is right.

Hello everyone

I am on my way to discovering God and Christ and I feel very, very drawn to progressive Christianity.

I am very happy with this discovery but I am quite sure that my parents will not be.

They raised me atheist and I really don't know how to go about telling them about my potential new found faith.

Does anyone have any suggestions or tips? Has anyone gone through this?

This is a dead thread. Inactive for years and I don't think any of the posters are still around.

 

Have you have read Romans? Chapter one is often used to preach against homosexuality, so that might be a good place to start.

I have read it. All I read is a text about lust, not love which just leads me to believe that the concept of loving, committed homosexual relationships wasn't something that the people of that time understood. All I interpret is that homosexual lust is not something positive. It tells me absolutely nothing about the value or the sinful nature of a loving, committed homosexual relationship. Sleeping around and satisfying lust is completely different from finding someone that you love and building a life with them.

In alluding to inclusivity, Point 4 says that we are Christians who are welcoming of "those of all sexual orientations". Given a recent book discussion that we are having on this forum, I thought it would be good to ask: does this stance apply to:

 

1. Pedophiliacs?

 

2. Rapists?

 

3. Those who commit incest?

 

4. Sadomasicists?

 

What do you think? Should we really be open to "those of ALL sexual orientations" or should lines be drawn? If you think lines should be drawn, where should those lines be? Would you be comfortable worshipping or fellowshipping with someone who has the above mentioned "sexual orientation" for the sake of inclusivism?

I don't really understand why number four is in that list?

Also, what if people are one of the first three but recognize it is wrong to act on the feelings they have because it hurts others? Shouldn't they be allowed to be a Christian and join this blog? Thoughts and actions are two different things...

It is just something I wanted to ask, I have no real answer to all my questions. I just wonder what you, and others, think.