October's Autumn

Some sites make it so a new poster has to have all of their posts monitored for x amount of posts/time before they can freely post. It would be a lot of work but it keeps spammers away.

Another phrase that is problematic for many Christians is " Christ will come again". It is found primarily in the Apostle's creed.  I generally interpret The Second Coming as the coming of enlightenment to the individual.

 

I know that some Christians are hoping for a vengeful Christ, who is coming back to kick the behind, of those left behind.

 

Does anybody else have an interpretation of the second coming?

 

 

 

MOW

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I only understand it as the early church's belief that Jesus was physically returning. Paul eventually figured out it wasn't happening in his time. I just figure it is not happening and was a mistake of the 1st century church based on their needs at the time.

I noticed no one was concerned about 616 on June 1st. I wonder why? (Okay, I don't, not really) But by the same token they were freaked about 666 they should have been freaked by 616.

I don't.

I kind of figure God is going to do or not do what God wants.

I've seen prayer work to change the individual praying (i.e. me) as far feeling compassionate for someone who I was not particularly liking. But, I've found I can do that on a conscious level much faster

Another thought that occured to me, as an editor, is wouldn't it be cool to redo the Bible, to lose some of the OT, to remove some nonessential passages?  You could end up with something like "The Holy Bible for Dummies" or the Reader's Digest Bible.  For those of you who have studied more broadly, this may already have been done.  Still, I bet that we would all choose different Books that were essential or nonessential. 

It has been done by various people. Luther wanted to throw out James (A book I like) and Revelation (I agree with him on that one). I believe that THomas JEfferson actually took scissors/knife to the bible and cut out stuff he didn't like (I could have the wrong founding father or could be spreading a myth, too). But I personally would like to take out passages, too, maybe not whole books.

Linguists and other expert-experts rearrange text. That makes for some interesting reading because some parts of the bible read differently.

Maybe we could work on that here! Rewrite the bible

Hitler is a great figure for these kinds of discussions because everyone can agree that he doesn't deserve forgiveness or grace or paradise.  Many would agree that if there is a hell, that none is hot enough for a man who did what he did. 

Isn't it possible that Hitler was sociopathic and not responsible for his actions? That he was incapable of knowing right from wrong? That his brain chemistry was such that while his actions were evil he can not be held accountable for them because he could do nothing else?

So many of these questions (How can God forgive Hitler?) are superficial. They fail to recognize the complications of human beings.

How can God be God and NOT forgive Hitler? If one believes in the afterlife those who were murdered by him only lost a few years of their natural life in comparison to eternity. Really, once 10 or 20 or 50 years compared to forever? And what is life on earth compared to life in Heaven/Paradise?

If one believes in the afterlife it seems that they have to recognize that this life is but a second. And what happens here really is quite insignificant.

I sometimes wonder if the differences were intended to be corrections. Did the writers of Matthew or Luke write the story differently because they had the one in hand and thought that it was wrong so they wanted to correct it and wrote it the way they saw it.

or

Are the versions simply theological in nature and the differences are there because they are intended to reflect the theology of the writer.

Or maybe both?

I didn't - and won't - go to Divinity School. But studying religion at my moderate/liberal Baptist University certainly shaped who I am today. Going into college, I was already more moderate and less conservative than my parents, I was just afraid to admit it(lots of long stories there). Through college, seeing the hypocrisy of certain christian students, as well as learning some of the things I learned in classes, finally led me to becoming open to the world of the liberal questioner.

 

Which makes it aggravating to have to still live with my conservative family. Last time my mom and I got in a serious religious conversation, she told me that I was hard-hearted and evil, and would probably die soon  because I was turning away from God. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yikes!

I found the hardest thing about coming from a conservative family and becoming a liberal is feeling isolated. I went to a UU church for a short time and when I said something to my mom she replied with "Oh, they don't believe in anything." So, when I started going regularly to the UCC I didn't bother to tell her.

I found two things that helped me. One was moving/living far away from my family so I only have to deal with them once in a while and the other is finding a social network of those who believe similarly. It was very helpful that the senior minister of my church is about 4 years old than my parents (essentially the same age). I did a "Ha! He is 'old' and he believes like I do!"

It's hard, even, to talk about "God", "Sin", "Faith", "Providence" and more! It's almost necessary to recover the broader, more meaningful definitions and rescue the words from the trash heap of knee-jerk responses

I've been able to do it with who Jesus was, but not much else. Some of it can be done with word study of Greek or Hebrew -- for example "born again" is actually "born from above."

I haven't read the book or seen the movie yet, but I want to. Personally, I don't think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Scholars have pointed out that married women would have taken on their husbands name, or something like that, if I remember correctly. Her using her hometown(Magdala) indicates she probably wasn't married. I do, however, think Jesus was probably married to *someone*.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm inclined to agree with you.

des:

 

You're right about the portrayal of the albino monk. There was an interesting bit on the BBC last week. It seems that The Albino Fellowship in the UK is officially protesting the portrayal as being unecessarily violent and negative. Well...it IS a movie.

They also miss the point. It was the way he was treated (as an outcast) that made it so he could later be used.

And in the end he comes to realize that he had made wrong choices.

He is a very sympathetic character and noone is going to come away from the book or the movie thinking Albino's are violent or evil. If anything they will hopefully see that their negative actions have long term effects on others.

Some of these responses remind me of the certain group(s) who came out against the Jodie Foster movie because it portrayed a flight attendant as a terrorist; apparently all people would then think all flight attendants were terrorists. Honestly, some people need to find something worthy cause to boycott!

It is different if you take a stereotype that is already in place and use it, but to think it is going to create a stereotype...

A sense of being touched by God, yes. But also untouched by humankind. I guess that is why I find nature sacred and a church not.

 

Pure, unspoiled.

 

Are we the world's impurity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We don't have to be. But sometimes we are... I think it is the difference between those of us who see our role as subduing the earth versus those of us who see our role as caretakers of the earth.

I swear the Opus Dei didn't actually read the book. Brown says several times in the book that extremism is rare (of self-abuse). Silas is obviously unusual in his practice. I had a very negative view of the Opus Dei until I read the book. Now, while I disagree with them, as they are portrayed in the book, I don't have any out-and-out objection to them.

Does it bother you? I have a tough time with the jargon of Christianity and have problems hearing the message.

Anyone else have this problem, how have you dealt with it?

As a kid, I think my concept of Sacred was something touched by God.

 

I guess Sacred is a human concept.  Isn't it something  we recognize as having been touched by God.  What hasn't been touched by God, though?  We love to separate...sort.

 

Just more questions...different kind  - Into the Woods

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A sense of being touched by God, yes. But also untouched by humankind. I guess that is why I find nature sacred and a church not.

Personally, I find nature to be Sacred, rather it be listening and watching the waves of the ocean, a quiet lake, a running river, wildflowers in a field, a forest, etc. There is nothing Sacred to me about a sanctuary. It is just a place built by human hands. I have seen some beautiful artistry in a sanctuary, but I wouldn't compare it to nature's beauty.

 

What makes something Sacred?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IME? hmmm... don't know if I can put it into words... let me think a bit...

Not taking a hard-lined approach to the bible makes such a thing difficult.

Studying the bible takes intelligence and time. Work at understanding the culture. I found I gained more from visiting Israel than any book could teach. I imagine, if it were my life's work, I'd spend much more time there. Read books and books about the culture. Study the languages and the history of how the bible came to be.

Thank you for sharing. I get as frustrated with antagonistic atheists as I do fundamentalist/conservative Christians. I am thrilled to see an atheist who recognizes the merit of Jesus as a man (something more Christians could do, imo). And thrilled to see a church who realizes that what is unique about Jesus is who he was as a man, not who apologists have created him to be as a god.

Is the Earth sacred enough that we don't need a Sanctuary?  Or do we still need a place to remind us of the Sacred?

Personally, I find nature to be Sacred, rather it be listening and watching the waves of the ocean, a quiet lake, a running river, wildflowers in a field, a forest, etc. There is nothing Sacred to me about a sanctuary. It is just a place built by human hands. I have seen some beautiful artistry in a sanctuary, but I wouldn't compare it to nature's beauty.

An interesting note on "Eye for an Eye".  My pastor presented that principle as progressive for its time.  Hammurabi's Code (in which eye for an eye is reflected) was not meant to establish vengefulness , it was intended to establish balanced justice regardless of social standing, sex, or age.  Crimes were being punished without regard to the nature of the crime and with partiality toward power structures.   

Thank you. That was also my understanding of "an eye for eye."

It seems the idea of Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth, and the light" is something the writer put into Jesus' mouth.

I like to think of it as Jesus saying "follow me, this is how you go." Rather than Jesus being *the* way. I see Jesus as showing the way (equality for all humankind) rather than being the way as Christianity as traditionally seen him.

"in case of Rapture, my car is yours"

"I never thought I'd wish Nixon were president"

 

flow....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ROFLing

Not yet, but did pick it up the other day at Barnes & Nobel

"We are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus."

 

Lately, I've been reading a number of books, including the gospels, on the life and teachings of Jesus. Being somewhat new to progressive Christianity (but very thankful to find this flavor of the faith), do you think that the life and teachings of Jesus refer to:

 

1. Those of the historical Jesus (as mainly found in the gospels)?

2. Those of the resurrected Jesus (as mainly found in Paul's epistles)?

If I understand your question, the historical Jesus or what at least one can reasonably assume to be the historical Jesus.

Do you think there is a difference between Jesus' earthly teachings and the teachings of Christ that the apostle Paul claimed to have received by revelation?

Absolutely. They are as different as night and day. Paul is about Christ returning in glory "any day, now" and Jesus is about ushering in the Kingdom of God/Heaven in the here and now based on how we live our lives -- not in the sense of do we have sex before marriage but in the sense of do we feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

If you do see a dichotomy there, which teachings seem to help you most in your approach to God?

Since Christ didn't return in Paul's time as he expected I put some (although not necessarily all) of what he said in the same box as any other "the end is near" type person.

When I got to know the historical Jesus I found a connection for the first time. I never felt connected to Christ where as Jesus I could identify with as real, live human being. That was part of what I experienced on my trip to Israel. I've always connected to God directly, not through Christ. I never prayed to Christ or anything like that because it didn't mean anything to me. But I felt like I have a better view of God after I met both Jesus and many of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible who have similar messages. Even the Torah reveals a great deal about God's desire for us to have compassion on those who are vulnerable. I went from the common belief that the God of the OT is angry all the time and the God of the NT is loving and caring to realizing they are one in the same. Our misconceptions come more from proof texting, idolizing the bible, and Sunday School than from the scripture.