Ford Madox Brown

I agree wholeheartedly with what's been said here. I too am tired of being told I'm 'not a proper Christian'. One of the reasons I still call myself a Christian is because it's my faith and I won't have it hi-jacked and misrepresented for political ends by fundamentalists. But I see a problem faced by a 'Christian Left'. Most right-wingers would probably sympathise with the aims of right-wing religious fundies, but many onthe Left politically are also opposed to religion generally. Thisnis a problem I face when putting forward left-wing Christian views on discussion boards. many of the people who might sympathise politically say 'all religion is deception' etc. So it's an uphill struggle.

I've only read the main 'Gospel of Thomas'. From what I've read of it and about it, it seems to take us closer to the real historical Jesus than the Gospels which were probably written by Christian theologians about sixty years after Jesus' death, and present the view of Jesus they wanted the world to see. It also gives a good glimpse of how the sayings (attributed, edited or genuine) were preserved over the years before they ended up inthe Gospel narratives. it explains why the Gospel naratives tell us nothing about Jesus' private life, his appearance or personality: because all they had was the legend, and the collections of sayings. I think it's very significant that S. Paul never quotes Jesus' words. In afct his knowledge of jesus' life seems very sketchy. To him HJesus is alredy and apocalyptic legend. I find 'Bible-believing' Christians, who think that the Gospels were written by the Apostles, are very uneasy about the Gospel of Thomas, and the other Nag Hammadi texts (they're all on an excellent 'Nag Hammadi' web site, by the way) and don't like to discuss them.

hi, Simpleman, erm... would you care to re-phrase that in a way which makes sense on a 'progressive Christianity' board?

Hello, Writer, you seem to have encountered the problems which ensue from taking Genesis literally. I guess the priest who said that God does not will death was referring to the theory, set out by a traditional interpretation of Genesis, that God intended us to live in perfect harmony with Him, and we brought death on ourselves by eating the forbidden fruit. The question of how all these immortal people and their offspring would fit on the earth is solved by the limited knowledge of the authors of Genesis. They didn't know the limits of the earth, there was no awareness that its resources would be finite, and they had no conception of the idea of over-population. This is just one of many ways in which Genesis can be sen as clearly not document to be taken literally, as History or as Science. To do either is to do grave disservice to a beautitful legend. Where it is relevant to us is as a myth expressing the fulfilled life we can live by living in harmony with the planet. i tend to think that the useful or realistic interpretation of 'God' is the energy behind the creation, or what we used to call the 'laws' or the balance of nature. By respecting it we will ensure not specific immortality for each of us but a lasting and more satisfying life for our species, and that i think is a useful modern interpretationof 'returning to God's love' as the OT expresses it..

Hi, Resurrection-believer, I can give ony my personal views as I know very little about the history of Christianity. At my present stage I would go so far as to say that I think it may be a mistake even to spend time and effort debating whether or not the Resurrection of Jesus was a real, bodily event whcih too place on one specific day in History. This is because such a discussion throws emphasis on the supposed importance of the historical Jesus, and prevents or discourages people from gaining a wider, liberating view of the meaning of Life and Death by understanding that all the stories we have, whether the Bible, the Epic of Gilgamwesh, the Iliad, Beowulf, The Brothers Karamazov, or even maybe the Lord of the Rings (I haven't read it) are myths to give expression to the inexpressible within the human psyche. So as you can guess I'm not a great fan of literal 'biopics' of Jesus! For me Jesus is not a person who lived 2,000 years ago but a very relevant concept for today. Whether or not it happened (and it may have done) is not the important thing. For me resurrection means the new life you can live by resolving your divided nature. Whether you do this by being a traditional Christian, by attending a performance of 'The Midsummer Marriage' , by being a Druid, or by psychoanalysis, matters not. It's the end result that matters. I have great espect for the traditions of Christianity in teaching a good way of life for humanity, but I have nothing but contempt for the 'exclusive school' who say 'believe our version or go to hell'.!

I think you've done the right thing, mzmolly. If your friend cannot accept that you can still be a friend and give your honest answer to his/her letter, then I think that calls into question what sort of a friend they are. I have always regarded this 'end times' scenario to be a desperate attempt by fuindies to capture converts in an age when traditional 'Bible-believing' religion has less and less credibility and power. My arguments have always been that there is no evidence to show that the Biblical prophecies were intended to refer to any but their own times (e.g. the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD) and that the various vices and abuses, which they describe as a prelude to the End, have always been very prevalent, especially in the Middle ages. In my experience most Bible-thumpers are very naive and poorly-informed about history. Some think that England in the late Victorian age really was a godly and blessed couintry to live in. We all know that life on earth could end at any time; my understanding is that August 14, 2116, is the most likely date, when Comet Smith-Tuttle is set to collide with Earth. but the idea that anyone could predict this 2,000 years ago is sheer fantasy. Worse , it does a disservice to what the Bible is all about, and to those who wrote it. .

I agree with angelus and fatherman. God, for me, is the energy behind the universe, not a thinking decidign, personality. So sayong 'god knows everything' is true in a sense, though it is way of imagining it, rather lioke models of the universe which are not inaccurate but cannot represnt it actually. I aslo feel that 'evil' is a human way of making sense of what happens. We cannot say animals or earthquakes are evil, because they are natural. Evil is an event we disagree with. That doesn't follow that God disagreed with it. The people I feel uncomfortable with are hose who say God chose to save the real Christians on 9/11 by delaying their train or causing their child to make them late, and thus miss the disaster. This is surely a God who is not worth believing in, a God worth Manfred shaking his fist at..

That sounds fine to me, fatherman, although I'm no historian. My reading onthe subject being confined fto Evelyn Waugh's novel 'Helena', abnout the mother of Constantine, who reputedly recovered the True Cross. Of course the change, which you mention, from perseucted minority to compulsory world religion was traumatic for the Church. One could argue some of them never quite got over it.

Hi, Cat, as I understand it the biblical stance is this (I'm not advocating it or defending it!): the church does not marry people. they marry each other when they become 'one flesh'. the church blesses or witnesses their union. So two people living together are technically 'married', that is why it is wrong to marry someone else afterwards. Now, as to gays, the Bible rules were written in an age of high infant mortality when the survial of the tribe depended on maximum effort given to producing offspring. At the same time, departure from the 'norm' was frowned on as it worked against uniformity . In an age when we are producing too much offspring the existence of a proportion of society who are not engaged in procreation may be seen as a balancing influence and therefore more welcome. So the Bible view is obsolete. In any case it could be argued endlessly whether the infamous verses really do refer to gays. they are notoriously vague and S. Paul's references probably were to pederasty, a problem in Corinth and Galatia at the time, rather than same-sex love as we know it. But, as other posters have said, that's not good enough for fundies. I think their stance over the Bible and Gays shows them up in their true light. They are really anti-gay people who want to find 'respectable' backing for their prejudice. I know I'm sticking my neck out but, as a heter myself, I am apalled by the anti-gay prejudicve I see, and think it should be seen for what it is. it has nothing to do with the love of Christ as I read it in the Gospels.

Hi, angelus, I'm no scholar, but I believe most of this widening of belief took place in the early church, stemming from S.Paul, who preaches against compulsory circumcision, and prohibited foods. the inspiration for all this, I think was the need to accept more and more gentiles as Christians, so the Church felt the urge to move away from being a splinter-group of Judaism. Their justification was the many parables and passages in the gospels which foretell the giving of the Gospel to the gentiles after the Jews had rejected it. In the same way the Christians moved Sabbath to Sunday, to show they were placing the Resurrection first , or as a second Passover, if you like. Of course the question of what Jesus actually, specifically, believed and advocated is very difficult for us to determine, if one accepts that we have only the Jesus transmitted to us by the Gospel writers. I think I can say that here! though I'd be howled down by fundies if I said it on 'Premier Online Forum' or the BBC Christian mesage Board! the general impression I get is of a radical rabbi who didn't let tradition get in the way of his messaage but trod carefully enough to get past the rules, until eventually his principles cost him his life. The Divine Tragedy already! he should have listened to his Mother...

Thanks, Brother Rog, I read the thread and think it sums it all up brilliantly. The trouble is, I have to deal with as literalist/fundamentalist who says (in effect) 'yes, the Bible is all literally true, but you need spiritual discernment, not intellect, to undertstand it, and I've got it, and you haven't because you're not a 'real' christian!' QED! But it isn't a serious problem, really.

I'm finding that asking literalist or 'Bible-believing' Christians to support or demonstrate their assumption that the Bible is God's actual words is something of a taboo question. they often make assertions such as 'God says this' when citing a passage in the Bible or putting down some aspect of human behaviour that they disapprove of. In doing so they are making two assumptions: 1. that the Bible really is God's actual words, and not the words of writers, however inspired or devout. 2. That the Bible was intended to refer to the present day. It is my belief that these assumptions are not tenable, and I often ask them to support them. Invariably I meet with anger and curses, accusations of blasphemy, or the extermiost choice: The Bible is either God's own words or a hoax,a forgery. I have no time for extremism. I don't believe that Jesus must be either God or a madman; there are many possibilioties in between. Simlarly, I believe that the Bible was the 'words about God', the writings in faith of sincere theologians (ofetn very cleverly written too!). I am aware that many dogmas hang on the assumpions they make: Creationism, forminstance. But I cannot get them to understand that these are assumptions, and that they are not proven by quoting the Bible! (especially 2 Timothy!)

Hi, DeborahDP, I have just seen our thread. I',m here today because my usual message boards aren't working. I think it's merely common sense that the NT is not literal history, but mostly deliberate legend. that does not mean that the Christ-event is not a powerfuil influence for good in the world. S.Paul never quotes Jesus and appears to know nothing of His life. No-one inthe literalsit camp ever seems to comment on this. Surely the logical answer is that Paul didn't know any of the sayings of Jesus, no the events of His life. To him, Jesus was already a legendary figiure. The gospels were therefore theological documents based onthe OT (cf. Luke and Deuteronomy) wriotten to encourage discipleship in a time of persecution, and bulding a narrative around the surviving sauyiongs of Jesus. It is quite likely that most of the 'events' inthe Gospel narrative never happened. the ancient world did not have a 20th-centurty analytical distinction between fact and legend, living as they did on apre-scientific, pre-historically-minded age. But that does not weaken or invalidate the Christian message. It means we need to focus on just what that message is, for each one of us today.

I think you're quite right about the origin, and istory, of the 'end of the world' scenario, pacigoth. I think it crops up so much wioth fundamentalists nowadays (Revelation, etc.) because it's a vivid image for persuading pweooe to take the Bibel literally. Once they get you to do that, everything in the Bible is literaly and historically true, Noah, Jonah, etc. and you can't use any modern theology. Neat! It is also terribly anti-intellectuial. It samacks of 'we may not be able to read theology books but we've got something you haven't; nyaaah!

Hi, Steve, I sympathise. Like you, I didn't realise that GENUINE literalist fundies still existed until I started posting on the BBC Christian Message Board. it's still my favourite for some wide-ranging knock-about debate and there aren't so manmy hard-line fundies there a now as there used to be, but I can recall some people who really did think God was a listening, deciding , reacting preson who struck dead people who blasphemed agianst him, who saved people from accidents (presumably when he wanted to, not everyone!). The frustrating thing in trying to discuss anything with them is that if you point out a contradiction or ask them anything they can't answer they say 'If you can't accept God Almighty as your Lord then I cannot discuss this with you' or, even worse, 'I must stop this discussion. I feel the Enemy is at work here...'. I think it's well to remember that often they're repeating standard responses from their church. Often you will find a contempt for intelligence or intellect is often displayed.