Is Humanity Fallen?

[jamesAMDG]

Before, I respond to any specific thoughts and things people have posted in response to what I wrote about Original Sin, I figure I'll try and answer a few fo the questions that people have asked (and amusingly discussed) about my intentions and a slightly longer biographical sketch.

 

As noted earlier I am 23, Catholic (orthodox Catholic, whether you want to call me a fundamentalist or whatever, I'm down with the Holy Father, I believe that Scripture is inerrant, I believe in the seven Sacraments, I believe in all the elaborations and explanations contained in the Catechism, you get the idea). I am a university student and so I don't get all the time I would like for reading posts, writing posts and doing the research for my posts, I'll see what I can do to keep my work current.

 

I am not here explicitly to convert anyone, although if I did I wouldn't complain. I'll leave the converting to God and keep offering my prayers and sacrifices for all of you (and also the rest of the world so don't feel too singled out). I think that I am being respectful in my posts so I would appreciate the same respect towards the criticism of more conservative or more orthodox viewpoints. Not all traditional Christians are idiots incapable of putting sentences together, neither are we incapable of human respect, nor do we eschew true ecumenical dialogue (which as far as I can tell, has always, until recently, always been understood as the work of reuniting all Christians within the Church and not just an excuse to flap our gums and say, "well isn't that nice?", as it were). The idea that "fundies" hate everyone who aren't them, refuse to take a well-thought out position or have bothered to know and learn what and why they believe is frankly offensive. Please have the deceny not to caricature more orthodox beliefs than yours if you still want those people to take you seriously.

 

So, all that being said, why am I posting here? I'm posting because I honestly don't understand the "progressive" position. It doesn't make sense to me from a historical or theological standpoint. So, I'm trying to get involved in these discussions as a way of comparing and contrasting the Faith, as historically held by the Catholic Church, with the many faiths held here so as to discover how and why they are what they are.

 

But, I do like to "stir the pot" a bit as I noted in my first post. So I won't shy away from saying that an assertion lacks evidence, or two positions seem contradictory, or by asking how and why such and such an idea can coexist in such and such a context. I think those are fair questions to ask, and anyone worth their salt in a Dialogue and Debate forum shouldn't feel threatened in reading them.

 

Finally, BeachOfEden, saying that an older Swedish woman and you both came to negative conclusions about Saint Augustine from reading one blurb about him in a religious studies textbook, isn't exactly evidence, it's one anecdotal source. Please offer some quotes, or other ressources which purport to show this, otherwise your statement (from an academic point of view) doesn't pass the general assertion test.

 

pax Christi

 

jamesAMDG

 

Ad majorem Dei gloriam

[des]

Hey good points, Beach...

But I think it is pretty hard to debate a Fundamentalist without the Fundamentalist ended up trying to convert you. My sister and I actually had a pretty good discussion on abortion, but since I don't think "abortion is good" but maybe at times necessary-- in fact, would like to see a way for it to be unnecessary-- it made it possible. It was I who took a more middle position. But it was possible. But real theology, what would happen is that she would ask me a question and then turn it into an argument for a more conservative viewpoint.

 

The thing is that when you debate a Fundamentalist, pretty much they have everythign at stake when they talk to you. Maybe you think it is an interesting discussion and they think they are going to need to keep you from hell's fire. They know you are absolutely wrong and you might think well it is working for them or something-- don't agree with it. I think it puts progressives in a lousy debating position. After all they have hell on their side, so to speak.

 

>nd yet all three of us find agreement on the 8 points of Progressive Christianity and that's what we all hold in commom. None of us think the other is not saved simply because they hold a different interpretation then ourselves..and that IS what differs US from fundamentalists..which i think is GREAT

 

Sure you can debate with people or more or less discuss religion with people, but only if they share the belief that there isn't one right answer across all times for all people. I don't mind that sort of debate at all, in fact enjoy it. It's when it gets into the I'm right and you are all wrong, that's when I'm out of there.

 

--des

[fatherman]

James has raised a point that I have more or less held my tongue about with this forum. Some, not all, of us on this forum have layed the groundwork for demonizing fundamentalist Christians as a general group. We've got a silly little name for them, we've all but determined that they are either of enferior intellect or sitting lower on the developmental ladder than we enlightened progressives. How arrogant are we?! I understand that many of us have felt harrassed and abused by fundamentalist forces, but we should be seeking to overcome this instead of nursing it among ourselves. I know that this site does not have progressive/conservative dialogue or debate as a primary objective (or as an objective at all), but I believe there is room for it. It is my sincere prayer that we progressives start the journey of forgiveness and reconciliation with our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We are all a part of the body of Christ. This is no accident. Will we be crippled by hate, fear, and anger or will we be strengthened and made whole by love?

 

To James and any other fundamentalist Christians who may be lurking,

 

This is a two way street. You've so far presented yourself well on this forum IMHO. I appreciate your desire to understand the progressive perspective. The fear you are encountering is that you will not recognize the ground rules for this forum and begin engaging in harassment. You have to understand that many of us are here because their few havens for open, honest discussion for progressive Christians with other progressive Christians. There are a billion places for moderate and conservative viewpoints to be discussed. James, I am sure that if you continue to present your viewpoint with respect and as just that: your viewpoint, you will be recieved (perhaps more so over time). I realize this might be a compromise for you, especially if your viewpoint is that your viewpoint is actually God's viewpoint and that it should be received, therefore, with absolute authority by this community. If you truly want to understand progressives you must make this compromise. If you don't and begin to attack, you will only learn that progressives are defensive and unwelcoming (just as any group is when attacked).

Edited January 12, 2005 by fatherman

[BeachOfEden]

"Hey good points, Beach...

But I think it is pretty hard to debate a Fundamentalist without the Fundamentalist ended up trying to convert you."

 

Even in the most conserative faith groups you will find that their will be '2' groups within the groups= (1)The extra dark (passive-aggressive) fundamentalists and (2)the more moderate conservatives. Take my mom's JW congergation. There are about 2 to 5 moderate JW's I can think of that my mom is friends with that I actually can get along with and find some common grounds. Themmm (sigh) there's the extra dark ones. The very day before X-mas I drove to our local natural foods store to stock up on food before the big holiday weekend. Upon leaving the food market i noticed a group of 4 JW's from my mom's congergation. One, a pretty low-key and moderate African-American elder and unforuantly his not-so-low-key and very passion-agressive fundamental wife. This women is always on the look-out to save someone's soul from Armageddon.

 

They were so passionately invloved in conversation with each other I thought that maybe I could slip by unreconized. "Hey! Caroline! Caroline!" called out the elder's wife to me. I don;t know where she got that name, cause my name is not Caroline. Anyways I turned with a friendly smile. She exchnaged the common pleasenties of how are you and how's your mom? Yet it was hardly a jump and a skip from this and she jumped in said, "You want to study the Bible with me?"

 

This is very annoying for many reasons. One, this in not approperiate behavior in front of the store. Second, it's invasive. And three, she darn well knows that I was raised in JW and was in it for 26 years..and yet she is acting as if....I was stranger that she met in a primitive country where the Bible is not well known.

 

"My sister and I actually had a pretty good discussion on abortion, but since I don't think "abortion is good" but maybe at times necessary-- in fact, would like to see a way for it to be unnecessary-- it made it possible. It was I who took a more middle position. But it was possible. But real theology, what would happen is that she would ask me a question and then turn it into an argument for a more conservative viewpoint"

 

It might be interesting for both you and your sister to know that there IS, actually a group online for Liberals who are pro-choice.

 

"The thing is that when you debate a Fundamentalist, pretty much they have everythign at stake when they talk to you. Maybe you think it is an interesting discussion and they think they are going to need to keep you from hell's fire."

 

Or in mycase, Armageddon but yeah, precisley the same thing.

 

"They know you are absolutely wrong and you might think well it is working for them or something-- don't agree with it. I think it puts progressives in a lousy debating position. After all they have hell on their side, so to speak."

 

Their fundamentalists' fear or hell, Armageddon, getting "Left Beind" or (D) all of the above is so powerful it IS the obstactle that prevents them from even considering for one second...listening to our view and even allowing themsleves to think, "Maybe this Progressive 'COULD" be right? Maybe God is using THEM to help ME? Maybe THEY are NOT unsaved?

 

>nd yet all three of us find agreement on the 8 points of Progressive Christianity and that's what we all hold in commom. None of us think the other is not saved simply because they hold a different interpretation then ourselves..and that IS what differs US from fundamentalists..which i think is GREAT

"

Sure you can debate with people or more or less discuss religion with people, but only if they share the belief that there isn't one right answer across all times for all people. I don't mind that sort of debate at all, in fact enjoy it. It's when it gets into the I'm right and you are all wrong, that's when I'm out of "

 

Precisely. So is it even possible to have such positive conservations with conseratives? Only if they are conservative-lites (more moderates) and not the extra dark versions.

 

-- James has raised a point that I have more or less held my tongue about with this forum. Some, not all, of us on this forum have layed the groundwork for demonizing fundamentalist Christians as a general group. We've got a silly little name for them, we've all but determined that they are either of enferior intellect or sitting lower on the developmental ladder than we enlightened progressives. How arrogant are we?! I understand that many of us have felt harrassed and abused by fundamentalist forces, but we should be seeking to overcome this instead of nursing it among ourselves. I know that this site does not have progressive/conservative dialogue or debate as a primary objective (or as an objective at all), but I believe there is room for it. It is my sincere prayer that we progressives start the journey of forgiveness and reconciliation with our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We are all a part of the body of Christ. This is no accident. Will we be crippled by hate, fear, and anger or will we be strengthened and made whole by love?

 

To James and any other fundamentalist Christians who may be lurking,

 

" There are a billion places for moderate and conservative viewpoints to be discussed."

 

Just wondering, do you really think there ARE many places for even MODERATE Christians? Seriously, I was just wondering this yesterday. Cause if there WAS even more moderate places on the web I'd be glad to at least check them out as well cause lots of times I find that I CAN get along with moderates...It's just the hardcore fundamentalists that i can not.

[BeachOfEden]

Correction...I had siad,"It might be interesting for both you and your sister to know that there IS, actually a group online for Liberals who are pro-choice."

 

I MEANT to say that there Is a online group on mysapce for Liberal Pro-Lifers.

[AletheiaRivers]

I agree Fatherman.

 

I wondered if I might have "demonized" the conservative perspective.

 

I reread every post I've put up here since I signed up and think I've been fair. I hope so.

 

If any conservative Christian who has read here has felt attacked by me, I apologize.

 

My mom is a very conservative Christian and I certainly don't think she's of inferior intellect.

 

Aletheia

Edited January 12, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[irreverance]

I'm posting because I honestly don't understand the "progressive" position. It doesn't make sense to me from a historical or theological standpoint.

Well, it seems to me that key to understanding where progressives are coming from may be the study of church history. With such a study comes a sense of what might be termed "historical consciousness." The fact is that theology has changed through time. Christianity as a religion is not as it once was, but is quite different, always evolving. The "tradition" does not always articulate faithfully the messages of who God is according to the Scriptures. That is why it is always under constant revision.

 

So, in many respects, the "progressive" understanding comes from a contextual reading of Scripture and a strong sense of how tradition has developed. Take for example the "traditional" articulation that Paul showed us (mainly in Romans) that Jesus on the cross is a sacrifice to pay a blood sacrifice for our sins, an theology that is assumed to come from his Jewishness. However, biblical scholar Stanley K. Stowers in A Rereading of Romans asserts

"Unlike the later forms of Christianity, the Jewish temple system was not premised on the assumption of an essential brokenness in divine/human relations and the solution to sin and death that would lead beyond this world.  ...The Jewish temple religion rested on an assumption that humans were essentially at hom in and made for this world.  ...The sacrificial practices of the temple were a means of keeping the order finely tuned and in balance.  ...The purpose of the sacrificial system both as represented in the priestly sources of the scripture nad as instituted in the second temple period was not to atone for personal sin or to provide a means for dealing with human alienation from God; these ideas have been projected onto the temple system by Christian and later Jewish theology." (207)

I posted all that because I wanted to highlight that "progressive" Christianity has many advocates among biblical scholars. It also has many advocated within the field of theology. If you note on this board, PantaRhea articulates what is known as "Processs Theology" very well. In many respects, that is a theology that takes seriously both our current context and the traditional Christian articulation of who God is. For a Roman Catholic process/revisionist theologian, you might be interested in reading David Tracy's Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology.

 

If you are looking for a small book that may help your understanding, I suggest Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Borg is both a biblical scholar, but seems focused on putting together a low-brow practical postmodern theology.

[des]

Oh gee, where to start... First to answer a direct question James had. I'm self-employed and not, er, so busy at the moment. Trying to get a full-time job in the public schools and things have been slow going, processing applications... So I have time. Should be in bed though.

:-)

 

Fatherman:

>urselves. I know that this site does not have progressive/conservative dialogue or debate as a primary objective (or as an objective at all), but I believe there is room for it. It is my sincere prayer that we progressives start the journey of forgiveness and reconciliation with our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We are all a part of the body of Christ. This is no accident. Will we be crippled by hate, fear, and anger or will we be strengthened and made whole by love?

 

Well fatherman, I agree. But it is a difficult position. Also I have always tried to be respectful of the fundamentalist position, but honestly, I have had to do it so much and work at that so hard. My sister constantly is "working on me" trying to convert me. I feel it is very tiresome. I have always left her alone and don't annoy her or try to get her to see things my way. I have had total strangers come up and ask me if I'm a Christian and born again. I know they are worried about my salvation and all, so I understand it from that point of view, but it is hard to really enjoy all this. I got on UCC.org (UCc is supposed to be a liberal church.) But no sooner did I get on than found all these UCCers or ex-UCCers come on and try hijack threads telling us that are liberal views are all wrong and evil.

So while I try and be respectful (and no I don't think fundamentalists are idiots-- my sister is really bright for instance). As for the Fundie label. Gosh, any other short cuts on fundamentalists. FMs or Funds. or ?? I'll use it, fundamentalist takes so long to type. :-)

(I think I've heard my sister use fundie btw. But I understand the difference between calling yourself one.) Another thing that annoys me is that, well I feel insulted by Conservatives saying they are Christians and no one else is. Finding safe progressive space-- well it's hard to come by.

 

So while theoretically I think you are correct. And we no doubt (as my former pastor used to say) "Have more in common than we'll ever have in conflict". It is hard, as I have been thru so much, where *I* was not respected and I was trying to do all the respecting.

 

For your question Beach, about moderate space? I've looked at a few websites. There is a huge multidemonational www.christianforums.com. (all kinds of things like traditional, methodist,nondemonational, etc. etc.) also I think belief.net might have something. BTW, I am not entirely surprised to find Pro-Life Liberals. But I'm not surprised by too much. :-)

 

>James:

I figure I'll try and answer a few fo the questions that people have asked (and amusingly discussed) about my intentions and a slightly longer biographical sketch.

 

At least you were amused. :-) I wasn't sure how I would take it. Yet I did feel a bit suspicious. Whenever my sister asks a question, it is to get me to make an answer and then she goes on to get me to her point of view. I read part of book she got called "Questioning Evangelism", which is all about converting people by asking questions. As I said, it is tiresome.

 

>James:

I am not here explicitly to convert anyone, although if I did I wouldn't complain. I'll leave the converting to God and keep offering my prayers and sacrifices for all of you (and also the rest of the world so don't feel too singled out). I think that I am being respectful in my posts so I would appreciate the same respect towards the criticism of more conservative or more orthodox viewpoints.

 

I agree that you have been extremely respectful.

 

>Not all traditional Christians are idiots incapable of putting sentences together, neither are we incapable of human respect, nor do we eschew true ecumenical dialogue (which as far as

 

Well I'm sure everyone is not like my sister (who is after all workign for Campus Crusade).

One of my clients, is, I am quite sure a conservative Christian. Very nice person, wonderful kids. (Sounds like some of my best friends... oh well.:-))

 

>The idea that "fundies" hate everyone who aren't them, refuse to take a well-thought out position or have bothered to know and learn what and why they believe is frankly offensive. Please have the deceny not to caricature more orthodox beliefs than yours if you still want those people to take you seriously.

 

Unfortunately, no doubt there are many exceptions and probably most people are not like my sister. It's just that I keep encountering them. I haven' t met a single person (well maybe you) who identifies as fundamentalist that apparently was really interested in what I had to say except as a means to the end of "saving me". I could list incident on incident. If there was such a person they are now totally lost in the shuffle. So I'm sorry if I came across hostile. I agree with Beach that moderates, I have no trouble with. But when people are quite hardcore, it's something else.

 

>So, all that being said, why am I posting here? I'm posting because I honestly don't understand the "progressive" position. It doesn't make sense to me from a historical or theological standpoint. So, I'm trying to get involved in these discussions as a way of comparing and contrasting the Faith, as historically held by the Catholic Church, with the many faiths held here so as to discover how and why they are what they are.

 

Your are a good student of comparitive religion then. I'd say with Aletheia that religion has always changed and altered in time. And all religion is in a cultural contrast. I believe the Bible was written by men and written in their own cultural contexts. Why, for example, is the God in the some of the earlier OT books so wrathful and later in the NT, God is a loving God? I (and other progressives) would contend it was the attitude not God that did the changing.

 

Traditional readings aren't always what they're cracked up to be. I can't remember what year, but the Catholic church has recently recanted and said that Mary Magdeline was not a prostitute. Why did they say this in the first place? Was it to keep women in their place?

To provide a role for a female disciple who Jesus actually came to first, after the resurrection. No where in the Bible was Mary M a prostitute. The Catholic church has also recently recanted its position on quite a few people including Isaac Newton. Presumably an early understanding of scripture indicated he was a heretic. So even the Catholic Church is not the identical church it was longer ago.

 

There have always been more liberal and more conservative theological voices, some of them date pretty far back. (Hildegarde of Bingen, Meister Ekard, etc. -- ooh sp??).

 

 

--des

[AletheiaRivers]

Eckhart

[BeachOfEden]

Also I would add that when I use the term "Lite Evangelical" Or "Lite Catholic", ect...by this I do NOT mean lite as in "Fluff" or that one believes in 'myths'. Rather what I mean is like what Des said, "Lite" as in not heavy-duty intolerance, not extra-dark in world view where everyone is saved angels or evil doomed demons..but believe there IS a middle grey where people are neither in darkness nor superiorly blessed above everyone else. Yes, I DO believe there ARE open-minded (non-exteremist/tolerant) Catholics, Evangelicals,ect..and it IT THESE that are moderate rather than extrem and THESE are THE ONES we Progressives can and should inneract with and reach out to. In the progressive relm of Christianity when someone reaches out to a open minded or moderate Christian it is NOT an attempt at coexing them INTO our perspective...rather it is beliving we already have a comon ground to begin with...which is...reason.

[des]

Thanks Aletheia for your spelling assistance. :-)

Too lazy to look it up.

 

Yes, I agree on the Evangelical Lite (perhaps it should be spelled light-- sounds more serious). But I agree. I know a no. of people like this. I actually had quite a good friend (in another state). We could have serious discussions on religion even though she was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. She didn't wholesale buy everythign. For example, she said she disagreed about women's place. She said things like "well if women are supposed to be quiet in church", they shouldn't sing in the choir or teach Sunday School (which they are allowed to do). She didn't believe that God created the earth in six days. She was very interested in science (an astronomy major), and she thought of the days as periods and that it was maybe a mistranslation (and maybe it was). She never tried to convert me. We did argue but are arguments were always pretty friendly, and they might veer off into astronomy at a moment's notice. But she was open minded very interesting to listen to.

 

Actually have known quite a no. of Catholics who were mostly liberal politically. Such is the state of the Catholic Church in the US that there aren't many people that think *everything* is right or perfect. I think it was a Catholic that told me that there was a name for someone who used the Rhythm Method and that was "parent". :-)

 

When someone isn't extreme, it is easy to listen and feel comfortable. And yes, I believe there is much common ground. It might be interesting to explore that with our "token"

:-) conservative. Since James is a student of comparitive faiths (at least in interest), maybe I'll start a new thread.

 

BTW, I think there are a no. of terms that get mixed up and used interchangeably when they really aren't. Evangelical could theoretically be any stripe-- you share the belief. Isn't Sojourner a progressive Evangelical group for instance. Conservative is someone who has more literal and more traditional views. I'm thinking that James might be that (and some others that I have met). I think inerrancy is actually a bit inaccurate term. For example my friend above, believed that the Bible was pretty much written by God but translated by people who might make errors in translation.They would believe we are saved by grace vs works, but might be more open to other people (than Christians or Conservatives being able to receive the message somehow). A Fundamentalist takes every word of the Bible as literal fact. Literally no one gets to a literal heaven without believing that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. And that Jesus died for our personal sins. So I think there are differences.

Not saying that conservatives wouldn't believe what the Fundamentalist believes but I think there are some qualititive differences. I'm not sure how well I sorted that all out.

:-)

 

--des

[irreverance]

BTW, I think there are a no. of terms that get mixed up and used interchangeably when they really aren't. Evangelical could theoretically be any stripe-- you share the belief. Isn't Sojourner a progressive Evangelical group for instance.

Evangelical has many meanings. I tend to argue that it has so many meanings, many of which are complete contradictions, that it is perhaps the most "meaningless" word in Christian vocabulary. In a nutshell, the term evangelical used to mean that we had something to say and that it was worth hearing and converting to (the "good news"). Sometime during the 20th century it was slowly transformed to mean a specific conservative anti-modernist theological approach (note the arrival of "neo-evangelicalism" mid-century), which could theoretically be contrasted with the mainline approach that embraced modernism (to varying degrees of course). And yes, I believe that Sojourners identifies as an evangelical magazine. Jim Wallis grew up in the evangelical tradition (though I can't remember which one).

[BeachOfEden]

I agree with you 100% that Evangelical used to mean simply Evangelicalizer..and but NOW means a hardline Protestant that embraces hellfire threats and "the rapture" and more often than not is anti-equality.

 

"And yes, I believe that Sojourners identifies as an evangelical magazine. Jim Wallis grew up in the evangelical tradition (though I can't remember which one). "

 

I don't think that is wise on his part cause what will happen is the harline Protestants will be drawn to his mag, thinking it will agree with 'their' conservative interpretations of the Bible..and when they find out that it does NOT then they will mail and or e-mail him telling him how wrong he is.

[BeachOfEden]

"I think inerrancy is actually a bit inaccurate term. For example my friend above, believed that the Bible was pretty much written by God but translated by people who might make errors in translation.They would believe we are saved by grace vs works, but might be more open to other people (than Christians or Conservatives being able to receive the message somehow)."

 

That pretty much discribes me and I agree with each and every of the TCPC 8 points. I think there are indeed a number of people like this and may agree with every 8 points or maybe at least 7....but they are affraid to adopt the word "Progressive" and/or affraid to get ride of the word "Evangelical." However, it would be GREAT thing if we could help infom them on all this then maybe they would not fear what they do not know. If this were possible then a greater thing could be acomplished and that is we could innerfaith with such Evangelical lights, Catholic Lights and so on and thus Moderate Christians and Progressive christians could join forces in making the more tolerant voice of Christianity heard. The Fundamental Protestants and the extrea dark version of the Evangelicals have already joined forces..blurred the line from which is which and thus end up out number ALL the more moderate Christians.

 

One thing I think may freak some moderates out is when the Progressives say, "I don;t take the Bible literally but I do take it seriously." This makes them think that at best Progs think the Bible is just a positive fairy-tell. I can see where Progs might think this sounds great but the problem lies in the phrase 'literally' and also 'the Bible.' Instead of saying this maybe we can instead say that we reconized that orginal Bible manuscripts as their were orginally found in Greek and Hebrew WERE and ARE 'different' than ALL our modern day copies and that in this process of translating many erros in Greek and Hebrew have already been verified..but that these errors are not related to the orginal texts and their orginal meanings and that we DO understand this. Pluss..that we believe many text that were meant symbolically have been taken literally and vice versa. Example..would you take the Beast with horns on it's head in the book of Revelations LITERALLY? When John the Baptist said that Jesus would "Baptize with water and fire", do you really think he meant Jesus would baptized people by dunking them in fire?" ect, logical sound reasonings like this. I may have made this a bit too wordy and maybe someone can better sum up what i am trying to say..but I think you DO underatnd what I am getting at.

[Lolly]

The rector of my church, a very progressive Episcopal parish, frequently refers to us as an evangelical tradition, and has said that she'd very much like to see the term "evangelical" reclaimed from the fundamentalists and returned to its original meaning.

[des]

The discussion on Evangelism, well I don't know if Jim Wallis is getting a lot of flack from Fundamentalists (which I will call funds.-- as some people here don't like the term fundies) telling him he is all wet (or all burning :-)), but if you look at what they do they do, well try to bring Christ's word into the world. For instance, they had a very active campaign during the last presidency that said "God is not Republican. Nor Democrat." They work on social reform issues in a Christian context. Maybe this isn't what the Campus Crusade is doing, but in the broadest sense it is evangelism.

Also is at least one more or less liberal or progressive church with Evangelical in their name. The Evangelical Lutheran Church is a sister congregation of UCC for example. I've also seen the terms evangelism in UCC literature. (Wasn't the recent ad campaign of UCC an evangelical one? The people they were trying to reach are those who felt they had been rejected by churches. If you are trying to reach unchurched people this is evangelism, isn't it?)

 

In fact, funds. have taken many pretty good terms and taken them and claimed them as theirs exclusively so much so that if you say "I'm a Christian" people will automatically think Fund. So I think they have also grabbed the term evangelical and made it a fund. word.

 

>One thing I think may freak some moderates out is when the Progressives say, "I don;t take the Bible literally but I do take it seriously." This makes them think that at best Progs think the Bible is just a positive fairy-tell.

 

I don't say that, but I have heard it here. *I* didn't take it that way, but some might I suppose. I think the problem is it may sound a little flip perhaps. But I'm not sure exactly why. Also while I might say that some of the stories are myth, that is way way different than saying they are fairy tales. Mythology is a way of understanding the world that all of us engage in and need.

 

>'literally' and also 'the Bible.' Instead of saying this maybe we can instead say that we reconized that orginal Bible manuscripts as their were orginally found in Greek and Hebrew WERE and ARE 'different' than ALL our modern day copies and that in this process of translating many erros in Greek and Hebrew have already been verified..but that these errors are not related to the orginal texts and their orginal meanings and that we DO understand this.

 

Well it might explain your position but not entirely mine, although I agree with what you say. There is also the whole question of what is not there that might have been at one time. We don't know about that either. The are several ancient books of the Bible that have been found like the book of Mary Magdeline---who knows about that one??

And the Book of Thomas (I think).

 

But I do think there is myth, such as Noah's ark or Jonah and the whale (or is it fish?).

 

> Pluss..that we believe many text that were meant symbolically have been taken literally and vice versa. Example..would you take the Beast with horns on it's head in the book of Revelations LITERALLY? When John the Baptist said that Jesus would "Baptize with water and fire", do you really think he meant Jesus would baptized people by dunking them in fire?" ect, logical sound reasonings like this.

 

 

Well I would take both to be figurative. (Of course what with the term literally having changed recently, as in the sentence "I literally climbed the walls", meaning some kind of emphasis or something and not the opposite of figuratively. Maybe I will now say I believe in everything in the Bible literally-- meaning emphatically but not that it all really happened. But I digress. But I digress so well. :-)) Maybe Funds would take the first one to be literally true and the second as figurative.

 

 

> I may have made this a bit too wordy and maybe someone can better sum up what i am trying to say..but I think you DO underatnd what I am getting a

 

I think so. But I am not sure how clear cut what is figurative and what is literal is.

The example about "baptism by fire" is a great one though that I can't imagine any but the kookiest snake handling cults would actually believe literally. Sorry about the terms kooky and cult-- I try to be accepting but I draw the line somewhere. And snakes it is. :-)

 

 

 

--des

[zenchiku]

"I'm assuming the fall is represented in the Bible by the (IMO) allegorical story of Adam and Eve. And Eve (blame it on the woman!) takes of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. And wham!"

 

Original sin. What a pain in the butt concept. (Thank you Paul.) 

 

The words "original sin" don't exist in the Bible or in Jewish writings.

 

A quote from Ben Zion Bokser that I like is: "The story of the fall of Adam expresses in allegorical form the constant necessity that man be vigilant against temptation."

My reading of the second narrative is one about advancement of the human race, one that is growing up - and the question of mere temptations or wrong choices pales in significance to the issues that maturing minds have to grasp with. I'm going to link this to piece I wrote in my blog Heh shameless advertising here Do comment.

[AletheiaRivers]

I may have made this a bit too wordy and maybe someone can better sum up what i am trying to say

 

How about: "I take the Bible seriously but not literally."

 

Just kidding.

 

"Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally" is the title of a book by Marcus Borg (and a very good book I might add).

 

I've never had a problem with the phrase. I guess conservative Christians might, but then, I would say they are being WAY too touchy. Politically correct apologetic language makes it awfully hard to communicate.

 

"I take the Bible seriously, which means I use it as a guide for my life. But I don't take it literally, which is to say that I don't take the parables or metaphors or allegories literally, as in word for word truth, but I take them seriously. Oh, and even though some of the Bible is "history" I don't take that literally either because history is ususally written by the "victor" and also so much of the history in the Bible has been proven to be untrue by archeology. That isn't to imply that I think the Bible is not "true" or that I think it is a "myth", but actually they are a myth but the word myth is misunderstood, so please don't take offense at my using the word myth. And while we're at it, please don't take offense at my using the words literally or seriously or allegory or parable either...."

 

LOL! I've had conversations where you had to apologize for every use of every word that someone doesn't agree with because they don't understand why you are using that word.

 

I would hope that if someone is truly interested in conversation they would ask:

 

"Could you explain what you mean by the statement? I'm not sure I understand."

[AletheiaRivers]

From Zenchiku's BLOG:

And if it is a story about the Fall, then it is a fall upwards

 

I was doing some reading last night on the Hebrew word "arum" which is translated as crafty or cunning in the Hebrew Scriptures and is used in Genesis in reference to the snake.

 

It's also the same word that is translated as "Naked" when referring to Adam and Eve's not being aware of their nakedness in the end of Genesis 2.

 

So the word is used to refer to Pure Childlike Innocence and also to Craftiness or Cunning.

 

One Hebrew scholar made the point that the snake was so cunning that it didn't appear to be cunning at all: it was "transparent" or bare (innocent), but hid a cunning interior.

 

However, snakes at that time in history represented wisdom and healing, so I would think that the view of the word "Crafty" could be better understood in a positive sense, as Wise. (That makes me want to read up on the story of Moses and the snake in the desert.)

 

Only Christians ascribe evilness to the snake. They later interpreted the snake to mean "Satan". (To complicate matters, the Christian view of Satan is totally different than the Jewish view.)

 

There are many esoteric views of what the snake represented. Too many to go into here, but one that I like is that before "eating of the tree", humankind was in a "protohuman, animal-like, innocent state" with no moral sense. Eating of the tree was an "evolutionary" step into a state of sentience making humans different than animals who have no sense of "right and wrong". Humans "became like God". They became "enlightened".

 

So yeah, in this view of the story, humans "fell upward".

 

It's only when we view the snake as being Satan or evil that humans fall downward.

 

A lot of this was rambling, but it was fun.

 

Aletheia

Edited January 14, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[BeachOfEden]

Well perhaps we can say we believe that through translations from Hebrew and Greek to English words, phrases and their meanings change, and we realize this. i think we can all agree upon that. So to say that today all our modern day copies of the bible are error-free is not reasonable and this does not mean that the whole bible is false it simply calls for reason that meanings of words change when you translates them Hebrew and Greek into English. We could give the example that in Greek there are '7' 'different' meanings to the word LOVE. Everything from Agape, which means God unconditional love...to Arose which means passionate sexual attraction type love. And explain that we CAN CLEARLY see the 'difference' here.

 

Plus that ALL Christians understand that at least some parts of the Bible WERE written symbolically and that even Christ told us this in the Bible. What do you think?

 

Now as for moderates and non-fundamental Christians wanting to reclaim the title "Evangelical" as their own. What can you do once the majority has decided to 'change' a words meaning? Perhaps in the 1920's to be GAY simply mean carefree but TODAY it means to be attracted to the same sex. If someone refused to accept that this word's meaning had changed they'd be confusing alot of people.

 

It seems to me that the Fundamentalists have highjacked the word "Evangelical" ..and they would LOVE to claim the copy rights to the word "Christian" and we KNOW they have not stopped trying! Especially with their cult-tagging campains...but foruantly THAT chalenge IS beyound their grasp.

 

PS> The fact that the Luthern church does use the term "Evangelical" DID and DOES confuse me. Truthfully I can NOT tell with Luthern churches and Baptist churches are moderates and with are fundamentals.

[AletheiaRivers]

I think, for MYSELF only, that if I had original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts written 5 minutes after the "events" occured, I would still take the Bible seriously, but not literally.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with translation errors, for ME.

 

I read and study the Bible to gain insight from the religious philosophers of that time period. I find much, much, much of what they had to say very intriguing and insightful.

 

I don't know how else to explain my view CONCISELY to those who don't hold my view.

 

I could say I take the Bible allegorically, but that wouldn't completely be true.

 

I could say I take the Bible metaphorically, but that wouldn't completely be true.

 

But to say that I take it seriously is completely true and I think, less argument inducing than the above two terms.

 

Aletheia

[Lolly]

AletheiaRivers:

 

I don't know how else to explain my view CONCISELY to those who don't hold my view. 

 

I could say I take the Bible allegorically, but that wouldn't completely be true.

 

I could say I take the Bible metaphorically, but that wouldn't completely be true.

 

But to say that I take it seriously is completely true and I think, less argument inducing than the above two terms.

 

I understand.

 

For me, I suppose it could be said that I believe discernment is always in order as we make our way in the world, and with religion and religious teachings there is no exception.

 

Words are very slippery things, and at best are poor conveyances. A word will never be the same as the concept it is trying to symbolize. As readers, we have no choice but to use discernment in deciding what is meant as metaphor and what is meant to be taken literally, and each of us approaches this task with our own set of perceptual filters firmly in place.

 

However, we can use a bit of our God-given common sense, and we can inform ourselves to the best of our ability regarding historical context and so forth. In this way, I think it's possible to make use of the gifts God has given us to advance in our understanding. And I also think it's possible to put these stories into context and make sensible decisions about whether or not they apply to current times.

 

Case in point: "Go forth and multiply."

 

Many people take this as a mandate to have as many children as possible, as though the story had God speaking these words into an unchanging vacuum. Yet historical context would suggest to us that this was commanded at a time when people had not yet populated the earth.

 

Common sense, if we were to apply it, would tell us that, with over 6 billion people in the world and resources shrinking rapidly, we have already accomplished this task. Do we really need to blindly keep "going forth and multiplying", or did God not give us common sense and the ability to apply reason for any good purpose?

[Lolly]

As far as the question of whether humanity is fallen, I tend to believe that once God set into motion the forces of creation, the potential for good or evil also came into being. When man came into being, he had the potential to choose well or to choose poorly in every endeavor. By "choose well" I mean to make those choices that support and affirm others, support balance and renewal in our environment, and contribute to a peaceful way of being in the world.

 

In this sense, a kind of "fall" or split from God's will was inevitable from the very beginning, if creation was to be non-deterministic affair which included some form of free will or the ability to choose-- because some will choose poorly.

 

I believe that when we make poor choices, it takes us farther from God. In opening up to God's will, the right choices more and more will become second nature, and to me this is the meaning of reconciliation. To truly reconcile ourselves to God means to stop paying primary allegiance to our own egos and to move back toward a life in the sort of harmony that characterizes God's love for us. And we look for this God within; one might also call this the ground of being.

 

I don't know if this makes a whole lot of sense; I'm still looking for the right words and ways to explain this viewpoint, but I thought I'd give it a shot here.

[BeachOfEden]

Well for example, the fundies claim that the word HEAD is Galatians is Arche which in Greek means "Ruler" but infact moderates have come to verify this is a translators error and insread the actual Gree word was KEPHALE with denote a selfless spirit. Now if you were to run into a Evangelical Light or say a JW who did not like the idea of sexism..then you could share this with them and then this might lead them to start thinking more Progressive.

[soma]

About the fall most of the following I got from the book "Evolution of Consciousness".

 

A person in Christ consciousness is in total harmony and is at peace and happiness within the mind, the body and with others. Men and women determine their own destiny with some independence. They don't have to stay in harmony or seek it, and they can seek support from other means instead of from the divine source. "And the Lord said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh..." (Gen. 6:3). If the hierarchy of Spirit over mind over body is destroyed and pure consciousness is no longer called into existence, then people cease to be like God and desire not to unite with pure consciousness. This is the Fall of Adam from paradise. This fragmentation causes man's spirit to disengage from pure consciousness, and it no longer is the life source of man. Man is left to himself until once again he tries to recover the lost harmony. The moment the mind of man ceases to be a channel to pure consciousness, the inspiration of unity ceases to be channeled from the soul into the psyche and ceases to invigorate the body. This cut off from ecstasy is the fall from the harmony of Eden. After the fall from the Eden state of mind, we as individuals must labor and be troubled to gain support for the rest of our days unless we decide to change our course of action. Instead of communing with pure consciousness and unity, after the fall we share in the life of the material world. The material world is where our bodies obtain life, ill health, unhappiness, confusion and death because our bodies came from dust and will return to dust. It is our invisible spiritual nature, which harmonizes, balances, cultivates and brings forth the good in our body and mind. If we don’t associate with pure consciousness in a harmonious state of mind, body and affairs, we have to depend totally on the created world and are subject to its pain and hardship. After becoming more and more involved with the external world and experiencing pain, the struggle of the flesh once again becomes a struggle for happiness. The nature of the flesh being self-centered, possessive, fearful, and always trying to force its will on others after suffering in the world, finally returns our mind on a direction back through individual consciousness to Christ consciousness to a path leading to the soul. Suffering makes us not happy with the material world so our minds lead us back through the depths of our own being to the kingdom of God.