Jump to content

Why Call Ourselves Christians?


Yvonne

Recommended Posts

Soma

 

I agree with what you're saying about the limitations of religion, but that is really not what being a Christian is with me. The "spiritual experience" from what I gather from scripture has to do with a "personal relationship" with Jesus. That might put me into what some call "fundamentalist" but I don't relate to these people at all. What is that "spiritual experience" you speak of? Where do you find it? What is the source of it? The way God reveals himself is the Bible, or a non-Christian way. Nothing wrong with another way, but you can only choose one way or another without confronting too many difference and roads, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

[Joseph

 

Thats the problem with PC Joseph, it doesn't speak with authority. To me it accommodates the modernist mindset that the supernatural doesn't exist, that God is not as God is (as is revealed in scripture) and more like the way we want him to be. We feel the need to go to other traditions (as they are more correct in their worldview) and are in fact ashamed that we are Christians to some extent.

 

Thanks for your comments Matt,

 

I would certainly agree with you that PC, at least here, does not speak with authority. However, i do not see that as a problem with PC or its mission but rather with those who have a problem with it. PC indeed accommodates, encourages and supports all that are on their journey without requiring belief for or against the supernatural or that the Bible is an accurate description or not an accurate description of God. That is left for each individual to discover for his/her self. PC's are welcome to interpret writings for themselves here, share their views and learn from each other without constraint of belief in areas of dogma and doctrine. I am for one not in the least bit ashamed of the words Progressive Christian, Christian or even gaining insight or understanding by familiarizing myself with other traditions that i feel in areas can expand ones view.

 

It is my hope that you will by your presence here benefit from this open and inclusive view and also be a benefit to others by the sharing of your own views in this community. We are indeed a diverse set of Christians and others as far as individual beliefs go but that is of course because each is at a different point in their journey. In the end, i believe unity will prevail.Traditional Christianity tells you what to believe by that which is dictated so they speak with supposed authority while PC allows one the freedom to discover Christ for themselves.

 

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph

 

Thats the problem with PC Joseph, it doesn't speak with authority. To me it accommodates the modernist mindset that the supernatural doesn't exist, that God is not as God is (as is revealed in scripture) and more like the way we want him to be. We feel the need to go to other traditions (as they are more correct in their worldview) and are in fact ashamed that we are Christians to some extent.

 

I for one see it is a huge benefit rather than a problem, that PC doesn't speak with authority. I think most of us have had enough of the 'authority' angle when it comes to personal views on God. Just as I think you wouldn't like the fundamentalist view of God being the 'authoratative' one, many probably wouldn't like the PC view as being authorative. It seems to me that one persons authority is another persons rebellion. I would venture to say that a major reason less than 1/3 of the world hold to a Christian viewpoint is because others don't want to be 'told' that what's true for them is actually wrong.

 

Again, it would seem to me that a major message attributed to Jesus was that of inclusion. Holding up one's views as 'the' authority on the matter often causes exclusion. Perhaps if all religions and versions of Christianity spoke with much less authority, people would slowly find more and more common ground and who knows, perhaps even end up in the same place one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that what we take, if anything, to be authoritative is a personal matter. PC is a conversation, a disposition -- a way of doing religion -- not a self-contained system of religious thought in itself. Why shouldn't it be accomodating to contemporary contexts? As a movement PC doesn't rest itself on universal first principles. It doesn't deduce how we all ought to believe and behave based on some immovable foundation. I see PC as expressed in the 8 points as a general framework whose content is nothing more than what we each bring to the table. The Shakers had a good theory that I think mirrors what PC tries to accomplish.

 

The Shaker Way is personally historical, that is, always concretely embodied in the real people who are the experiencers. It is not a structure or a doctrine, but all its often complex structures and doctrines reflect the creative light of the persons experiencing--in the simplicity of an old Shaker saying: ideas don't have people, people have ideas. The Shaker tradition, therefore, is not static but dynamic. There is no normativeness in any established form or formulation, for all such merely bear witness to the level of development and insight reached at that moment. The norm is to be found in the total living community-of-experience in its continuum of ongoing development. Or, more pointedly, the norm of Christianity is nothing other than the Living Christ as he now is: in-through-with all who member-for-member are the One Body of the Resurrection. (The Shakers p2)

 

Peace,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jenell

 

Well. when Jesus said he was leaving them physically he told the disciples he had to go. If he didn't then the Holy Spirit could not come to teach, to convict and to conform. Now, I believe that when the time is right there will be a supernatural event, but I do not know what that will be or when it will be. All we are told to do is transform the world for God. Did he mean killing people? No I don't think so, but I might be wrong. I think we have to put aside opinions and our imaginations (things of the flesh) and take on a radically new perspective. As Paul calls it The New Creation. If you want to be part of it, you will be. If you don't then you don't. That doesn't necessarily mean that God's not going to work on you another way. Living the RIGHT way like a Buddhist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu, etc. is a way to the father. The I AM is not the human form of Jesus. It is the Logos, the Word, which is everywhere. There is a WRONG way and a RIGHT way. I know that might bother people, but that is how the laws of this universe (karma, reincarnation, salvation, thermodynamics, even quantum mechanics) work. The point is figuring out that way - and to devalue another's way - even if it is fundamentalist conservative orthodox - is not the right way.

 

If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then Buddha couldn't have attained enlightenment and nirvana. Then Krishna didn't relay the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. Then there is no Tao. Then Amida was a liar about his "pure land". Then Richard Dawkins isn't a Darwinist. All of it ultimately is true, within this material plane, because I believe that there is a constant stream between the this plane, between us and all creation and the Divine. We are told that the Book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible. Whooppee God wins, Satan loses. But no. It is the beginning of the next chapter in the story. Just like this universe will cease to exist according to Hinduism and restart. Just like "after" Nirvana, there will be more Buddhas who will rediscover the 4 Noble Truths for other beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then Buddha couldn't have attained enlightenment and nirvana. Then Krishna didn't relay the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. Then there is no Tao. Then Amida was a liar about his "pure land". Then Richard Dawkins isn't a Darwinist. All of it ultimately is true, within this material plane, because I believe that there is a constant stream between the this plane, between us and all creation and the Divine. We are told that the Book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible. Whooppee God wins, Satan loses. But no. It is the beginning of the next chapter in the story. Just like this universe will cease to exist according to Hinduism and restart. Just like "after" Nirvana, there will be more Buddhas who will rediscover the 4 Noble Truths for other beings.

 

I found this powerful.

 

Peace,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service