Am I A Christian? ...or Even A Progressive Christian?

[matteoam]

Soma I agree Bill I hear you when you give a reason why you don't believe with Jesus's I Am statement. But isn't that an interpretation. I know Hindus who think that statement is true and they are not Christians. They take it as true because the believe Jesus was an avatar oaks was a teacher of compassion. That statement has nothing to do with a religion for some and it does mean something to some. Even if I were an atheist I would look at the Bible and day hey this is an attempt to be human. Take all the supernaturalist or spirituality out and you have people trying to get over their own limitations and being human with one another. I wish one atheist would use the Bible that way. That would really deliver a blow to the fundamentalism within the atheistic mindset. PC can be this in its inclusiveness.

[BillM]

Matteoam, the fundamental problem with not taking the Bible for what it says is that once you decide to do that, there is no way to ascertain what it means. Granted, interpretation does try to get at what the text means. But when Christians take the stance, as many do, that the Bible is the very words of God, then for God to leave so much open to interpretation and ambiguity is a bit disturbing, is it not?

I have no plans to do so, but if I were to author a book of timeless truths, a book considered to be sacred, a book considered by many to be infallible and inerrant, I would write it as clearly and concisely as I possibly could, so that there would be little room for interpretational error or ambiguity.

 

So what we have in the Christian community is most Christians asserting that the Bible is the Word of God...and hardly any two Christians agree on what it means...but yet all Christians claiming that the Spirit gives them understanding. ???

 

For me, I would simply say that the fundamentalists are at least honest in their approach to the Bible (they take it for what it says) and that the Bible is wrong on a number of things, rather than try to "save" the Bible or Jesus or God by saying that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. To me, if it is a book that means something different than what it says, it is deceitful. But that is how I see it. If God truly authored a book, I would expect it to be brimming over with truth and goodness and clarity on every page.

 

Perhaps I, as an ex-Chritian, have a warped view of God?

[matteoam]

First it what some Christians think it means.

 

Second all the figures of history who have echoed through the ages are humans who don't claim to be any more than that. A "prophet" self proclaimed is still prevalent today as much as a "believer" or a "non-believer". Sorry but Jesus was wrong and so was the Buddha and that is no surprise to many Devout Christians I have come across. Buddha said that women could not attain enlightenment.

 

For me what makes Jesus divine not so much as his unworldliness but his balance of humanity and that divinity (what makes us more human than we imagine ourselves to be). What peoke say about him is another issue that atheism needs to get over and PC does a good but flawed job at perpetuating that.

 

So since fundamentalist Christisns are "right?" about he Bible then PC is wrong. Thing is that fundamentalism has an insecurity problem in that they have too much to lose by doing away with images and idols of their own construction. They need Godvto fit in their pockets. Fine with me that's there thing. I admit my own sins when it comes to idolatry.

 

I don't know what your view of God is do the "warped" is your self-criticism not mine.

 

My goal if you can can it that is to rid myself of all images of God and just be as human as I can. As a Christian I can do that by living in an inclusive way. I don't care so much about what they believe as they do as what they do. I think atheism as a pardifm needs to figure out whatnot is. Western civilization whether it admits it or not has to contend with the Bible. That is it for them. It is impossible to ignore it as resisting it is not going to work. A true atheist would not even speculate on whether or not God exists do much as resist the notion of God and hope he doesn't exist.

 

I don't think one word of the Bible was written for anyone in this day and age but we need to make it relevant for ourselves as a civilization goes. When that really happens then well no one takes The Barton cylinder (Sumerian creation myth seriously as we take the Bible. So Hirchens was right to say everyone is an atheist to some god.

 

I for one think its all (for lack of a better term) God which is to say well it's really nothing.

 

But the SPIRIT I want to live by whether it's a product of neurology or something else IS relevant to me. How I dress it up is up to anyone. I think atheists are spiritusl too. There is no better or worse than there is only in as much of the capacity we are able to manifest according to our growth. Value is merely fore helpful and constructive towards evolution or unhelpful and destructive toward devolution.

[JosephM]

Matteo said..... "Buddha said that women could not attain enlightenment. "

 

Matteo,

 

That is news to me. Please provide Buddhist scriptural reference to this statement if you can.

 

Joseph

[SteveS55]

Matteo,

 

Regarding women and enlightenment in Buddhism, you might want to check out the "Soma Sutta", or "Sister Soma's Sutra", from the Pali Canon.

 

Steve

Edited September 30, 2013 by SteveS55

[matteoam]

His stepmother and aunt, Maha Pajapati Gotami, asked to join the Sangha and become a nun. He initially refused her. He relented but made conditions that are controversial today. Pajabit and 500 followers followed him cut their hair, dressed themselves in monks clothes. Then Snanda Buddhas cousin said he would speak to Buddha. He refused Anandas arguments but could not really provide a reason do he relented. Nuns have more rules than rules prescribed to monks as can be found in the Vinaya-pit aka the Tripaka in the Pali Canon.

 

My point is he was a human being and not as special as some make him to be.

 

Scholars argue about discrepancies in the texts and they might have been added after Buddhas passing.

 

Again my point is its a human we're talking about here. Not some otherworldly bring. Same I think is very clear for Jesus and Mohammed for that matter. I mean there's the legend that Allah wouldn't telll Mohammed all his names and told a camel one the 100th one which is why camels look do smugly at us.

[matteoam]

His stepmother and aunt, Maha Pajapati Gotami, asked to join the Sangha and become a nun. He initially refused her. He relented but made conditions that are controversial today. Pajabit and 500 followers followed him cut their hair, dressed themselves in monks clothes. Then Snanda Buddhas cousin said he would speak to Buddha. He refused Anandas arguments but could not really provide a reason do he relented. Nuns have more rules than rules prescribed to monks as can be found in the Vinaya-pit aka the Tripaka in the Pali Canon.

 

My point is he was a human being and not as special as some make him to be.

 

Scholars argue about discrepancies in the texts and they might have been added after Buddhas passing.

 

Again my point is its a human we're talking about here. Not some otherworldly bring. Same I think is very clear for Jesus and Mohammed for that matter. I mean there's the legend that Allah wouldn't telll Mohammed all his names and told a camel one the 100th one which is why camels look do smugly at us.

[JosephM]

Matteo,

 

Your still double posting... see above 2 posts

 

Joseph

[matteoam]

Again don't know why that's happening I hit post once