I can't even recognize the Christianity I see

[yeshuaslavejeff]

but he specifically goes on about mankind's inability to fully comprehend these things. You'd think insight into his own incomplete understanding would mean he wasn't literally being dictated to.

Y'SHUA and Yochanan the immerser both showed clearly that even the Apostles could not understand anything via the flesh/ carnal/ natural mind,
but required YHWH'S granting it from heaven.

Peter and the others once knew Jesus "after the flesh", but later "after the spirit",
and
as Y'SHUA told Him, he did not learn Who the Messiah was via flesh and blood,
but via revelation from ABBA YHWH in heaven, (as all must who do learn).

Since YHWH'S Revelation thru Y'SHUA or by Spirit Breathed YHWH'S WORD thru those He called and chose and set apart for His Purpose as He Pleased,
and as He shows, Paul was taught by Y'SHUA and verified in complete harmony as Scripture with all Scripture,
we have perfect confindence in YHWH as He has always said to do.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Well, I don't think the idea of divine inspiration requires plenary verbal inspiration--I'm fine saying Paul was divinely inspired, what with the mystical visions, but he specifically goes on about mankind's inability to fully comprehend these things. You'd think insight into his own incomplete understanding would mean he wasn't literally being dictated to.

Yeah. Also, Paul himself seems to read the Old Testament in rather non-literalist fashion, like for example, in Galatians, his interpretation of the wives of Abraham is rather creative.

But yeah, the whole issue of hermeneutics is just... so very difficult. I resisted Christianity for years because the idea of a set of stories from one ancient people somehow being fundamentally different than the mythology of anyone else was so very bizarre, so it took a while to realize that the basis here was not actually the Jewish mythology itself. And now comes the pressure to accept very specific interpretations.

Sounds to me like you're happy to take two steps, but are troubled if that means you have to go all the way and take 10 steps?

From my own experience, I think the hardest thing to do sometimes is to leave space open for question marks and vagueness. Whenever you have a "maybe something" - opinion, there instantly seem to appear hundreds of people who instinctively rush to pressure you to fill that space with some very specific theory.

I probably ought to read some more of C.S. Lewis's religious writings--I used to be vaguely annoyed with him for abandoning the Glorious Atheist Cause and going over to the Dark Side, but... oops, haha.

As for people going over to the Dark Side, somewhere in the back of my head I have this naive wish that people who change their religion could just wish each other happy journey on their new path. But I guess this isn't gonna happen as long as some of them claim absolute, exclusive truth.

 

[PloverWing]

I took a break from this site in part because of some of the ugliness I've seen & the despair I've felt since the election, though my spirits have lifted somewhat.

I noticed your absence. Glad to see you back!

 

[Silmarien]

Sounds to me like you're happy to take two steps, but are troubled if that means you have to go all the way and take 10 steps?

Ah, well. I'm really just confused and scared and lashing out at the easiest target. As soon as I realized my sympathies laid on the other side of the West-East schism, I stopped caring what the uglier parts of Protestantism had to say, but the bitterness remains. Partly because of political reasons, unfortunately.

But no, I would love to be able to go 10 steps, but faith is such a tricky thing in this era, what with the spiritual/materialistic divide. I haven't been an atheist for a decade, but there's obviously a huge difference between being willing to believe that there's something to mysticism and suddenly saying, "Okay, I submit. Where are you?" I've had just enough personal experience that really didn't seem like my subconscious to not despair completely, but it's very much three steps forward, two steps back. Or vice versa. (Of course, I'm squandering all my resources, since I should probably go have a nice long chat with my priest and maybe go talk to the Orthodox down the street, but sniping at Calvinists online is so much easier!)

As for people going over to the Dark Side, somewhere in the back of my head I have this naive wish that people who change their religion could just wish each other happy journey on their new path. But I guess this isn't gonna happen as long as some of them claim absolute, exclusive truth.

I take it you've run into trouble?

Yeah. I mean, it's tricky. Everyone's trapped in their own perspective. I see militant atheists snipe at ex-atheists and complain that nobody changes their mind for rational reasons. Which... not untrue, but rather misses the point. It's not quite "You were never a Christian in the first place," but it's coming from the same place.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Ah, well. I'm really just confused and scared and lashing out at the easiest target. As soon as I realized my sympathies laid on the other side of the West-East schism, I stopped caring what the uglier parts of Protestantism had to say, but the bitterness remains. Partly because of political reasons, unfortunately.

But no, I would love to be able to go 10 steps, but faith is such a tricky thing in this era, what with the spiritual/materialistic divide. I haven't been an atheist for a decade, but there's obviously a huge difference between being willing to believe that there's something to mysticism and suddenly saying, "Okay, I submit. Where are you?" I've had just enough personal experience that really didn't seem like my subconscious to not despair completely, but it's very much three steps forward, two steps back. Or vice versa. (Of course, I'm squandering all my resources, since I should probably go have a nice long chat with my priest and maybe go talk to the Orthodox down the street, but sniping at Calvinists online is so much easier!)

I think political side of any religion is a legitimate reason to be for or against the religion. Judging tree after it's fruit is rather biblical. The way something works out in practice in peoples lives, is the fruit of the religion, which can be a testimony for or against it, imo.

I happen to be somewhat familiar with Eastern Orthodox mysticism. I used to have some pull towards that church myself in the past. EO has a rich tradition of mysticism. (and their churches look really nice too! Does that count as a legitimate reason to like it?)

I hope things will eventually end up working out for you, whatever that means. I actually meant that, I find your thoughts very interesting to read!

I take it you've run into trouble?

Actually, it's the opposite, heh. I've experienced the beauty of it when some people react to it that way. I've explored some rather subjective forms of spirituality and people in those circles tend to think along those lines. It makes things very conflict-free and gives nice breathing space. But, I get it that one needs to have a rather relative/subjective approach to spirituality, to be able to see it authentically that way.

 

[Silmarien]

I think political side of any religion is a legitimate reason to be for or against the religion. Judging tree after it's fruit is rather biblical. The way something works out in practice in peoples lives, is the fruit of the religion, which can be a testimony for or against it, imo.

Definitely agreed! I really wish people would stop stressing salvation as a future reward, since that's veering deep into con game territory. (Though I should specify that I don't put release from fear of death in the same category--if the point is to free you to better live your present life, that's not a future reward.) I think that any religion can be healthy or unhealthy--the only question for me is to what extent the specific versions reflect the core of the religion. For instance, I love Sufi Islam but never found it particularly Islamic, so... probably not much of a point in Islam's favor. But I'm increasingly convinced that it was just a series of theologians that broke Christianity at some point along the way. I don't really think it would have survived its 300 year infancy if the focus had been hateful tribalism. You don't win over many converts with that when you're an oppressed cult with no political capital.

I hope things will eventually end up working out for you, whatever that means. I actually meant that, I find your thoughts very interesting to read!

Thank you! And the feeling is very mutual. I'd come across some of your older posts while snooping around the forum.

Actually, it's the opposite, heh. I've experienced the beauty of it when some people react to it that way. I've explored some rather subjective forms of spirituality and people in those circles tend to think along those lines. It makes things very conflict-free and gives nice breathing space. But, I get it that one needs to have a rather relative/subjective approach to spirituality, to be able to see it authentically that way.

Haha, yeah. I'm the idiot who just walked into an abusive relationship. I wanted those 2000 years of tradition to draw from, and if there is objective truth there, so much the better, but so much negativity. (I'm comfortable with objective truth as a concept, but I've read too much philosophy to believe that the physical world objectively is as we perceive it to be, so I'm automatically dealing with the limits of human perception in perfectly understanding anything at all, much less stuff like this. Not a problem if it was Christian existentialism that won you over in the first place, but some people still start scowling at me about it.)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Paul did not interpret in Galatians.
YHWH 'BREATHED' HIS WORD, "Inspired Word" , through all Scripture, exactly as He Desired , Planned, Purposes, and Guards It Always, for eternity (not just for a little while / not just for a few thousand years) ....

 

[hedrick]

Unlike computer programming languages, human language is context-dependent and ambiguous. You have to interpret it. And Gal 3:25 explicitly says he's using an allegory.

 

[Jack of Spades]

But I'm increasingly convinced that it was just a series of theologians that broke Christianity at some point along the way. I don't really think it would have survived its 300 year infancy if the focus had been hateful tribalism. You don't win over many converts with that when you're an oppressed cult with no political capital.

As far as Gospels and NT letters go, it seems to me that typically, the Bible seems to me to have two somewhat conflicting narratives on the matter: One being this "The sin-free saints versus the evil world" club-of-sinless-people - mentality and then at the same time this "everyone's your brother, Jesus is the hungry stranger you just met" - peace-and-one-happy-human-family - worldview.

The one question that could really change the game here is how much the biblical records have been tampered with by the church leaders in early centuries, or how accurate they generally speaking are in describing Jesus and the first Christians teachings and life.

Thank you! And the feeling is very mutual. I'd come across some of your older posts while snooping around the forum.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear that!

Haha, yeah. I'm the idiot who just walked into an abusive relationship. I wanted those 2000 years of tradition to draw from, and if there is objective truth there, so much the better, but so much negativity. (I'm comfortable with objective truth as a concept, but I've read too much philosophy to believe that the physical world objectively is as we perceive it to be, so I'm automatically dealing with the limits of human perception in perfectly understanding anything at all, much less stuff like this. Not a problem if it was Christian existentialism that won you over in the first place, but some people still start scowling at me about it.)

Hey, if your religiousness is an abusive relationship, mine is a dragged out divorce proceeding with no end in sight...

 

[hedrick]

First, I know of no reason to suspect later tampering. By that I mean later than the final editing of the books. Clearly the Gospels often represent concerns from later than Jesus’ life, but they are all concerns plausible for the time the books were written.

The NT was written by a variety of authors in a variety of circumstances. Paul’s letters, which constitute the largest set of texts from a single author, were still written in very different situations. But that's not the only reason for different perspectives.

Given the existence of opposition to Christians in some situations, It’s not at all surprising to find the standard OT theme of the faithful remnant, nor even hints (and in the Rev more than just hints) of the standard Jewish apocalyptic sons of light vs the sons of darkness. Though I don’t think anyone quite claims that Christians are free of sin.

But some of the problem is that the core texts in the Synoptics and Paul’s letters don’t see some of the oppositions we see. For both Jesus and Paul there was a single concept of being a follower of Jesus, which included both faith and how we live. Hence at times faith is emphasized and at times obedience. Because Jesus and Paul thought it was all one thing.

Is there all one family, or are the sons and light opposed to the sons of darkness? The truth includes both, and most of the texts take such a position. Paul is pretty universalist in his conception of the impact of Jesus. But in Thes. he recognizes that there is opposition, and expects them to be judged in some way. The same is true of Jesus. He was trying to convince Israel to make peace of Rome. But still, he saw Satan as opposed to his mission.

The fact is, lots of people are threatened by or otherwise resist the kind of Kingdom Jesus taught about. Men come from east and west and north and south to sit at table, but not without opposition. An opposition that is still present today. Even among people who think they’re Jesus’ followers.

 

[Jack of Spades]

First, I know of no reason to suspect later tampering. By that I mean later than the final editing of the books. Clearly the Gospels often represent concerns from later than Jesus’ life, but they are all concerns plausible for the time the books were written.

The Comma Johanneum - case would be one reason to suspect such a thing. It gives the reason to say that the church already got caught once.

While the thing the text says doesn't really break from everything else said in the Bible, it breaks the spell of the claim that nobody would have dared to tamper with the texts.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

the claim that nobody would have dared to tamper with the texts.

I can almost 'hear' the CREATOR of the universe and of all life
saying
"noted".

i.e. He knows.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Comma Johanneum - case would be one reason to suspect such a thing. It gives the reason to say that the church already got caught once.

While the thing the text says doesn't really break from everything else said in the Bible, it breaks the spell of the claim that nobody would have dared to tamper with the texts.

The comma johannenum appears in other early Gospels, such as the Gospel to the Hebrews.

Most historic Christian confess belief in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church". While we may not necessarily regard the Church as inerrant, we do trust that God can speak to us within the receive stories of Jesus that we have.

 

[Jack of Spades]

The comma johannenum appears in other early Gospels, such as the Gospel to the Hebrews.

Most historic Christian confess belief in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church". While we may not necessarily regard the Church as inerrant, we do trust that God can speak to us within the receive stories of Jesus that we have.

I was mostly speculating, answering to what @Silmarien said about early theologians.

It's not personally that important to me whether the early texts are well preserved or not, as I am free to disagree with the Bible about the nature of God, so it was rather random speculation from my part.

As for the reliability of the Catholic church as an institution, I am very much anti-Catholic but I guess I better save that can of worms for another occasion.

 

[Silmarien]

Ah, well. My issue with Christian theology doesn't quite go back to Scripture. It's Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. I feel like Western Christianity fell off a cliff when it shifted the focus from mystery to reason. Mainline Protestantism seems to have corrected course, but I'm deeply suspicious of theology in general. (I seriously flipped out over Calvinism. That was a traumatic discovery.)

My only question with regards to Scripture itself is things like 1 Corinthians, where it seems that there's some controversy about whether those passages about women were added later. And is that story about Revelation getting canonized by one vote fact or fiction?

The conflict between believers and unbelievers as depicted in Scripture doesn't really bother me since it seems kind of inevitable, giving the circumstances. I only have problems when people start to make sweeping proclamations about what God's specific plans are, and then go on to quote hellfire passages at me out of context and tell me I don't understand Christianity when I question their pet theology.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Ah, well. My issue with Christian theology doesn't quite go back to Scripture. It's Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.

I see. I went the wrong way in time with my speculations then. I didn't think of those guys as really early theologians, but I guess I am rather biased by Protestantic bible-centric approach to Christian theology.

My problem is really with Jesus and the Bible. It took me very long time to even realize that to be the case, and when I finally figured it out, it was in some way a freeing experience. I came to a conclusion that the agonizing problem for me was not the people, but the core of the religion itself.

But I do understand my past self in sense that it's very humane to want to avoid blaming the highest authority, and put the blame on messengers. "Good king, bad ministers" - approach that people have under oppressive kings. It's easier to hate ministers than the king, and for me it was easier to hate hell-fire preaching fundies than to hate hell-fire preaching Jesus.

 

[Fantine]

I love the works of Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist month and friend of Thomas Merton, David Steindl Rast, and others. One of his books is called "Jesus and Buddha as Brothers..."

Some of his quotes:

"Enlightenment is always there. Small enlightenment will bring great enlightenment. If you breathe in and are aware that you are alive—that you can touch the miracle of being alive—then that is a kind of enlightenment." ~

~ "Many people are alive but don't touch the miracle of being alive." ~

Read more: http://www.oprah.com/spirit/12-inspiring-quotes-from-thich-nhat-hanh#ixzz4g4t24qIe

 

[ViaCrucis]

I suppose this is the thread I needed to come across tonight. I've often told people that if my judgment of Christianity were determined by the people who practice it, then I very much doubt I would still be a Christian.

And yet, it is often precisely those experiences that feel like the biggest threat to my faith. I think about many friends I've had over the years, how many grew up in the Church same as me, and how similar our experiences were; and how they left Christianity. And it is precisely in discussing things with many former Christians that very often the deciding factor had nothing to do with what Christianity is--as defined and understood historically and in the Creeds, etc--but it almost always comes down to the radical disparity between what's written in the New Testament and what's practiced on the street. It's not mere hypocrisy, but a seeming intentional and even gleeful rejection of the fundamental ethos of Scripture. I simply cannot count the number of times where I've quoted the explicit words of Jesus concerning how we ought to treat others and for it to be rather outright denied, rejected, or considered irrelevant.

Not too infrequently I find myself in a "long dark night of the soul" moment, and faith feels paper thin, and I am standing on the precipice. My only solace is to cry out, and I often find myself reciting the Apostles' Creed over and over again.

I find myself frequently both very sad and very angry at the same time; outraged by the flagrant abuse of religion and a perversion of the faith; and deeply saddened that there are those who have so deeply and radically missed the point of the Gospel--and by their words and actions turn many, many others away from the sweetness and salvation of the Gospel. And I know my own faults here, my patience runs thin and I say things I shouldn't; I don't show the temperance, patience, love, and kindness that I should.

I'm not really sure that I'm contributing much to this thread; but tonight I was feeling on edge, I found this thread and it was nice to realize I'm not alone. I suppose I'll end my rambling with, "Lord, I believe; please help my unbelief!"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

I have come to the conclusion there are irreconcilable differences between my faith, and the faith of many people calling themselves Christian. I agree with David Gushee that the conservative evangelical approach to the Bible is unworkable for developing sound ethics. But this kind of religious thinking, on the ground level, penetrates even into mainline churches. Even at my own church, it is relatively conservative and biblicist, underneath the veneer of denomination-approved liturgy and rubrics.

Sometimes I just wonder if somebody can be genuinely intellectual, conscientious, and relatively non-authoritarian, and be a Christian in my part of America.

 

[PeaceJoyLove]

It's almost like religion is making people worse, how could Jesus be happy with any of this?

Sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing, by joining a church. I wake up nervous and I feel fake sometimes, like a bad dream I'll wake up from.

-but it almost always comes down to the radical disparity between what's written in the New Testament and what's practiced on the street. It's not mere hypocrisy, but a seeming intentional and even gleeful rejection of the fundamental ethos of Scripture.

Embrace that spirit and truth that reveals/ the son that we are...HE causes us to know The Way in which we should go...
Our journey/process of soul is relative to perception - flesh/spirit. God can only give us what we can see. He calls us each out of Egypt and then to "Come out of her..." and we have to come out before we can enter in to all that HE has promised. God's Truth is about losing our soul that we might find it/lose the duality within and perceive who we truly are becoming (by process within)- ONE IN Christ...a new creature/2nd creation. Single of eye/two become ONE. No longer slumbering, but truly awakened to that Truth of who we are individually and collectively. "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." (not directed to either of you...but in relation to perception...and what HE reveals)

Only The Father can give the increase as we decrease. Going back to the beginning (first creation in Genesis) to find the end (new creation in Christ) of our faith is an amazing Truth when revealed (1 Corinthians 15:33-51 speaks to this)...and God's plan in Christ - "behold the lamb of God slain since the foundation of the world."

Comparing spiritual to spiritual is perceiving the light/"and in HIM is no darkness..." 1 John 1:5
We must worship Him in spirit and in Truth (John 4:24) and the perception of that is amazing and not of the "her" HE is calling us out of...He is giving some ears to hear and eyes to see (perceive) the Light shining out of the darkness...eating HIS bread causes us to grow up into the full measure and stature of Christ...but only if we can 'see' it. Ephesians 4:13