Pros and cons of religous forums

[cloudyday2]

I dislike being a solid "maybe" about Christianity on a forum like this. I wish there was a more fitting Faith Status for me, but sometimes I'm tempted to just change it to "Rationalist" or "Humanist" or something and refuse to discuss my relationship with the religion.

I was thinking about the label issue too. My attitude towards Christianity has changed so that it seems to be more about trying to follow a path through a fog. I'll believe things when I trip over them for myself. It's about experimenting and trying rather than taking a cookbook off the shelf. I see some people who are content to smugly carry the cookbook and scold me for using too much salt, but they never try to cook for themselves. Who has more right to label as a "cook"? - the person who knows the recipes by heart and never cooks or the person who tries to cook and makes awful dishes?

EDIT: I guess the core issue is what should I do with my limited faith? Should I do nothing or should I try to stumble along the best I can? ... This is probably still not making sense. I'm not sure I even know what I mean LOL

 

[usexpat97]

I had that happen on a New Christians forum. The subject was abortion. The written rules (you can tell where this is going...) stated only mature Christians could respond to new Christians. I was saved a long time ago, so I responded that there is nothing in Scripture forbidding you from supporting pro-choice. I got warned by a mod reminding me that these were new Christians here. I responded, "Yes, and...?" I was kicked off.

Unwritten litmus test failed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I had that happen on a New Christians forum. The subject was abortion. The written rules (you can tell where this is going...) stated only mature Christians could respond to new Christians. I was saved a long time ago, so I responded that there is nothing in Scripture forbidding you from supporting pro-choice. I got warned by a mod reminding me that these were new Christians here. I responded, "Yes, and...?" I was kicked off.

Unwritten litmus test failed.

Good choice the mod made - someone claiming Scripture okays murder and other sin should not be allowed to promote the lies.

 

[usexpat97]

It was objectively dishonest moderation. The rules were that mature Christians were to respond to the new Christians, period. There was no rule you had to be pro-life.

Perhaps I should have shared the end of the story. I escalated the matter. The mod quit.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sad. The mod was right in what he did.
Scripture is on his side, as Jesus says.

Wickenesses often get perpetrated though - it "looks like" the wicked prevail.... maybe. If so, just until Judgment Day.

 

[hedrick]

I used to spend a lot of time at an ex-christian forum, and at one point the hypothesis that there was no historical Jesus came up. A historian dropped in to argue against this hypothesis very briefly. Later I met that same historian on another forum, and he explained that a moderator had told him that he was potentially causing newly-minted ex-christians to doubt their doubt, therefore he needed to stop arguing for the existence of a historical Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, who is a fairly well-known atheist NT scholar, got so upset at people assuming that he thought Jesus didn't exist, that he wrote a book about what we can know about Jesus. I disagree with some of his specifics, but it's still interesting to see what an atheist believes is known.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

EDIT: I guess the core issue is what should I do with my limited faith? Should I do nothing or should I try to stumble along the best I can? ... This is probably still not making sense. I'm not sure I even know what I mean LOL

What is your limited faith in, or rather who is it in ?

There's many criteria on earth in different groups for different 'Christianity' , like JWs, Mormons, and Universalists....
Not Christian according to Scripture, but called Christian in the world , usually by their own people, not by Christians.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I was thinking about the label issue too. My attitude towards Christianity has changed so that it seems to be more about trying to follow a path through a fog. I'll believe things when I trip over them for myself. It's about experimenting and trying rather than taking a cookbook off the shelf. I see some people who are content to smugly carry the cookbook and scold me for using too much salt, but they never try to cook for themselves. Who has more right to label as a "cook"? - the person who knows the recipes by heart and never cooks or the person who tries to cook and makes awful dishes?

EDIT: I guess the core issue is what should I do with my limited faith? Should I do nothing or should I try to stumble along the best I can? ... This is probably still not making sense. I'm not sure I even know what I mean LOL

When I began to meditate in 2009 my life took off on many levels (not all positive at the time) I was drawn towards Hinduism because that was my tool to understanding my mediation from a relgious perspective. Then I was drawn towards Christianity (and these forums) because Christianity was the religion I was born to. I felt at the time i needed an anchor for my new awareness/view of the world and felt like a ship without one, unable to tether myself to anything, adrift of sorts. Now I've come to realise the anchoring process for me doesn't allow me the scope to be the vehicle I need to be in the world. I stumbled to that position mostly. I learnt to be patient.

 

[Silmarien]

I used to spend a lot of time at an ex-christian forum, and at one point the hypothesis that there was no historical Jesus came up. A historian dropped in to argue against this hypothesis very briefly. Later I met that same historian on another forum, and he explained that a moderator had told him that he was potentially causing newly-minted ex-christians to doubt their doubt, therefore he needed to stop arguing for the existence of a historical Jesus.

And they say it's not a religion.

But yeah, from what I've seen, it looks like a Christian would be far more censored at those sites than a non-Christian is here.

I was thinking about the label issue too. My attitude towards Christianity has changed so that it seems to be more about trying to follow a path through a fog.

Yeah, I'm not even sure what my attitude towards it even is anymore. It's been a bit of a beacon for me for a while, and I think a fair amount of the natural theology is very insightful and likely true, but beyond that... I don't know. I don't think I'm actually capable of believing in something like the Resurrection (at least not without divine intervention). My mindset is in some ways just too modern, despite the scholasticism.

I don't really want to walk away, but I'm tired of my erratic orbit around this religion. And I think that some of my reasons for wanting to believe it are a little bit suspect. Either way, I should probably stop overthinking things.

EDIT: I guess the core issue is what should I do with my limited faith? Should I do nothing or should I try to stumble along the best I can? ... This is probably still not making sense. I'm not sure I even know what I mean LOL

What are your alternatives? What does your limited faith look like? I would definitely say stumble along rather than doing nothing.

 

[cloudyday2]

What are your alternatives? What does your limited faith look like? I would definitely say stumble along rather than doing nothing.

Ironically, the problem for me is that Jesus IS a historical figure who doesn't seem to match the more divine Jesus of Christian theology. Ehrman's apocalyptic prophet seems to match the historical Jesus best, and that apocalyptic prophet was an epic failure. So who is this divine Jesus that I sometimes seem to have encountered? The way I reconcile the flawed Jesus of history with the divine Jesus of modern spirituality is to imagine a generic God who uses the characters and concepts of our native religions to communicate with the deepest emotional effect. If this generic God has used Christianity to reach-out to me a few times, then probably Christianity has some utility. Christianity IS my native religion, so the concepts and stories resonate.

BTW, I have a similar problem reconciling the Yahweh of Judaism with the God who seems to have reached-out a few times to me. My solution is the same - a generic God that uses the concepts of Judaism/Christianity.

So I guess I find fundamentalists a bit shallow. They hide from the facts that would force them to find a way to reconcile the contradictions. What is that? Is that faith or lack of faith? Should they claim to be theists if they fear that the truth will annihilate God?

 

[Robban]

I was thinking about the label issue too. My attitude towards Christianity has changed so that it seems to be more about trying to follow a path through a fog. I'll believe things when I trip over them for myself. It's about experimenting and trying rather than taking a cookbook off the shelf. I see some people who are content to smugly carry the cookbook and scold me for using too much salt, but they never try to cook for themselves. Who has more right to label as a "cook"? - the person who knows the recipes by heart and never cooks or the person who tries to cook and makes awful dishes?

EDIT: I guess the core issue is what should I do with my limited faith? Should I do nothing or should I try to stumble along the best I can? ... This is probably still not making sense. I'm not sure I even know what I mean LOL

Pretty good way of putting it.

The "Cook" would describe what is referred to as a "Righteous in a furcoat".

He keeps himself warm while others freeze,

better would be to light a fire so that all can sit around
and keep warm.

 

[cloudyday2]

What is your limited faith in, or rather who is it in ?

See post #110 if you haven't seen it already.

 

[Zoness]

Tbh I've been looking for answers for over ten years and don't feel like I'm much closer than when I started so it's tempting to just give up and live life. At least then I'll free up my book reading schedule and focus on other intellectual pursuits.

 

[hedrick]

Ehrman's apocalyptic prophet seems to match the historical Jesus best, and that apocalyptic prophet was an epic failure.

The concept of a failed apocalyptic prophet certainly has a distinguished history. But mostly in the early 20th Cent. Since then there's been an increasing understanding that Jesus taught both future and present interventions by God, and in fact his mission was primarily the present one.

 

[Silmarien]

Ironically, the problem for me is that Jesus IS a historical figure who doesn't seem to match the more divine Jesus of Christian theology. Ehrman's apocalyptic prophet seems to match the historical Jesus best, and that apocalyptic prophet was an epic failure. So who is this divine Jesus that I sometimes seem to have encountered? The way I reconcile the flawed Jesus of history with the divine Jesus of modern spirituality is to imagine a generic God who uses the characters and concepts of our native religions to communicate with the deepest emotional effect. If this generic God has used Christianity to reach-out to me a few times, then probably Christianity has some utility. Christianity IS my native religion, so the concepts and stories resonate.

Mmm, I do not really have problems with the historical Jesus. Have you ever done a study of the parables? I see Incarnational and Atonement theology written all over them, especially in the Gospel of Luke, so I tend not to take the apocalyptic prophet approach.

BTW, I have a similar problem reconciling the Yahweh of Judaism with the God who seems to have reached-out a few times to me. My solution is the same - a generic God that uses the concepts of Judaism/Christianity.

Oh, this problem I definitely have. I've finally decided to go and read the Old Testament through, and it's causing me nothing but problems, lol. This is probably one of my underlying issues right now, since if I can't make any sense of the Old Testament, then the New Testament falls with it, no matter how inspired the Gospel of John actually looks.

 

[hedrick]

The failed apocalyptic thing comes from the opinion that Jesus preached an immediate final intervention by God. My reading of the evidence is that he expected the events in 70 AD. Several passages represent him trying to get the Jews of his time to take a more peaceful approach, which would have avoided that. I think the final editing of his teaching did not clearly distinguished that from his expectations of God's final intervention. He warned us that he didn't know when the latter was going to happen. But a couple of passages involve both, and could give the impression that he expected the final intervention to be in the near future. The Gospel writers habitually seem to have put sayings on related topics together. In this case by treating both future events as related topics and putting them together, it created confusion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ironically, the problem for me is that Jesus IS a historical figure who doesn't seem to match the more divine Jesus of Christian theology.

Well, did you expect Jesus to meet men's values/ ideas/ expectations ? His Own People, who had TORAH all their lives and for centuries already, rejected Jesus the Messiah, even though He perfectly fulfilled every prophecy of the Messiah.

Men continued messing up after the 1st century (yes, also during the 1st century). Men are evil, corrupt, selfish , stupid, naked and worse... seeking to drag everyone down away from life, away from salvation , away from the Creator Yahweh,
down into the grave, everyone trying to corrupt everyone else.

What chance does anyone have ? None.

Yet what is IMPOSSIBLE for men,

it ACCOMPLISHED by YAHWEH through JESUS ,

JESUS who does not fit men's "theology" at all.... before He came theology, while He was on earth theology, after He ascended theology .... He never tries to do what men expect as theologians or scholars or priests or pastors or professors, or teachers etc etc etc ....

He ALWAYS does exactly what ABBA YAHWEH, our Heavenly Father , directed Him to do. Just as He directs us to do.

TODAY, IF .... "IF" you (earthlings) hear HIS VOICE,
do not rebel as they did in the wilderness and perished.

They only heard and saw thunder and lighning in the mountaintop, and Yahweh held them accountable even to dying for disobeying..... HOW MUCH MORE we are held accountable having heard from JESUS MESSIAH WHO is so much greater than the mountain ! (see accurate passages in Scripture)....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But yeah, from what I've seen, it looks like a Christian would be far more censored at those sites than a non-Christian is here.

Maybe, but even 'Christians' of any group are censored a lot , and some non-'Christians' are censored less on topics important.

 

[Robban]

In the beginning, people looked at the world about them in wonder.
The they began to make sense of whayever they could.

But the wonder persisted,
eventually,
they came to believe they could understand everything.

That whatever does not make sense is simply not true-
it does not exist.


That is when the wonder died.

 

[Robban]

There is no truth about God,

Truth is God.

There is no one who learns truth,
you become truth.

There is no need to search for truth,
you have inherited it and it is within you.

You need only learn quietness
to listen to that inheritance.