The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[razzelflabben]

"Open-minded" is an interesting concept. For most people, someone is "close-minded" if they do not agree with you and "open-minded" if they agree. I simply don't agree with you and, to you, that makes me "close-minded". When I ask questions or bring up concerns or perceived flaws in your positions, to take this as an "indication that resist ideas that are clearly legitimate candidates".

Personally, and I was going to let all this go...I couldn't care two hoots much less half a hoot if you agree or disagree, I do have a problem with people who don't respond to sound arguments that are made. In fact, that was one of the points I previously brought up and no one including you commented on, that being that understanding one's position does NOT mean you have to accept it. In fact, I pointed this out when I talked about our agnostic son. He identifies himself was agnostic and yet will argue Christianity with kids at school who falsely represent the teachings thereof because he understands, just disagrees with. So if so open minded?, why not comment on arguments like that, or like the need to use common literary rules when looking at scripture to find truth, or how about archeological evidence, etc. see, what I have witnessed over and over on this thread is the clinging to the old arguments that can be dismissed and not fully understood and claiming this is open minded just disagreement rather than being truly open minded and saying, "I get what you are saying and the logic of it, I just can't bring myself to agree" which is what my 16 year old is capable of and yet none of my other kids are willing to do and very few people on these boards are willing to do. It is truly sad that when we don't have an argument we resort to agreement disagreement arguments and name calling (not saying that is going on here) instead of just confessing we don't understand or understand just disagree.

All I am doing is asking questions and bringing up concerns. If I cannot be convinced perhaps it is is because I am biased (and you are too!) or perhaps it is because your arguments are not as air-tight as you think them to be.

personally, again my personal opinion nothing more, I could buy this if I saw arguments against that were logical and will thought out. In fact, I personally love people to challenge what I am saying, but alas that is rare. It is also why my 16 year old agnostic and I get along so well, cause we can argue points not emotion.

Yes, I said it was entirely possible. But I see no framework for determining which prophecies are to be taken literally and which are to be taken allegorically.

Because of this lack of a framework, the prophecies have much more wiggle room to be fulfilled which decreases the potency of the prophecy. If a prophecy is vague, it becomes like a horoscope: able to be fit to a multitude of situations.

personally, this is why I don't accept prophecy as the strongest reason to believe the Bible to be truth. I am not as far on the topic as you, but some of your objections are valid none the less. The problem is that may of the prophecies are 1. not that vague and 2. when building one on the other, makes a stronger case than you are allowing in your objections.

The re-interpretation of holy texts is, to me, just more evidence that religion is man-made. We re-interpret texts to fit with the prevailing cultural norms or our own biases and ideas.

now, as I said previously, this should not be an issue if we are using common literary rules to inform our interpretations. But again, you said nothing about that argument. The question remains, why would an open minded person like yourself refuse to address literary rules in exchange for asserting re interpretation or varying interpretations as valid reasons to not believe?

As I have mentioned several times: do you not see the parallels between Mormonism-Christianity and Christianity-Judaism? Why is Christianity's re-interpretation and new holy book valid while Mormonism's re-interpretation and new holy book invalid?[/quote] Since I see no valid reason to re interpret a book, only to insist on a correct and rule driven interpretation to start out with. Thus your point here is only valid if we dismiss the previous argument I gave but you gave no reason to dismiss it, so how then can this be valid?

Indeed. It is difficult to change your worldview. May I point out that you are not changing your view either?

Now, I know this post was not addressing me and that I am stepping out on my own to post a reply, but I also felt it necessary to point out that there are people (like myself) here, willing to change my opinions if I am shown valid reasons to do so but instead of addressing my points, but no one will.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Griffiths wrote a lot of books on Christian Hindu dialogue. Try his autobiography a Golden String or his work Christ in India. He actually went to live in various ashrams in India as a Benedictine monk.

Very cool. I will look into it.

Jesus was unique from my perspective as He was the only time God became Incarnate and accomplished the Atonement.

How do you know this occurred?

While others have claimed to be gods incarnate or to have relieved sins or whatnot, none resemble Jesus in Manifestation and then Sacrifice for our sins.

Yes, none of them resemble Jesus exactly. And none of them have the identical and nuanced Christology associated with them.

For what reason do you think a sacrifice was needed? For what reason do you think we have sins that need some sort of "cosmic redemption"?

Others resemble aspects of Christ's story, but never His story in totality, and of course I hold Jesus' incarnation and Resurrection to be True.

Why is that?

Now on to that thorny word 'True'. My very name invokes Pilate's reply to Jesus: "What is Truth?" when Jesus said that everyone in the truth listens to His voice.
Now we can argue the idea of truth as that which is valid, but how do you establish validity? Every person has their own ideas of what they consider true.
In modern Deconstruction, we break this down into axioms and assertions to see how this was decided to be so, leaving separated strands of truth-like statements.
Further in Bernstein's non-duality we approach a point where everything is true but also not-true. This is akin to the idea of non-duality in Buddhism when you reach the One - of Truth and not-Truth or if you prefer in Brahma.
In Scientific method Truth is denied entirely, as only repeatability and falsifiability matter, therefore nothing is ever proven, just not disproven. (So incidentally, Science can not make any statements on validity of metaphysical concepts such as God without being unscientific). Similarly when people adopt ideas like probability, they merely shift the onus down the ladder as how is something more probable? It remains an assumption or axiom, as probability itself requires an assumption of a fixed Truth.
In common usage we use it more like a Platonic Form or Idea. For the idea of Truth requires an Absolute upon which it can be weighed or based or it is a meaningless concept, which few would countenance.

Thank for this well-thought out response. I agree with these various definitions and limitations of truth. But then you jump to this:

Therefore, my short answer is that which is true, is that which is from God.

I'm not sure how that follows from what you said above (or if it was supposed to follow in any sort of logical way).

In some ways, I can relate to this answer because God can be held up as this ideal, the standard and measure from which everything else flows. But the problem I find is that people define and mold God in different ways. In practice, the statement "That which I believe is true, is that which is from God" becomes "That which I believe is true, is that which aligns with what I understand God to be." And, perhaps even more cynically, I can suggest that it becomes "That which I believe is true, is that which aligns with what I understand God to be and which makes me feel safe and confirmed."

Anyway, you're the only one that seems to understand this thread and I appreciate the discussion we've had. I will look into the books you suggested

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Very cool. I will look into it.



How do you know this occurred?



Yes, none of them resemble Jesus exactly. And none of them have the identical and nuanced Christology associated with them.

For what reason do you think a sacrifice was needed? For what reason do you think we have sins that need some sort of "cosmic redemption"?



Why is that?



Thank for this well-thought out response. I agree with these various definitions and limitations of truth. But then you jump to this:



I'm not sure how that follows from what you said above (or if it was supposed to follow in any sort of logical way).

In some ways, I can relate to this answer because God can be held up as this ideal, the standard and measure from which everything else flows. But the problem I find is that people define and mold God in different ways. In practice, the statement "That which I believe is true, is that which is from God" becomes "That which I believe is true, is that which aligns with what I understand God to be." And, perhaps even more cynically, I can suggest that it becomes "That which I believe is true, is that which aligns with what I understand God to be and which makes me feel safe and confirmed."

Anyway, you're the only one that seems to understand this thread and I appreciate the discussion we've had. I will look into the books you suggested

As I said, my answer to what is true is much simplified to account for the medium of posts.

This is a greatly simplified form of my answer. You could argue this is a circle argument or axiom itself, or posit multiple positions against it, which would be valid but this is far too complex a question for the medium of a forum unless we use hundreds of posts to answer it as it touches on veins of philosophy and religion going back eons.
In my opinion, Jesus said that He was the way, the TRUTH and the life and although I can spend days typing out the various permutations of the question 'what is true?', this is as succinct a statement I can make.

I immediately qualified my answer and pointed out that it is a circle argument from a presupposition of God's existence as you have intimated above, but if you go into the nitty gritty it actual isn't really one, but requires quite a lot of philosophic reasoning to reach that point. But basically for Truth of any type to exist you need an absolute reference point which is either God, a Tao or some permutation of Platonic Form.
After qualifying what truth might mean, I jumped to a possible resolution. It was not a supposed to be a logical progression, I apologise if it seemed that way.

As you agree, no one fits Jesus' narrative exactly and from my perspective, Jesus' narrative is exactly what is required.
Sin, redemption and sacrifice are Judaeo-Christian constructs which follow if you accept Christianity as true. Now, I have done so for various reasons, but you cannot argue the individual conceptions without arguing the whole.

Why others resemble Christ's story, I would borrow the crystalisation from myth into history of CS Lewis or alternately the idea of visceral as opposed to an intelectual faith as seen in Till we have Faces in the idol of Ungit by the same Author. For you don't expect everything else to be completely wrong, just have shades of the truth within them, just incomplete, but ultimately brought into completion by Jesus.

 

[Theo Book]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

Are you drawing your conclusions from the bible? Or are you drawing your conclusions from Books ABOUT the Bible? I suggest you will never develop faith by asking doubters. And naturally (in my opinion) doubters do not have sufficient faith to be teaching the bible to anyone.

Your comment that "The Bible is not historically or literally accurate" seems to be saying you are several thousand years of age, and have seen and can verify the accuracy of scripture. I would suggest you are not old enough by those same thousands of years, to faithfully assess the areas of scripture that seem to present an historical or literal problem to you.

As for "doubters" as a source, when God speaks about a thing, whether of enormity or of minutia, if someone questions its accuracy, I would expect that someone to have at least equal credentials as the author of the original source at issue.

For example, God tells us through Isaiah the prophet, that He will send his servant to send the Israelites back to Israel, to rebuild the temple and the city walls (of Jerusalem). The problem it posed for Isaiah and his immediate readers, was the simple fact Israel was not captive at that time, and had no idea what Isaiah, therefore God, was talking about.

Then God named this "servant" referenced by Isaiah, so that when the event comes to fruition, that servant, upon seeing his name in prophecy, will know that Jehovah is the God of Israel.

Then He named him, and his name was "Cyrus, King of Persia." Over two hundred years later, Israel was indeed under captivity, and Cyrus was king, and Cyrus sent the captives back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple and the city walls. And he paid the expenses and aided the captives in every way he could think of.

THAT is what I consider to be good evidence that Jehovah knows what he is talking about. And that is what I reference when I say it will require someone with equal credentials, speaking contrary to what I have already heard, to convince me there should even be a meeting in which both credentialed persons can be considered for truth value.

The most MAN can say about the truth or falsity of God's written word, is, "I have considered the original language, and the translated material therefrom, and prayed about it, and pondered with my whole heart and soul and spirit, and concluded.....(whatever), to the best of my ability.

If this has not been done, I would have to consider any conclusion reached, to be at best, prematurely assessed, prematurely evaluated, and prematurely settled in my heart to the point I can speak it as truth.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

If you research scripture, you will find a statement to the effect "so and so is the Father of them that play musical instruments" (origin of Musicians) or "This man is the Father of them who have cattle and herds (origin of cowboys?) or "Such and such is the Father of Jerusalem," though everyone knows this named person FOUNDED the city, he did not "Father" all the inhabitants thereof.

God is the Father of the concept of Messiah, and of Man's need for Messiah, Mans need for a mediator, Man's need for forgiveness, and a host of other "concepts" in the mind of God prior to creation. God planned out every possibility for reality, with all their alternate conclusions, and remedies for anything that could possibly go wrong. Then He created what is. And He is the Father of all.

Then, God sent His Spirit to beget the spirit of Jesus in the womb of Mary. So, by two accounts, God is the Father of Jesus. But that is only true in the realm of Earth and many Generations later than the woman of Genesis 3:15, whose seed would crush the head of the serpent, as the first prophecy concerning the coming Messiah.

Then Abraham was inserted into the Prophetic account, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, Mary, and Jesus was born and was of the seed of a host of MANKIND, both MAN and WOMAN. And His Genealogy is recorded following two bloodlines, as well as brothers to deceased members of bloodlines according to Moses' law of surviving Brother relatives and inheritance laws.

So you are correct in your assessment of God and "Fatherhood" as far as you went in your article.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

You need to understand the meaning of Paul's assessment of preachers; "God put His message in Earthen Vessels." We are creatures made of Earth, faulted, sometimes not too discerning, and often unaware of the needs of every member of our audiences. We fail on every count. But we strive for perfection. If I were that preacher, and you made me aware of what you posted, I would be constrained until I had made it right in the light of scripture.

Men cannot make the Historical issues rehappen for every telling, but we can strive to make the scriptures alive in the telling. We can present a "Living word of God" so that you feel a participant rather than simply an observer.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism.

What you have described is not "Christianity." What you have described is "Churchianity." "Churchianity" is based upon reverence for preachers and an established hierarchy of clergy, to pose themselves in the air just above the laity.

"Christianity" is so thoroughly different, because it is based upon the living Messiah prophesied to be raised from among Israel's brethren, and God would put HIS words in THE PROPHET'S mouth. And all men are required to hear that prophet and follow his teachings, as from God Himself. [Deuteronomy 18:18-19]

Instead, MEN have raised Jesus to the level of deity, and raised a clergy to the level of "Prophets of God." Jesus said
"God is a Spirit" - [John 4:24]
"Spirit does not have flesh and bone" [Luke 24:39-40
I (Jesus) am flesh and bone" - [Luke 24:39]
"True worshippers will worship the Father" [John 4:23]

So MAN has raised Jesus to equality with God, worship him as God, and ignore what he says about it all.

It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

Time to put the baggage into storage pending a learning process whereby you no longer need the baggage, and can continue your journey with scripture instead of story-telling. All it requires is a dedication to finding truth, and ignore the slings and arrows of accusers who do not accept the truth themselves.

Christianity is not "Theology." "Theology" is a study about God. "Theology" is related to "Theory" which is not factual. It is "THEORETIC." THAT is MAN's side of the issues. "God" is not about "Theology" which is a study about God. I do not study about God. I listen to God through His scriptures, and do not holler "Eureka" with every new concept, as though I have discovered the truth; I read His book, and pray over anything I consider to be new to me, and ponder with an open soul, a ready heart, and a quiet spirit, and wonder at the wonder that is God.

 

[expos4ever]

We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

Indeed, but I don't think all hope is lost of recovering Paul's thinking - getting inside his head, as it were. There is a movement known as the "New Perspective on Paul" (NPP) that attempts, to the largest degree possible, to understand the context in which Paul was embedded and interpret him accordingly. I empathize with LRLRLR in that I believe it is very difficult to shake our very natural inclination to read Paul using a "2000-year lens". Another way to think about this: if it is really impossible to remove the shackles of modern biases in interpretation, how is any credible knowledge of history possible?

 

[Gwen-is-new!]

I really try to convince myself that there's no god, it just always comes back to allure I feel. It is cosmic, if you want to put it that way. No matter how hard I try to turn my head, it keeps happening. It's not as strange as I want to believe.. it's Jesus. And, no, I don't want to believe, I almost have to. That's what God has left me with. He's shown me everything.. now it's up to me to choose Heaven or Hell. He doesn't have this sense of humor most people are going to hope for on judgement day. Stop before you have to realize what you always knew a minute too late. .

God does the choosing and HE chose you! Have you studied the Doctrine of Election?

 

[abrahamabe]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.
Can you tell me which parts that "look" like exaggeration, myth, or poetry? Poetry, is that about proverbs and Psalms?
New Testament is historically reliable because it passed the three test for a historical document: bibliographical test, internal evidence test, and external evidence test.
In Bibliographical test, NT is proven to have its content preserved well since the original manuscripts. It has 5500 copies in Greek, and when we compare, there are barely any significant changes. The significant changes are only 1 page in English if we want to combine in. NT is 98% pure.
There are many internal and external evidence tests as well. Some reliable historians such as Sir William Ramsay, admitted that Luke in the Bible is truly a historian (after William travel in 34 different countries that are mentioned in the Bible and did some researches.)
Therefore, if New Testament passed the tests, it is a historical document.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.
How do you know He is not the literal Son of God? He did many miracles, he fulfilled all the prophecies, and claimed as the Son of God.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.
What is the original Christianity?

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Hi everyone, I think this is a very precarious topic because there's a very thin line between Christians and noble human beings.

I'm always lost on if the Lord came to restore humanity or christ-like personalities. All the same, the closer a person gets to God the easier it becomes to be humane. The rogue human being is something close to cold to being ferocious. So everything the Bible teaches, it's to the benefit of man!

The more you forgive or let go, the freer you are to be everything you could possibly imagine. The more you learn to enjoy the humble things of life the easier it becomes to appreciate everything despite lacking something. In other words, God came to set man free. Just believe he exists and his Son cut the deal for you!!!

I believe the real Christian is very "easygoing" and filled with a peculiar bliss!

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[FireDragon76]

Good analysis. I would recommend, though, you read some stuff by Marcus Borg before you write off Christianity. There are Christians that would agree with all your points and still choose to remain Christian, however. The reasons people are Christian are more complicated than just "does this make sense to me?" People find spirituality and meaning in a community, mostly, despite the fact that many things don't make sense. I'd say the main reason these people remain Christian is the person of Jesus Christ. It's hard not to find him a compelling figure.

 

[FireDragon76]

I suppose it is largely emotional. I like many of the ideas and ethics presented in Christianity. Jesus' focus on forgiveness, compassion, repentance, love for the outsiders, etc. Paul's focus on self-discipline and self-restraint. Jesus' comments on the evils of money and greed. Jesus' emphasis on living a simple life with minimal possessions. The idealistic notion that the "last will be first and the first will be last". I find that, as I go through life, society teaches you what things you are "supposed" to value (power, money, sex, material goods), but Jesus highlights that these are all meaningless and temporary and points to something bigger, better and more meaningful. I recognize that Jesus is not unique in this philosophy, as it is a common theme in many mystic traditions, but I guess I have been most exposed to Jesus more than others.
...

The final reason is purely emotional. I've had what could be called "spiritual experiences". A sense of awe and wonder which I find best described by some thing we have decided to call "God". Sounds wishy washy...but I can't discount it.

That's a good enough reason to be a Christian. Again, you need to read progressive Christian theologians and pastors and less from fundamentalist Christian apologists who demand that faith be reduced to 12 impossible things you believe before breakfast.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That's a good enough reason to be a Christian. Again, you need to read progressive Christian theologians and pastors and less from fundamentalist Christian apologists who demand that faith be reduced to 12 impossible things you believe before breakfast.

Good analysis. I would recommend, though, you read some stuff by Marcus Borg before you write off Christianity. There are Christians that would agree with all your points and still choose to remain Christian, however. The reasons people are Christian are more complicated than just "does this make sense to me?" People find spirituality and meaning in a community, mostly, despite the fact that many things don't make sense. I'd say the main reason these people remain Christian is the person of Jesus Christ. It's hard not to find him a compelling figure.

Thanks for this encouragement. However, I often find that if Christianity gets "watered-down" away from the "fundamentals", then the line between Christianity and non-Christianity becomes very blurry. If anyone and their dog can be a Christian, then what is the point in the label?

The fundamentalists may be wrong (in my opinion) about many of the facts of history and their interpretations of the Bible, however, they at least have a very firm definition of what a Christian is.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks for this encouragement. However, I often find that if Christianity gets "watered-down" away from the "fundamentals", then the line between Christianity and non-Christianity becomes very blurry. If anyone and their dog can be a Christian, then what is the point in the label?

You are making too much of the line between Christians and non-Christians. You should instead focus on the person of Christ... what does he mean to you?

Not all Christians view Jesus Christ's mission in such exclusive terms, that defining who is and is not a Christian should be so critical. Its the nature of fundamentalisms to want to have everything be simple, stark, black and white, and exclusivist, but that doesn't make it true.

The fundamentalists may be wrong (in my opinion) about many of the facts of history and their interpretations of the Bible, however, they at least have a very firm definition of what a Christian is.

No offense but you are just reiterating fundamentalist polemical talking points about liberal/mainline and progressive Christians.

Have you actually read any of Marcus Borg's writings? It seems to me its hard to read his book, The Heart of Christianity , and come away thinking that he is intentionally and overly vague about just what exactly it means to be a Christian.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You are making too much of the line between Christians and non-Christians. You should instead focus on the person of Christ... what does he mean to you?

He is a guy who had some original and some not-so original teachings. He is not unique among wandering, itinerant preachers. His teachings and sayings themselves are often quite good and speak to me very well, but I am not sure if that is because they contain more wisdom or if it is just because I know more about Jesus because of cultural bias.

His ideas are often of a stoicist bent and certainly ascetic, both ideas that I like.

But ultimately, it is his ideas (or the ideas that writers later attributed to him) that I find most appealing rather than any personal qualities. I don't view him as a living person still, so I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a relationship with him specifically.

However, you can also talk about the Logos or The Christ, both of which are a spiritual abstraction which Jesus has been attached to. If the Logos (or The Christ) can be interpreted as some sort of pinnacle of wisdom or a perfectible ideal or perfect love etc., then that is another conversation as well. Was Jesus the incarnate Logos? He may have been, but A) I don't see how that is the clincher on everything and B) that does not necessarily mean Jesus was uniquely the incarnate Logos, as demonstrated by various Indian gurus who also claimed to be the incarnate (or reincarnate) Brahman, Krishna, etc.

Not all Christians view Jesus Christ's mission in such exclusive terms, that defining who is and is not a Christian should be so critical. Its the nature of fundamentalisms to want to have everything be simple, stark, black and white, and exclusivist, but that doesn't make it true.

No offense but you are just reiterating fundamentalist polemical talking points about liberal/mainline and progressive Christians.

Yea I know. As I've studied Christianity, I've found that words only have meaning if they have clear definitions. If the word "Christian" means "anyone and their dog", then I don't see how the term "Christian" has any significance. It should be abandoned and more precise words should be used.

Language is only useful if the conversants have matching definitions. Christianity has become such a broad term that it seems rare that two people are using the same definition.

Have you actually read any of Marcus Borg's writings? It seems to me its hard to read his book, The Heart of Christianity , and come away thinking that he is intentionally and overly vague about just what exactly it means to be a Christian.

I have read "Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time", although it was probably almost 10 years ago that I read it. I could re-visit it.

I have also read other liberal authors like Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christianity, More Ready Than You Realize, etc) as well as Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis, Love Wins). But again, most of this was quite some time ago, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the content.

It seems that, for most of them, what they are describing should not be called "Christianity". Call it something else, but lumping it under the same umbrella term as other sects of Christianity seems to render the label "Christian" useless.

 

[razzelflabben]

He is a guy who had some original and some not-so original teachings. He is not unique among wandering, itinerant preachers. His teachings and sayings themselves are often quite good and speak to me very well, but I am not sure if that is because they contain more wisdom or if it is just because I know more about Jesus because of cultural bias.

His ideas are often of a stoicist bent and certainly ascetic, both ideas that I like.

But ultimately, it is his ideas (or the ideas that writers later attributed to him) that I find most appealing rather than any personal qualities. I don't view him as a living person still, so I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a relationship with him specifically.

However, you can also talk about the Logos or The Christ, both of which are a spiritual abstraction which Jesus has been attached to. If the Logos (or The Christ) can be interpreted as some sort of pinnacle of wisdom or a perfectible ideal or perfect love etc., then that is another conversation as well. Was Jesus the incarnate Logos? He may have been, but A) I don't see how that is the clincher on everything and B) that does not necessarily mean Jesus was uniquely the incarnate Logos, as demonstrated by various Indian gurus who also claimed to be the incarnate (or reincarnate) Brahman, Krishna, etc.



Yea I know. As I've studied Christianity, I've found that words only have meaning if they have clear definitions. If the word "Christian" means "anyone and their dog", then I don't see how the term "Christian" has any significance. It should be abandoned and more precise words should be used.

Language is only useful if the conversants have matching definitions. Christianity has become such a broad term that it seems rare that two people are using the same definition.



I have read "Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time", although it was probably almost 10 years ago that I read it. I could re-visit it.

I have also read other liberal authors like Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christianity, More Ready Than You Realize, etc) as well as Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis, Love Wins). But again, most of this was quite some time ago, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the content.

It seems that, for most of them, what they are describing should not be called "Christianity". Call it something else, but lumping it under the same umbrella term as other sects of Christianity seems to render the label "Christian" useless.

the term christian has been watered down terribly, that being said, for the early church, the term christian meant, like Christ, or little Christ's some might interpret it to say, meaning they were those that followed and lived out the teachings of Christ. Many of us today use the term believer to make the distinction. The believer thus is the one that follows and lives the teachings of Christ, striving to live as He did.

 

[FireDragon76]

If Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are not Christian, what are they? They certainly are not Buddhists or Muslims. It seems to me Rob Bell has a fairly clear view of what being a Christian is, even if he emphasizes different things that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists do not.

 

[razzelflabben]

If Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are not Christian, what are they? They certainly are not Buddhists or Muslims. It seems to me Rob Bell has a fairly clear view of what being a Christian is, even if he emphasizes different things that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists do not.

scratching my head wondering what was not clear about my post....

 

[bling]

He is a guy who had some original and some not-so original teachings. He is not unique among wandering, itinerant preachers. His teachings and sayings themselves are often quite good and speak to me very well, but I am not sure if that is because they contain more wisdom or if it is just because I know more about Jesus because of cultural bias.

His ideas are often of a stoicist bent and certainly ascetic, both ideas that I like.

But ultimately, it is his ideas (or the ideas that writers later attributed to him) that I find most appealing rather than any personal qualities. I don't view him as a living person still, so I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a relationship with him specifically.

However, you can also talk about the Logos or The Christ, both of which are a spiritual abstraction which Jesus has been attached to. If the Logos (or The Christ) can be interpreted as some sort of pinnacle of wisdom or a perfectible ideal or perfect love etc., then that is another conversation as well. Was Jesus the incarnate Logos? He may have been, but A) I don't see how that is the clincher on everything and B) that does not necessarily mean Jesus was uniquely the incarnate Logos, as demonstrated by various Indian gurus who also claimed to be the incarnate (or reincarnate) Brahman, Krishna, etc.



Yea I know. As I've studied Christianity, I've found that words only have meaning if they have clear definitions. If the word "Christian" means "anyone and their dog", then I don't see how the term "Christian" has any significance. It should be abandoned and more precise words should be used.

Language is only useful if the conversants have matching definitions. Christianity has become such a broad term that it seems rare that two people are using the same definition.



I have read "Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time", although it was probably almost 10 years ago that I read it. I could re-visit it.

I have also read other liberal authors like Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christianity, More Ready Than You Realize, etc) as well as Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis, Love Wins). But again, most of this was quite some time ago, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the content.

It seems that, for most of them, what they are describing should not be called "Christianity". Call it something else, but lumping it under the same umbrella term as other sects of Christianity seems to render the label "Christian" useless.

I agree: Describing people as being “Christian” when they do not act like Christ is to diluting the word.

I sometimes refer to “true Christians” to try and make a distinction.

Just because a person calls themselves a “Christian” if you do not see them as being “Like Christ” than do not call them Christian (that is fine with me).

I also agree: “Jesus did not really say anything philosophically different then all the prophets before him were saying, so those words are not that significant (they would be very significant if He had said something different, but that would give cause not to believe Him.)”

Jesus demonstrates true unconditional selfless Love, beyond what we see from other religious preachers.

All other religions present God as needing something from them (their worship) and have a progression for moving up in spiritual rewards, which can just be peace within.

The Christian God is not trying to get anything from people, but is just trying to shower people with unbelievable wonderful gifts, but for the gift giving to take place it has to be humbly accepted as pure charity (the way God gives it). To refuse the gifts means the person is refusing God’s Love ( they want to be loved for how they want others to perceive them to be and not be Love (accept charity) in spite of who they are).

The Christian God gives as much as the person is willing to accept up front. There is nothing more for the Christian to get (he/she is not in heaven right away, but has a birthright given at his/her second birth to heaven that cannot be taken away). Our “motive” for doing good stuff has to be out of a Loving Gratitude only.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

If Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are not Christian, what are they? They certainly are not Buddhists or Muslims. It seems to me Rob Bell has a fairly clear view of what being a Christian is, even if he emphasizes different things that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists do not.

It just depends on how you define Christian. What links all Christians together? What distinguishes a Christian from a non-Christian? Is it doctrinal statements, or is it behaviour, or a combination of both?

If nothing can be found which distinguishes a non-Christian from a Christian then I would argue that the word itself is semantically useless.