Wrestling with the "exclusivity" of Christianity... please help! - Page 8

[genifer]

Well, you see. I like people, and I like talking to people. I find being civil helps tremendously in the area of communication, doesnt it! Respect is a basic human right, imho. Goodness sake. I do know the kind of christians you are talking about, and Ive met lots of them too. I argue with them something fierce actually. Bc they have a hard time with me being 'nice' to people who dont think like I do... I dont know why? lol. Ive been accused of wanting my ears tickled and such when really I was just seeking and asking honest questions. I do love them just the same, but find talking to them very difficult.

I might not be able to agree with someone who has a different opinion, I might even say 'I cant and wont believe... such and such (insert different beliefs and ideals)' but find its just fine to agree to disagree. We actually learn something .

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Question for those Christians who do not take the Bible literally:

Do you think Jesus was the literal son of God and literally rose from the dead?


Maybe this is the subject for another thread, but I thought I'd throw the question out there in light of recent posts.

Short answer, no. At least for me. (I feel I always have to clarify that. ) To me, there have been a few "way-showers" in the course of human history. Jesus is one of those. An exceptional one at that. And the one that I choose as my way-shower. He came to show the way to God. "Son of God" is not a term unique to Christianity nor to Jesus. There have been many "Sons of God" - the Roman emperor, for instance.

Originally Posted by Marcus Borg, The First Paul, pages 18-19

... Roman rulewas legitimated by an imperial theology that proclaimed that the emperor was the Son of God, Lord, Savior of the World, and the one who had brought peace on earth.

I believe that the writers of the Gospels were trying to find a way to describe the significance of Jesus in their lives and the lives of his followers. They used terms that meant big ideas - terms that stood for the ultimate ruler, ultimate giver, ultimate teacher, terms that they had read of being used for people like David, Moses, Elijah ... if you read through the Gospels and use the stories of Moses, Elijah, David as a lens, you'll see a different perspective of Jesus. (Sorry this is jumbled; I'm trying to gather my thoughts and am not sure I'm doing the best job.)

I do not believe he literally rose from the dead. I do believe in miracles, but bodily raising a dead person defies even the most out-there miracles in my mind. I also do believe Jesus literally rose people from the dead; I do believe he metaphorically raises people from the dead, even to this day. But literally, my mind cannot begin to wrap around that. Also, I cannot quite get past some of the contradictions contained within the various accounts of his rising.

Since Paul's letters were written before anything else in the New Testament (his seven legitimate letters: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians [though 1 Corinthians has material later added to try and harmonize with the anti-woman message in 1 Timothy], 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon), I would go there for ideas on the resurrection before going to the Gospels, which were written anywhere from about 10 years to 30 years after Paul's letters. When Paul writes of Jesus, he does not write of a bodily resurrection; he may never heard that part of the story, or it was not taught at that time as factual. By the time Mark was written, there was a very short "resurrection" story based on the original, shorter ending of Mark (16:8).

Originally Posted by 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Beyond the Scriptural ideas of resurrection (bodily or by spirit), my post-modern beliefs in our world, space, universe prevent me from accepting a bodily resurrection because I cannot believe that the same body that rose from the dead also ascended into the sky up to heaven. Where, exactly, did he go as a bodily resurrection? Where is heaven? We've sent humans up there ... after our atmosphere, you have space, you have moons and planets and asteroid belts. But, there's no where for a risen body to go but orbit. And I don't think that is what is meant.

But, taking the resurrection as metaphorical, it teaches me that even death cannot overcome life. Even death cannot overcome the love of God. Even death cannot end relationships. Even death cannot end Jesus's message and purpose - he was raised by God after death, not bodily, but spiritually, I guess, would be a good way to describe it. He continues to live today. His spirit continues on in the lives of those who choose to model their lives after his.

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by genifer

Well, you see. I like people, and I like talking to people. I find being civil helps tremendously in the area of communication, doesnt it! Respect is a basic human right, imho. Goodness sake. I do know the kind of christians you are talking about, and Ive met lots of them too. I argue with them something fierce actually. Bc they have a hard time with me being 'nice' to people who dont think like I do... I dont know why? lol. Ive been accused of wanting my ears tickled and such when really I was just seeking and asking honest questions. I do love them just the same, but find talking to them very difficult.

I might not be able to agree with someone who has a different opinion, I might even say 'I cant and wont believe... such and such (insert different beliefs and ideals)' but find its just fine to agree to disagree. We actually learn something .

Definitely!

[Theoretica]

Great thread...

Originally Posted by 2xy

The way I see it is that people have created gods in their own image. And I understand that many Christians believe in the concept of free will, but it doesn't make sense to me....how could a loving, perfect deity create beings who are imperfect and make bad choices? It seems illogical that imperfection could come from perfection. It seems illogical that evil could exist if God is good, since God is allegedly the creator of everything. Moreover, it seems illogical that an omnipotent, omniscient being who is outside of time and space could be as simple as we are.

Haven't gotten farther than this in the thread, but suffice it to say if we're going to use logic to start understanding religion, that very well could be the downfall of religion itself. Religion is not logical. I have no clue how people reconcile logic with religion because it just can't happen.

For example:

Questions:
If God is 100% good, how did God create Evil?

If God created Evil, God is NOT 100% good.
If God did not create Evil then God did not create everything and is therefore not God.

With the presumption of the existence of God...

Here's the Facts-
Evil exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God created everything (creationist belief of most religious organizations)

Therefore: God created Evil, and God is not 100% good.

Which raises the questions-

If God is not 100% good, then how good is God? 50%? 20%? How evil is God? 10%? 70%?

Using logic, if Jesus is 'the only way' to 'salvation' then yes...people like Ghandi and millions others are going to hell simply because they don't meet the criteria. When people say "It's not my place to judge whether or not _____ is in hell" and ALSO say "in order to go to heaven you MUST believe xyz" knowing full well that person didn't believe xyz, the judgment has already been made.

I've only met a few people willing to stand by their definition of salvation (Jesus=only way) and say yes, Ghandi and all the Atheists/Muslims/Hindu/Buddhist/Non{insert their denomination} Christian are ALL going to hell. Obviously this is an exceedingly arrogant statement to make, but at least they didn't hide behind "gee I believe this, but who am I to judge". Either you believe it or you dont, you know?

Great thread everyone

[Purple Sage]

Thanks for that answer, MyLittleWonders.

[MyLittleWonders]

No problem! Thanks for giving me reason to try and put into words something very hard to explain.

[Thao]

I've only met a few people willing to stand by their definition of salvation (Jesus=only way) and say yes, Ghandi and all the Atheists/Muslims/Hindu/Buddhist/Non{insert their denomination} Christian are ALL going to hell. Obviously this is an exceedingly arrogant statement to make, but at least they didn't hide behind "gee I believe this, but who am I to judge". Either you believe it or you dont, you know?

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

No problem! Thanks for giving me reason to try and put into words something very hard to explain.

I really appreciate that you did explain it. I see Christianity much the same way. I look at it as a collection of myths, just as I look at all the other religions. I left Christianity because I could not get past the "exclusivity" of it and did not believe in a literal Jesus who was the personification of God and rose from the dead. If it had been taught to me as mythology, a story humans tell to convey a Truth that we cannot understand except in our own limited human perspective, then I might not have left. At this point, for me, there is no going back because I've "met" other Gods who make my heart sing, and so I'm decidedly polytheist.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by genifer

Im beginning to understand how christians understand their Holy Book and that the way they understand it is very, very different from the way others understand the bible. The way *I* see it is that the Bible, my Holy Book, is alive. Not alive as in something to be worshipped as we would worship God, but that, in our opinion (and there are many who believe this way, some dont tho), being God's word, its breathing, living, and in that way its inspiring, but inspiring isnt the word Im looking for, and it grossly understates what Im trying to say. Its not always changing (infact its always changing, challenging us!) but there are levels of spiritual meaning, depths to be searched, hidden gems to be found, and a lot of times meaning is very much hidden. I will read one book or chapter or verse over and over, then years later (or weeks or months) read it again and think 'I know Ive read this over and over, how did I miss that before?'. Ive realised, from my own very personal experience, that if we dont have the Holy Spirit helping us, its just words on paper with little or no meaning. And that certainly without the Holy Spirit it is completely impossible to get the meaning out of it that God intended. Glancing at it wont do to get any kind of meaning from it or to make any kind of opinion of it. I really believe the bible is a book to be really really studied to get any kind of meaning out of it. Its GOT to be searched, wrestled with, not to be put down or else you will never get what you're meant to get out of it... I suppose one has to be willing to get something out of it in the first place.

I believe that the bible is an inspired book, inspired as in inspired by God. That God preserved it, thru the millenia, from the Jewish scriptures right thru to revelation (nt) from translation to translation. I believe God is perfect and that he perfectly preserved it for us today. I say believe, but its more accurate to say that its something that Ive discovered.

ThomasL, I will agree with you on one thing...



To the rest, Jesus either said it or He didnt. If he did say He was the way, the truth, and the Life and the only way to the Father, He said alot of other things that have to be taken into account as well, and which contradict what you assert. If he did say that, but not the rest, but the rest is attributed to him as well, then some of it must be false, but which bits? What part do we accept and what do we reject? Only what we like, and leave out the parts we dont?

I personally believe he left a perfect account of what he said with his earliest followers and that is what they recorded and that is what made its way into the bible.

I myself am a gnostic so to be totally honest I do not consider anything that is written to be the ultimate authority. Words are limited and cannot be expressed beyond the 3 dimensional reality.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

For example:

Questions:
If God is 100% good, how did God create Evil?

If God created Evil, God is NOT 100% good.
If God did not create Evil then God did not create everything and is therefore not God.

With the presumption of the existence of God...

Here's the Facts-
Evil exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God created everything (creationist belief of most religious organizations)

Therefore: God created Evil, and God is not 100% good.

Which raises the questions-

If God is not 100% good, then how good is God? 50%? 20%? How evil is God? 10%? 70%?

And you have just explained why I do not believe G-d is good. Honestly, though, I don't really have a problem with HOW good G-d is because worshipping G-d feels right, you know?

[ILoveSweetpea]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

Great thread...


...

For example:

Questions:
If God is 100% good, how did God create Evil?

If God created Evil, God is NOT 100% good.
If God did not create Evil then God did not create everything and is therefore not God.

With the presumption of the existence of God...

Here's the Facts-
Evil exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God created everything (creationist belief of most religious organizations)

Therefore: God created Evil, and God is not 100% good.

Which raises the questions-

If God is not 100% good, then how good is God? 50%? 20%? How evil is God? 10%? 70%?

Using logic, if Jesus is 'the only way' to 'salvation' then yes...people like Ghandi and millions others are going to hell simply because they don't meet the criteria. When people say "It's not my place to judge whether or not _____ is in hell" and ALSO say "in order to go to heaven you MUST believe xyz" knowing full well that person didn't believe xyz, the judgment has already been made.

I've only met a few people willing to stand by their definition of salvation (Jesus=only way) and say yes, Ghandi and all the Atheists/Muslims/Hindu/Buddhist/Non{insert their denomination} Christian are ALL going to hell. Obviously this is an exceedingly arrogant statement to make, but at least they didn't hide behind "gee I believe this, but who am I to judge". Either you believe it or you dont, you know?

Great thread everyone

IMO, God isn't "good" in the way that most of us understand good. I don't say that to brush off your assertion, but just saying that your logic doesn't hold water for me personally. Also, I don't believe God directly created evil. I believe evil was created by man. And, yes, God created man and gave man free will. So indirectly He created evil. But, again, I don't see the conflict as I don't think describing God as "good" as in the opposite of evil is correct. Also, sort of a separate note, I do believe that evil can come from good just as I believe good can come from evil.

I know what you are saying about hiding behind the "I believe this but I don't judge" in terms of believing Jesus is the only way to heaven. That is tough...and a big part of the reason I started this post. I have such a hard time with this concept. But I don't think I can cherry-pick the bible. I do believe Jesus is the way to the Father and to salvation. Is it possible that Jesus reveals himself to people after they die and they get a chance to accept or reject him then? It's possible, I don't know. Honestly, I do not have reason to believe that is true...it is perhaps just wishful thinking. I have friends of many faiths, and deep down I don't believe any of them are doomed to hell due to their faith. Not even a little. This may seem to contradict with saying I believe Jesus is the only way... but,again, I'm not so arrogant as to claim I understand and know how everything works exactly! So, yeah, you can be mad at me for being of of those contradictory Christians that says they believe Jesus is the only way but they don't judge others. I wish I had a better answer to that criticism because it is a very valid criticism. (and, again, the reason for the post originally)

I think more Christians than not are nonjudgemental. A few bad apples spoil the bunch, ya know? I really think Christianity has been given a bad name by current culture and media. We're a popular group to pick on these days. But, I swear... we aren't so bad. I go to a very conservative Christian church - the type of place you'd expect lots of bible-thumping judgment... but if you meet the people, you'll find those stereotypes don't usually (repeat: usually) hold true. We are taught to love our neighbor - and most Christians do. We are taught to love and pray for our enemies. (Although I don't have any enemies that I'm aware of, thankfully.)

Ok, I'm babbling... haha! I guess I am just trying to share that I don't think the vast majority of Christians are harsh and judgmental. Yes, those Christians exist (I've meant plenty of judgmental types that aren't Christians as well). I am afraid the minority gives the majority a bad image. Judgment is absolutely not the purpose of Christianity. If anything, it should free us from judgement as salvation isn't obtained through deeds and works.



Oh... and about taking the bible literally. Yes, there are Christians that take the entire bible literally. The bible is complicated, and I don't pretend to be a scholar. There are excellent resources out there written by people much more knowledgeable than me on the matter. However, I will say that while I do trust the bible as the truth, I also do not take it all literally. I do not believe it was all meant to be taken literally. There is allegory, metaphor, and lots of other literary devises used. Again, I personally believe the bible is the inspired Word of God and I believe the words of the bible are correct and represent the truth. (Whether we interpret it correctly all the time is another story.) But that does NOT mean (to me) that the entire bible intended to be literal. Jesus himself loved to teach using allegory. Even the most conservative and liberal scholar seem to agree on that point.

I do, as someone asked, believe that Jesus was literally resurrected. Most Christians I know do believe this, and it's a cornerstone of faith for many. As a PP responded already, you can see that not all Christians take this literally - but I absolutely take the resurrection literally. The Case for Christ is a great sort of beginners guide to evidence of the resurrection - and there are more scholarly works out there as well.


All of the above is just my opinion. Christians are diverse in their beliefs, so I am certainly not the spokesperson for all Christians... just myself and my experiences. I don't know if I contributed anything at all helpful or worthy of this interesting discussion... but if nothing else my fingers got a workout.

[hrsmom]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Question for those Christians who do not take the Bible literally:

Do you think Jesus was the literal son of God and literally rose from the dead?


Maybe this is the subject for another thread, but I thought I'd throw the question out there in light of recent posts.

Not anymore!

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by hrsmom

Not anymore!

Kimberly, too bad you are a couple hundred miles down the coast ... I think we would get along really well.

[genifer]

It all depends how one defines evil. My understanding is that evil isnt a 'created thing', its the result of created things rebelling against God, so evil, by my definition, is rebellion against your Creator. God cant rebel against Himself so logically, God isnt evil, or the creator of evil. He created beings with the ability to rebel, with free will, yes, but thats not evil.

Others define evil differently I guess and this is where we're going to come up against brick walls in our discussions, bc of the different understanding of things.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Question for those Christians who do not take the Bible literally:

Do you think Jesus was the literal son of God and literally rose from the dead?


Maybe this is the subject for another thread, but I thought I'd throw the question out there in light of recent posts.

I wonder just what you mean by literally? This is a very modern distinction about how to study the Bible, and I always find it difficult to figure out just what people mean. Before the Enlightenment, no one took the whole Bible literally in the sense fundamentalists say they do now. Are we meant to understand the psalms literally? Even fundamentalists understand them as poetry, so I take claims of a literal understanding with a grain of salt.

FWIW, many would probably accuse me of not taking the whole thing literally, but I do think Jesus rose from the dead, and that he was the Son of God in the sense expressed in the three great Creeds.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I wonder just what you mean by literally? This is a very modern distinction about how to study the Bible, and I always find it difficult to figure out just what people mean. Before the Enlightenment, no one took the whole Bible literally in the sense fundamentalists say they do now. Are we meant to understand the psalms literally? Even fundamentalists understand them as poetry, so I take claims of a literal understanding with a grain of salt.

FWIW, many would probably accuse me of not taking the whole thing literally, but I do think Jesus rose from the dead, and that he was the Son of God in the sense expressed in the three great Creeds.

You answered my question. I think most people who believe the Bible to be the word of God take some of it literally and some of it as poetry or myth. I just wanted to know specifically about the story of Jesus, whether or not people take that part of the Bible literally but not others.

[hrsmom]

I think one meaning of "do you take the Bible literally" is "do you believe it is a historical account, in that the events described actually happened as described?" That's what it sounds like Purple Sage is asking? I know in the last three churches I attended they took even the Psalms pretty literally and looked there for historical accounts. This is all so interesting! I am enjoying the varying perspectives!

I no longer believe that it is an account of historical events in a literal sense, but that happened over time. Now I am very intrigued with studying the Bible, wondering what the writers meant when they wrote about turning water into wine, for example. I don't believe Jesus did that, but I do believe the writers wrote about it (obviously, it's right there!) and I wonder what they were trying to say.

So from that perspective, tying it into the OP's question, what I would wonder is, what was the writer of John trying to say when he had Jesus say "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me." I'm going to leave it there for now, but I think the answer lies in considering the historical context of the writing of that gospel.

[Thao]

ILoveSweetpea, I'd just like to say that I really respect your gracious and honest tone . This is hard stuff to talk about.

I wanted to comment on some things, possibly some underlying assumptions in your post. Of course, you can let me know if I am totally off-base.

But I don't think I can cherry-pick the bible.

The word "cherry-pick" means picking out only the parts you like, and ignoring the rest. It implies a degree of shallowness (not really thinking about what one is doing) or outright dishonesty (knowing what one is doing and doing it anyway) on the part of the person doing the cherry-picking. I do not think that interpreting the "I am the way, the truth and the life" in a more universalist way is either shallow or dishonest. There are many reasons why one might come to a different and more universalist interpretation of that passage other than just discomfort with exclusiveness.

There is logic, the contradiction between a God who proclaims his perfect love for His children and yet (in the exclusive view) set up a world where the majority of these beloved children would spend eternity in agony. I understand the argument that free will requires people to have the choice to reject God, however there is a real question of whether people in this life have a clear enough picture of things to be able to make an informed choice. I certainly don't feel that I do. The only way this works logically is to believe that everyone, in this lifetime, no matter their circumstances or background, has an "aha" moment where they suddenly realize that Jesus Christ really did die for their sins.

But that contradicts the facts of reality that you see when you look around you. You see serious and sincere people who tell you they have never had that "aha" moment, in fact they prayed the same prayers you have and have gotten an entirely different answer. Either God is sacrificing some of us to eternal torment for His purposes (which contradicts the idea of a loving God), or a whole lotta people are just not being honest with themselves (which is an inherently judgmental viewpoint -- doesn't mean it is wrong, of course, but anyone who holds this view really does need to own it as judging everyone else as having knowingly rejected God, a bad thing).

IMO, if trying to understand Jesus' "I am the way" statement in a way that fits with logic and facts is "cherry-picking", then the vast majority of mainstream churches are guilty of "cherry-picking". Because most churches have clearly re-interpreted Paul's model for gender relations (man is to woman as God is to man, women must never be in authority over a man, cover their heads, keep quiet in church, etc) in a way different from how it was understood when it was written.

And this...

Is it possible that Jesus reveals himself to people after they die and they get a chance to accept or reject him then? It's possible, I don't know. Honestly, I do not have reason to believe that is true...it is perhaps just wishful thinking.

...I don't think that is wishful thinking, it is deep and honest thinking. There are *real* problems with the exclusive version of Christianity, and you are aware enough to recognize and struggle with them. Whatever your final conclusion is, please do not belittle yourself by characterizing your very valid struggle as "just wishful thinking".

Oh, and I wanted to say that I for one completely agree with you that most Christians are not judgmental people ! I do think there is a distinction between the person and the beliefs. The exclusive version of Christianity is, by definition, judgmental, but there are lots of really non-judgmental people who hold it. Some (maybe the the majority?) just never really think it through. Others do think it through and accept it but it always sits uneasily with them, because there is a conflict between their unwillingness to judge and the belief.

[genifer]

Deleted post.

[indie]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

Questions:
If God is 100% good, how did God create Evil?

If God created Evil, God is NOT 100% good.
If God did not create Evil then God did not create everything and is therefore not God.

With the presumption of the existence of God...

Here's the Facts-
Evil exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God exists (by oversimplified definition of most religious entities).
God created everything (creationist belief of most religious organizations)

Therefore: God created Evil, and God is not 100% good.

This makes sense if you believe that evil is a created thing, but I think that evil is the absence of Love and Goodness in much the same way that darkness is the absence of light.