Christianity

[lizbeth]

* beth~chella keeps on swimming past this lovely group think thread.

[Ellieka]

LOL! Beth, your diversity and independent thinking is just one of the many reasons I love you. Don't ever change anything about yourself that you don't want to.

[Just Kate]

* beth~chella keeps on swimming past this lovely group think thread.

Group think!?  On a TS forum?!?!

[Alyx.]

Group think!?  On a TS forum?!?!

Snakes? On MY plane?

[PanoramaIsland]

The idea that Christianity is "unpopular" or even "persecuted" - here in the US especially - is absolutely ridiculous. A very large majority of the world population is religious, and of that world population, 1.5-2.5 billion consider themselves Christian - that's between one quarter and one third of the world population, making it the world's largest religion.

I am ethnically and culturally Jewish, and grew up surrounded by a diverse blend of Jews, ranging from haredi (ultra-Orthodox) to Reform (liberal/modern) and Reconstructionist (so liberal/modern they can't seem to decide if they technically believe in God or not). My mother was the president of a large Conservative (in-between Orthodox and Reform) congregation when I was small. I still love to dance Ushavtem Mayim and the Hora, celebrate Hanukkah and Passover, and swear in Yiddish; however, I found (and still find) the religious rules stifling and pointless, and the beliefs make no sense to me.

As far as the best secular Biblical scholars can tell, Jesus was a radical Jewish religious reformer with a message of extreme kindness and forgiveness, communal living, peace, compassion and understanding. He embraced those whom others shunned - prostitutes, Samaritans, tax collectors. He was not a miracle worker, and never claimed to be a mashiach, the son of God, or divine in any way. He never intended to found a religion, and would very likely have abhorred the Pharisaic legalism Christianity tends to embody. There is some debate over whether he preached an apocalypse; it is fairly certain, however, that Christianity was an invention of his successors - particularly St. Paul - not of Yeshua of Nazareth himself.

Jesus was obviously a great man. That being the case, I wish the people who take it upon themselves to follow him would actually follow his teachings. How he died, and whether he was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, is irrelevant; forgiveness, compassion, acceptance of the societally outcasted and marginal, etc. are the real "Christianity" in my book.

[PanoramaIsland]

Agree, and it annoys me when other Christians perpetuate this idea. On the other hand, there is some stigma associated with being deeply religious rather than being a "Sunday-only" Christian. But it is nowhere near the distrust and hatred, say, atheists and Muslims encounter.
That's why I like my church and in particular my very progressive pastor. He backs away from the legalistic style that you mention and towards an actual following of Jesus's teachings. "Love thy neighbor" is 99% of what my church is about. There are a lot of churches like mine, but unfortunately most are as you describe!

I'm quite aware - and happily so - of progressive churches; it was an Anglican arch-deacon who took care of me when I was seriously prepared to kill myself several years back. Judaism has similar institutions. I'm also aware of people who practice Christianity as a private and solitary spirituality, away from the falseness of megachurches and the authoritarianism of centralized religious authority.
If Jesus were alive today, I'd happily smoke blunts and talk philosophy for hours on end with him, maybe march for sex workers' rights and do some meditation. Perhaps he'd persuade me to go on a Peace Corps mission with him, healing the sick in Uganda or building houses in Chile. He'd probably have some killer taste in music! I just don't want anything to do with the people who care more about supernatural ideas about his birth and death than about his message.

I also don't want anything to do with people who rage and fume about my atheism, perceiving it as a personal slight to themselves. Then again, at least I'm not a Muslim; it drives me to twitching and screaming seeing some of the flaming bigotry directed at Muslims by major conservative "Christian" figures, both here in the U.S. and abroad. Turn the other cheek my arse!

[spacial]

Panorama

Your view point is very refreshing. I have discussed the teachings of Jesus with other Jewish people, but sadly, so many seem to react to any questioning of their position, on any matter, as a personal attack.

Like Cami, I too rediscovered my relationship with God, though a number of years ago in my case. My own alienation came when I atempted to take the entire text in the KG Bible almost literally. the contradictions and counter intuitions drove me almost insane.

Then I read the Gospels in isolation. I was doing a nursing job where I found myself stuck in a room specialing a comatose patient and was so bored. All there was to read was a copy of Gideon's Bible.

As you say, it's the teachings that matter. They stand out because they make such sense. I really can't see how anyone, even an aeithist, can find anything there to disagree with.

Though, for some, not being allowed to kill is a bit of a bind.

[Suzy]

As far as the best secular Biblical scholars can tell, Jesus was a radical Jewish religious reformer with a message of extreme kindness and forgiveness, communal living, peace, compassion and understanding. He embraced those whom others shunned - prostitutes, Samaritans, tax collectors. He was not a miracle worker, and never claimed to be a mashiach, the son of God, or divine in any way. He never intended to found a religion, and would very likely have abhorred the Pharisaic legalism Christianity tends to embody. There is some debate over whether he preached an apocalypse; it is fairly certain, however, that Christianity was an invention of his successors - particularly St. Paul - not of Yeshua of Nazareth himself.

Jesus was obviously a great man. That being the case, I wish the people who take it upon themselves to follow him would actually follow his teachings. How he died, and whether he was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, is irrelevant; forgiveness, compassion, acceptance of the society's outcaste and marginal, etc. are the real "Christianity" in my book.

As far as reaching out to the outcast and marginalized, I totally agree with you.  In what Jesus' opinion of the legalism of the church today would be I have to agree as well.

However, please ask yourself one important question:  Why would anyone become a secular Bible scholar?  It is a total oxymoron of an occupation.  There is only one answer:  They have an agenda.  No surprise there, we all do.  But why would you expect these people to say anything else?  Their very title predicted it.  Just do not present these sources as some kind of mitigating wisdom.  They are anything but.

Jesus himself was indeed a worker of miracles.  He himself taught that he was
וְיֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ    He himself taught that the Χριστός would have to suffer and die and be resurrected.  And yes, he said quite a lot about eschatology, as does the Old Testament.  Neither were invented by Paul.  Though it is conceded that Paul drastically shaped the church.  Historically, it was at Antioch that his followers were first called Christians.

Kristi

[Sarah Louise]

Nice answer Kristi.

I'm struggling today and in need of prayer.

Sarah L.

[Nemo]

Actually, in some countries (e.g. China, Iran), Christianity is persecuted. It's illegal in these places, on pain of death and sometimes preceding torture. Here in the UK, we get a lot of refugees who'd become Christian while over here, and would die if they got sent home. Sadly the Home Office don't seem to care about such details

But as to this:

Jesus was obviously a great man. That being the case, I wish the people who take it upon themselves to follow him would actually follow his teachings. How he died, and whether he was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, is irrelevant; forgiveness, compassion, acceptance of the societally outcasted and marginal, etc. are the real "Christianity" in my book.

I agree whole-heartedly, and it saddens me that a lot of Christians that I've come across in the past don't see it that way. I'm just grateful my church is among those who do follow his teachings. Hopefully that'll make coming out easier...?

[PanoramaIsland]

As far as reaching out to the outcast and marginalized, I totally agree with you.  In what Jesus' opinion of the legalism of the church today would be I have to agree as well.

However, please ask yourself one important question:  Why would anyone become a secular Bible scholar?  It is a total oxymoron of an occupation.  There is only one answer:  They have an agenda.  No surprise there, we all do.  But why would you expect these people to say anything else?  Their very title predicted it.  Just do not present these sources as some kind of mitigating wisdom.  They are anything but.

Jesus himself was indeed a worker of miracles.  He himself taught that he was
וְיֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ    He himself taught that the Χριστός would have to suffer and die and be resurrected.  And yes, he said quite a lot about eschatology, as does the Old Testament.  Neither were invented by Paul.  Though it is conceded that Paul drastically shaped the church.  Historically, it was at Antioch that his followers were first called Christians.

Kristi

A "secular" bible scholar is someone who uses secular methods to perform historical analysis of the Bible - they can be (and are) Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, or just about anything else. They're just interested in analyzing the Bible as a source document to try and figure out what can be reliably considered truthful and what can't, and they use the same methods they might use with any other ancient, culturally enshrined document. Their interest is not to tear Christianity down, but to create as historically valid a picture of the Biblical events as they can, and to try to understand how the Bible was created as best they can.
They are not on a rampage trying to destroy Jesus' image - there are books doing that, including all the literature proclaiming that Jesus never existed, but their evidence is very thin and they are rejected by the academic establishment.

I understand that you hold your faith dearly, but it saddens me to see people reject the best historical scholarship available because it conflicts with what they want to believe. I personally think that the scholarship vindicates Jesus - that he wasn't some sort of self-important magician who thought he was a Big Deal makes me like him more. I could never trust someone who tried to form a religion around themselves.

Incidentally, if you're interested in learning what scholars using secular historical methods have to say about Yeshua of Nazareth, there is a free course of audio lectures by Prof. Thomas Sheehan of Stanford University available on iTunes U. Just search "The Historical Jesus" in the iTunes Store. I found it quite educational.

[Suzy]

A "secular" bible scholar is someone who uses secular methods to perform historical analysis of the Bible - they can be (and are) Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, or just about anything else. They're just interested in analyzing the Bible as a source document to try and figure out what can be reliably considered truthful and what can't......

It is obvious that you believe this.  But even in the way you phrase this, you show that you are acquainted only with a fringe, not with mainstream scholarship.  In fact, you exclude most reputable scholars.  Please believe whatever you wish, but in no way should you represent this as Christianity, nor the best historical scholarship.  It is very far from it.

I understand that you hold your faith dearly, but it saddens me to see people reject the best historical scholarship available because it conflicts with what they want to believe. I personally think that the scholarship vindicates Jesus - that he wasn't some sort of self-important magician who thought he was a Big Deal makes me like him more. I could never trust someone who tried to form a religion around themselves.

With all due respect, you know nothing about me.  But that aside, do you see what you have done?  You have set up parameters into which an acceptable interpretation would fall.  This is very dangerous and intellectually, you can do better.  I can tell you are intelligent and would love to see you do the opposite: take the text as it is, determine its meaning linguistically, research it historically, do literary analysis, and only then begin the discernment process of what it may or may not mean for your life.  This is called exegesis.  It means drawing the meaning out of the text.  It is the only fair method.  What you have done is called eisegesis, reading meaning into the text.  It is always the temptation.  But you do yourself disservice when you go that route.

Incidentally, if you're interested in learning what scholars using secular historical methods have to say about Yeshua of Nazareth, there is a free course of audio lectures by Prof. Thomas Sheehan of Stanford University available on iTunes U. Just search "The Historical Jesus" in the iTunes Store. I found it quite educational.

If Sheehan is your source I can understand where you are coming from.  No doubt, he is a brilliant and likable person.  However, he and the rest of his Jesus Seminar friends are actually discredited in most scholarly circles.  That movement has provided almost endless entertainment for many of us, but is not generally taken seriously. 

If you believe what Sheehan does, I am not trying to attack your faith.  Just know that it is far from what scriptures themselves teach Jesus was about.  Or to be more precise, it is a subset, because he has eliminated much scripture by calling it irrelevant or not original. 

FWIW, I read both Hebrew and Greek and am not at all threatened by what Sheehan is trying to do.  I also do not require agreement with my views in order to be a friend.

Peace,

Kristi

[PanoramaIsland]

With all due respect, Kristi, calling people who use appropriate, non-mystical, logical historical methods to dissect the Bible "fringe" is rather ridiculous, and telling me that I have "faith" in secular scholarship in the same way that you have faith in your religion is insulting at very best. The very moment this scholarship is discredited by reliable methods that do not involve circular recourse to faith in heavily modified and bastardized documents, I will abandon it in favor of the better scholarship.

If by "mainstream," you mean believing Christian scholars who use recourse to faith to justify their positions, then I'm happy to be "fringe." I'm more interested in upholding historical rigor than upholding the sacred cows of the majority religion in my geographic region.

I'm glad that you actually know your sources and can read Greek and Hebrew. For what it's worth, I read and speak Yiddish, giving me access to a wide range of documents on the supposed divinely-inspired abilities of various rabbis and learned Jewish men through the ages. That doesn't mean I believe any of it.

As for setting up parameters, I will only ever accept rigorous secular methods of historical analysis. The idea that we can only find the historical meaning of the Bible by setting it outside of its historical context is a ridiculous and dishonest one, and has no place in real historical scholarship. And as for believing that he performed miracles, pardon me for not setting aside the entire corpus of scientific knowledge so that I can believe in the supernatural abilities of the prophet of someone else's religion. I don't mean to sound rude, but it's a pretty outsized demand to make.

How can you accuse me of having an agenda and reading my agenda into the Bible when you are so obviously doing exactly that? What you are engaged in is apologetics. There is nothing wrong with being an apologist, but please don't claim that your apologetics can replace standard historical analysis methods. Perhaps I do have an "agenda," but if I do, it's an agenda of historical accuracy and rigor, and a refusal to accept extremely unlikely and supernatural claims without a hyperabundance of evidence - an abundance which does not exist for the supernatural claims of any religious scriptures of which I am aware. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that does not cease to be the case when examining religious texts.

I bear no special animosity against Christianity. I am a huge fan of various schools of traditional Christian art and architecture; when I hit rock bottom and was ready to kill myself several years ago, I went to an Anglican cathedral for help; my life was saved by an arch-deacon and his colleagues. I am forever in their debt. That doesn't mean I agree with their Biblical interpretation. 

[Sarah Louise]

I can see this arguement will go nowhere, its a matter of perspective.

I happen to agree with Kristi on this one though.

A persons view of "scholarship" is colored by their perspective and their beliefs.

Let's be careful how far we take this arguement (or discussion if you prefer).

Here is the original purpose of this thread:  I would love to see some positive posts from people who believe.  And please, don't bother to repond to this if all you want to do is knock Christianity or promote some other belief system.

Sarah L.

[Suzy]

What I said was not meant to be insulting, and was not said that way.  And I agree, this discussion is going nowhere.  This is supposed to be a section on Christianity and its support rather than attacking it. 

I stand by what I said regarding the Jesus Seminar people.  Their methods were beyond inappropriate.  It is already highly discredited because of their circular reasoning.  The way their "work" was framed was ludicrous.  And yes, I will match my academic credentials against all but a few of those people.  There is a HUGE difference between apologetics and exegesis.  One seeks to explain the meaning of the text.  The other seeks to explain the meaning of the faith.  Apparently, according to what you have written, anyone who believes in the historic Christian faith has never done exegesis.  Just unbelievable.  FWIW, what I was trying to explain to you is commonly called the historical-critical method of interpretation.  It is often rejected by fundamentalists, but it is what I use, as I see it being a fair methodology because it brings in scholarship from a wide variety of sources.  Should you wish to discuss it further, I would be glad to do so, but in another forum. 

Look, you have your beliefs.  By your own words, they fall outside of Christianity.  Fine.  Hold them and be happy in them.  It is not my job to convince you otherwise.  Nor is it the purpose of this topic.

Kristi

[PanoramaIsland]

Obviously you are right, in that this is going nowhere. I can't help but question, though, any methodology which ends with the analyst coming to the conclusion that Jesus defied the laws of physics. If that means I have an agenda, so be it.

I hope you have a nice conversation about your religion. Don't be surprised if other trans people have a problem with it, though - Christianity as an institution hasn't been especially kind to trans people (despite the pro-eunuch verses in the canonical Gospels).

[Suzy]

What part of
"I would love to see some positive posts from people who believe.  And please, don't bother to respond to this if all you want to do is knock Christianity or promote some other belief system."
don't you understand?


Kristi

[spacial]

One of the teachings of Jesus is quite useful here. That we must never judge each other.

If some wish to emphasise the miracle of the sacrament, if they go on about the resurrection and claim its meaning was taking away sin, then that is their concern.

I know the last supper was a symbolic metaphor, because Jesus used metaphors and similes all the time.

I know that original sin was defiance. That, by accepting His death, Jesus was demonstrating His absolute submission to God's will. I also believe, as a matter of my faith, that Jesus was capable of avoiding His death but chose not to to demonstrate that submission to the will of God is absolute.

But if other wish to take a different stance, it is between them and God. I have no right to judge on God's behalf. Even Jesus didn't do that.

This was Jesus' affirmation of the 3rd commandment. None of us can presume to be on a par with God.

[Suzy]

None of us can presume to be on a par with God.

Which is exactly how I view miracles.  There was a time not long ago when the "big bang" would have seemed impossible to many because of the laws of physics.  Now it is almost universally accepted.  Does the fact that we can explain something make it any less miraculous?  I think not.  Often the more we understand something the more awe we feel about who God is.  Look at how, in one generation, so many of the things on Star Trek have gone to seemingly miraculous to doable.  What will the next generation bring?  We are now talking about things such as,  electroweak theory,  quantum chromodynamics, and now, string theory.  So, because we can now begin to understand some of the processes at work, does that make God irrelevant?  Not to my way of thinking.  it just gives a peek at how infinitely complex the creation is, and how amazing the Creator must be. 

We now know that the sun essentially burns hydrogen into helium by the process of fusion.  The fact that it currently sits 93 million miles away makes life on earth sustainable because of the precise amount of heat radiation we receive.  I cannot chalk this up to accident or coincidence.  Though we are not ignorant of how it happens any more, it seems all the more amazing, the more we understand.

Kristi

[tekla]

And here I'm thinking that it sure takes a lot of gall to use science to support your proof for the supernatural, when you can't use science to prove the supernatural.