Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

That's it! The Gospels were photoshopped. Wow, you know, I knew it all along.

Chris

Is that what flow is talking about? Sorry, Flow, but I really don't know if you are referring to my infinity sign turned into a fish or if you are talking about photographing a non-event.

I'm getting the feeling that this question I tried to post wasn't all that bright an idea. Or not terribly "hot." On the other hand, the way Dor responded I think there are circles in which it is hot. I just couldn't face the fire of posting it in the Christianity forum. I did get new insights on Christ, though, so it was worth posting just for that. Thanks, folks.

Ruby

PS. Chris, it just hit me. Your take on how Paul sees Christ is a totally new idea to me. I did not know the Bible supported the idea of a Cosmic Christ but I can see it now. Thanks!

[InLove]

Hi, Peace All--

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I'm getting the feeling that this question I tried to post wasn't all that bright an idea. Or not terribly "hot." On the other hand, the way Dor responded I think there are circles in which it is hot. I just couldn't face the fire of posting it in the Christianity forum. I did get new insights on Christ, though, so it was worth posting just for that. Thanks, folks.

Ruby, it's a great subject for discussion. Threads just take their turns, traveling through different light at times. I, for one, have found it very enlightening. I have some thoughts I have been wanting to express, but I am just taking some time to consider how to present them.

InPeace,
InLove

[neosnoia]

Hi Ruby.

If Lucian embellished his story, how do we know that the NT writers did not embellish their stories about Jesus?

I think the NT writers DID embellish their stories about Jesus. Each gospel writer used elements that would appeal to the main readers of their version of the gospel. Each writer also seems to have put their own personal spin on events. Paul taylored his words to appeal to those he was preaching to (Jew, Samaritan or pagan). Paul even quoted non-Jewish sources to make a point.

I understand the Christian faith depends on the physical resurrection of Jesus' body for salvation.

The physical resurrection of Jesus is part of orthodoxy, yes. What the resurrection means differs between Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and the Protestant denominations.

I don't view Jesus resurrection as necessary for "salvation" in the substitutionary atonement sort-of way. I view Jesus resurrection as something pointing to higher truth(s): that this life is not all their is; that God has a purpose for the universe and the life within it. There's a lot more I could ramble on about here, but I'm going to resist the urge.

If the NT writers embellished their stories about Jesus so that the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection did not happen as fact-events, what happens to the Christian faith?

Reading the story of Jesus as complete allegory and metaphor would certainly change the Christian faith. In some ways I think it would be impoverished. In some ways I think it would be enriched.

I do both. There are some things in scripture that are miraculous, that I am willing to believe were "fact-events" because I think they point to an ontological truth. The resurrection is the main one of these. But I also look at the resurrection as metaphor and as allegory and as symbol.

Nice thread btw. I find your questions thought provoking.

[RubySera_Martin]

Thanks, InLove and neosnoia. InLove, you have perked my interest regarding the thoughts that are developing in your mind. Neosnoia, your understanding of the resurrection seems far removed from the views of the fundamentalist I was referring to. InLove, yes, I learned much from this thread, too.

Ruby

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Is that what flow is talking about? Sorry, Flow, but I really don't know if you are referring to my infinity sign turned into a fish or if you are talking about photographing a non-event.

I'm getting the feeling that this question I tried to post wasn't all that bright an idea. Or not terribly "hot." On the other hand, the way Dor responded I think there are circles in which it is hot. I just couldn't face the fire of posting it in the Christianity forum. I did get new insights on Christ, though, so it was worth posting just for that. Thanks, folks.

Ruby

PS. Chris, it just hit me. Your take on how Paul sees Christ is a totally new idea to me. I did not know the Bible supported the idea of a Cosmic Christ but I can see it now. Thanks!

Hi Ruby:

I was only commenting upon your statement concerning a recorded image as your definition of a "fact-event".

China Cat:

How we got from that to the gospels being "photoshopped" is beyond me...
but really funny.

I would agree that Paul's Jesus experience was a sort of cosmic event, but then maybe it was necessary for it to happen that way to impress the naturally-born cynic Paul at that time in his life. We all know what he went on to do afterwards.

flow....

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hi Ruby:

I was only commenting upon your statement concerning a recorded image as your definition of a "fact-event".

I think we're talking past each other here or something. You are starting with a recorded image. I started with something that happened in the realm or reality that can be recorded by webcam or video camera.

I personally am not familiar with these technologies. The idea comes from the person to whom this post was originally written on another board. I think, though, that an event that existed entirely on the level of imagination or spiritual conviction, etc. could not be recorded by a camera of any sort.

I think what you are talking about is images that are created via digital technologies. I agree that a person could probably create an image to portray the resurrection and/or spiritual convictions. In fact, this has been done for many centuries with the technology available to the artist. This might be the inner wall of a cave, primitive paper, animal skins, TV, whatever.

Just to clarify, I have never read of paintings of the resurrection on the walls of caves but other religious events have been recorded like this.

However, this argument comes at it from the opposite direction and argues that events have to take place on a certain level of reality in order to be recorded via webcam. This person believes the resurrection took place on that level of reality.

This same person believes Matt. 27:50-53 did NOT take place on that level of reality. In other words,

50 Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.r 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

did not happen. The curtain in the temple was not torn from top to bottom when Jesus died nor was there an earthquake, and the bodies of dead saints did not rise and enter the holy city and appear to many when Jesus rose from the dead.

My question is: Why would any Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a fact-event but not this series of incidents?

Incidentally, she did not consider this question worthy of an answer. I wonder if perhaps she saw that it makes no sense to believe as she does but her faith is too insecure to admit it.

The reason I am not asking her is that she got promoted to assistent manager and I got banned from the board right at the time when I pushed this question. These events may not be related but the circumstantial evidence is considerably high. Anyway, I then got the idea to post my question here.

[flowperson]

Ruby...understood...flow....

[jiii]

Ruby-

I had the feeling that I was still missing the point of your post, so I decided would leave it alone and just follow the thread. However, you have made it perfectly clear with your last post.

My question is: Why would any Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a fact-event but not this series of incidents?

Finally, I get it!

I can see why you might've groaned at my original post...it was certainly a little bit off the mark as far as your essential question. I would, however, try to reference some of what I wrote when I say that I think that all literalism is based upon an irrational trust toward ideas. To a certain extent, this might perhaps be chocked up to an affectatious attempt to "materialize" the elusive "faith" that is talked about in many religions. In a way, I see many cases of literal interpretation of biblical texts as a confusion in which one believes that they must literally "wear" their faith by believing ideas which are ordinarily considered absurd. Kind of a way to prove that their faith is so great that they can use it to believe amazingly unlikely things that don't even need believing in to nonetheless be very meaningful.

Specifically, in terms of your question, since what people choose to literally interpret sometimes is already absurd from a rational standpoint, there's really no limit to just how irrationally someone may believe so-and-so ideas...at that point, even uniformity of belief is unnecessary.

I hope I at least addressed your question this time. Again, sorry about the misunderstanding.

-jiii

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by jiii

Ruby-

I had the feeling that I was still missing the point of your post, so I decided would leave it alone and just follow the thread. However, you have made it perfectly clear with your last post.

Finally, I get it!

Jiii, yes, I think we are finally talking about the same thing. I've been asking myself why I keep insisting on posting, why I don't just turn my interests elsewhere. I felt somewhat embarrassed at my long epistle in response to flow. But if that is what it took for me to clarify what I mean, it was worth it.

I think this is so important to me because I was raised with the threat that if we don't believe these things as factual history then we can expect to go to hell. I've tried time and again to just throw Christianity out the window. But it never works. One time I thought I was successful. But it was Dec. Everybody had all their beautiful Christmas decorations out in front lawns, around front doors, along eaves troughs--you get the picture. A regular snowy Christmas in Ontario.

WHAT DO I DO ABOUT THIS? I wanted with all my heart to be part of this. But HOW? Perhaps the Jesus story is Christianity's sacred myth. I had learned about sacred myths in religious studies courses. Eventually I had opportunity to read Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ. Harpur had traced mythology to show that Christianity's Jesus (plus family) came out of Egyptian and other mythology.

There was one bug in the soup. A Christian prof whom I respected attacked Harpur's scholarship so severely that I had no idea how to know what was true or false. I contacted Harpur and eventually decided there must be some truth to his message. Yet if it was true, why didn't the religious studies profs ever suggest this? Needless to say, that Christian prof lost quite a bit of the respect I had previously felt for him.

And now I run into this wonderfully brilliant young woman who has so much education in biblical languages and literature. Not only that, but the beliefs she continually professes bold and loud and clear and uncompromisingly were identical to how I had been raised. Except for her statement that this Matt. passage was an embellishment.

I had wanted to discuss this with my mother many years ago when I first encountered the inconsistency. But she never liked my questions. It was in the Bible so it had to be true. That was her line of reasoning. Things that did not make sense were ascribed to the mystery and incomprehensibility of God and our utter depravity and inability to ever understand God.

That was the message I got. But it seemed no harm could occur if we just addressed the simple questions I was asking. It wasn't like I was challenging the Christian faith as a whole. I just wanted to understand the things I was told to believe. That seemed like a very reasonable request.

I guess with so much personal interest invested in the topic it makes sense that I could not drop it just because no one really understood what I was trying to say. I read your last post a number of times, and also went back and read your earlier posts on this thread.

I don't fully understand what you are saying. I will go through your last post and try to express my questions. Hopefully I can articulate them clearly. If not, maybe we can work through them. I now know that you are not a fundamentalist Christian, as I had first thought.

I can see why you might've groaned at my original post...it was certainly a little bit off the mark as far as your essential question. I would, however, try to reference some of what I wrote when I say that I think that all literalism is based upon an irrational trust toward ideas.

Are you saying here that some people will believe something just because it sounds like a mysterious idea??? If that is the case, I can see why I've been bumping heads with people all my life. To me, it simply makes no sense to believe ideas that make no sense. (Excuse the pun. I just don't know how better to explain it.)

If the preacher says this is the way the world works because the Bible says this or that, and I take a good hard look to find this phenonemon in "the world" and cannot ever find it, then I am more likely to trust my perceptions than the preacher and the Bible. Or my mother.

The biggest mistake the church made so far as my faith is concerned is the provable fictions it preached about "the world." If it could not correctly perceive what "the world" was like, perhaps it could not correctly perceive the meaning of the Bible either. Of course, it's not that simple. UGH!!! How often has that phrase been used to shut me up.

IF ONLY EXPLANATIONS HAD BEEN FORTH-COMING. Something, anything, to prove why I should believe this stuff, WHY or in WHAT WAY it was not "as simple as that." There never were. I would be condemned for my unbelief before they provided honest explanations.

To a certain extent, this might perhaps be chocked up to an affectatious attempt to "materialize" the elusive "faith" that is talked about in many religions.

This is what I think you are saying: Religions talk about faith. Faith is elusive. To make the faith more real they trust irrational ideas so they have "hooks" upon which to hang their faith. It also provides them with measurable evidence regarding "correct belief"--both their own and that of co-religionists.

In a way, I see many cases of literal interpretation of biblical texts as a confusion in which one believes that they must literally "wear" their faith by believing ideas which are ordinarily considered absurd. Kind of a way to prove that their faith is so great that they can use it to believe amazingly unlikely things that don't even need believing in to nonetheless be very meaningful.

Here I think you are saying: Religion must be meaningful. Great faith is rewarded. People need something by which to measure how great their faith is. So they invent irrational ideas that must be believed. In being able to say "I believe" to these ideas they are proving that their faith is great enough to be acceptable to God.

For this reason a person like me who questions everything is a very serious threat because I attack the very foundation (though unconscious to them and unknown to me) on which their entire belief system rests.

Whew! this seems like some precariously-built house of cards. Why don't they look deeper? I mean, this does not seem like respectable human thinking. Hopefully, I misunderstand what you are saying.

Specifically, in terms of your question, since what people choose to literally interpret sometimes is already absurd from a rational standpoint, there's really no limit to just how irrationally someone may believe so-and-so ideas...at that point, even uniformity of belief is unnecessary.

May I ask by what authority you say this stuff? What studies have been done to prove it? It sounds totally ridiculous.

I hope I at least addressed your question this time. Again, sorry about the misunderstanding.

-jiii

Yes, you have. Thank you. I look forward to further discussion on this--if nothing else, to prove that I am totally mistaken in what I understand you are saying.

Ruby

[InLove]

Hi, Peace—

Thanks for your patience, Ruby. I may fumble this a little, but I’ll give it a shot.

Originally Posted by neosnoia

Reading the story of Jesus as complete allegory and metaphor would certainly change the Christian faith. In some ways I think it would be impoverished. In some ways I think it would be enriched.

I do both. There are some things in scripture that are miraculous, that I am willing to believe were "fact-events" because I think they point to an ontological truth. The resurrection is the main one of these. But I also look at the resurrection as metaphor and as allegory and as symbol.

I do too. This is what I mean when I say that the Bible is "layered" and “transcendental”.

Originally Posted by taijasi

This is why I think the Liberal Christianity forum is so helpful. It explores such questions as, if Christ's bodily appearance after death was nothing new, and not the point of His coming, then what was it? And in answering that, I think we finally, truly begin to get at the heart of the matter. Those who say, and have always said, that Christ came to teach us Love, and how to Love, would seem to "on to" something.

But to become sidetracked on the question as to just exactly what happened at the death of Jesus, in the days afterward, and in the accounts of his appearance to his followers ... is to miss the point almost entirely. The real value of the accounts is in their agreement that he was an advanced enough individual that he could and did reappear, and demonstrate his Mastery over the grave. This does emphasize a distinction, since the rest of us are continuing to strive toward this Mastery, but have not yet accomplished or attained it. This, to me, is an important and helpful distinction. But only if we find encouragement and empowerment in the knowledge that we too, shall attain.

The terminology above may not be orthodox, but the central idea expressed is the essence of the Christian message--Christ is victorious over sin and death for our sake.

John 3:13-15 records Jesus as saying:

"No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe, it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up—and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. (MSG)

I see this as confirmation that the Spirit of God’s Love will always be visible to guide us. One way this happens is through divine literature.

Is this literature embellished? I tend to like the word “interpreted”. For example:

John 12:32 quotes Him again on the subject: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

The author goes on to interpret in the next verse: “He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.”(NIV)

I trust that the beloved author (that’s another subject) interpreted his Lord’s Word correctly. To be “lifted up” meant to be raised up on a Roman cross for everyone to see. But I interpret also, and to me this phrase also points to the resurrection as well as the ascension. According to Biblical literature, no one witnessed the actual resurrection process, only eleven people witnessed His ascension into Heaven, but the Life-Force was so strong around Him that graves opened up and people came out. The grave could not hold them. In literary terms, this would be called “foreshadowing”. And here we are now, centuries later—part of a modern, interfaith group discussion about it.

No, I don’t believe it was a “fact-event” in the sense that anyone could have made a videotape of it then without the technology. Today we have the might possess the technology to do it, but I don’t think we would foresee the resurrection coming anymore than the people in the Biblical account did. Who knows—some things could be caught on cell phone cameras or something. But these events did not take place since we have had this technology. So I suppose that in a literal scientific view, it cannot be proven. Yet, anyway. It’s just that we are still missing some important components to the formula. Nevertheless—“ask and ye shall receive”.

I visited an interesting website today (thanks, neosnoia) and found this from a review of Francis Collins’s book, The Language of God: “Faith in God and faith in science can be harmonious — not separately but together, combined into one worldview. For Collins, science does not conflict with the Bible, science enhances it.”

In my view, “I Am” would embrace literature, music, dance. nature, math, law, physics, biology, sociology, geography, and a gazillion other things, including science in general.

I hope that I have somehow addressed the original questions.

InPeace,
InLove

[jiii]

Alright...I'm still kinda confused, but I'm going to try to continue, anyway... (we'll get through this I think ). Before I go into the questions, I also want to ask something for clarification purposes. You defined "fact-event" as something that can be filmed. To me, this means "a physical event"...is that what you mean? I just think that would be a much easier way to refer to things..."fact-event" is a pretty awkward term. One films the physical world with a camera, not the emotional, psychological, spiritual, or what have you. So far as I know, cameras are only good for filming the physical word. So whenever I use the word physical here, that is what I mean. If I am wrong here, please tell me, because it may mean that I wrote this post still not understanding what you're referring to.

I usually don't paste so many quotes, but I think it important for clarity to address a few things.

I now know that you are not a fundamentalist Christian, as I had first thought.

Yes, I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I'm not even a Christian. I've read the Bible for enjoyment and philosophical kinds of inquires, but I am not an adherent to Christianity.

I would, however, try to reference some of what I wrote when I say that I think that all literalism is based upon an irrational trust toward ideas.

Are you saying here that some people will believe something just because it sounds like a mysterious idea???

Well, my statement here is very general. I'm saying that many cases of literal Bible interpretation are examples of trust in irrational ideas about physical reality. I'm really not referring to mysterious ideas, at all...unless by mysterious idea you mean "an idea about physical reality that is not supported by rational evidence"...the two don't really sound like cognates. That is what I'm saying people do sometimes believe, specifically. Though, I didn't really say why they believe them in the excerpt you're referring to here, so before I can address your question fully, I need to know if that is what you meant by mysterious ideas.

This is what I think you are saying: Religions talk about faith. Faith is elusive. To make the faith more real they trust irrational ideas so they have "hooks" upon which to hang their faith. It also provides them with measurable evidence regarding "correct belief"--both their own and that of co-religionists.

Here I think you are saying: Religion must be meaningful. Great faith is rewarded. People need something by which to measure how great their faith is. So they invent irrational ideas that must be believed. In being able to say "I believe" to these ideas they are proving that their faith is great enough to be acceptable to God.

For this reason a person like me who questions everything is a very serious threat because I attack the very foundation (though unconscious to them and unknown to me) on which their entire belief system rests.

Yes, that is roughly what I was saying in both cases...but you are wording as though I am saying that is what ALL religions or ALL adherents of those religions do, or ought to do. THAT, I am by no means saying. I think those two points refer only to a small portion of adherents in any religion, many of which are fundamentalists, but not all. Also, for people that believe many things which are irrational and feel threatened by them being questioned, then I guess you would be seen as a threat, naturally.

Whew! this seems like some precariously-built house of cards. Why don't they look deeper? I mean, this does not seem like respectable human thinking. Hopefully, I misunderstand what you are saying.

I think I am starting to get lost here...and then...

May I ask by what authority you say this stuff? What studies have been done to prove it? It sounds totally ridiculous.

--if nothing else, to prove that I am totally mistaken in what I understand you are saying.

...I know I'm totally lost. I don't claim to say any of these things on any authority in particular, I didn't know that is what was expected on a message board where people just share their thoughts. And, studies to prove what? Here's my confusion. Are you against fundamentalism or literal Bible interpretations (such as a physical resurrection) and believe that I am supporting fundamentalism or literal interpretations of certain Bible accounts (such as the resurrection)? Or, are you arguing from the opposite standpoint, that I am saying demeaning things about Christians?

The fact of the matter is, I really didn't take any particular side in my post. It seems like you think I AM talking from a pretty biased perspective, but since I honestly don't feel as though I am, you've gotta be more clear as to what you apparently think I'm advocating here. If you told me why you hoped my ridiculous ideas (just that last paragraph or all of what I said?) were misunderstood, then I could tell you why I say them or with what connotation I meant them. Unfortunately, you seemed to expand upon what I wrote, and then threw me for a curve when, at the end, you said it was ridiculous and that you apparently "hope I didn't mean what you think I mean." Well, I guess to answer what seems to be your most important question, you're going to have to tell me what you "think I mean" or "understand me to mean" overall. Or, in other words, what is it about what I expressed here, in general, that you apparently disagree with?

[Dondi]

I'm kinda scratching my head as I read these posts. I'm trying to see some kind of reconciliation with a belief in Liberal Christianity without a Resurrection.

Now I understand the point of looking to Christ as a symbol for the "Ideal". If one would apply the teachings of Jesus to one's life, I believe that they will find an abundant and fulfilling life. further, I think Jesus' teaching parallel many of the other world's religions in that regard. We search for the kind of life that is rewarding and benefitial for others as well as ourselves. We hope that there may come a time when all the peoples of the world could come together in peace and harmony.

But if we only regard Jesus as a mythical, then the process of belief becomes complicated, for I find it difficult to separate the teachings of Jesus from the man of Jesus. If there is no example for these teachings to embody, then it becomes a moot point, doesn't it? However you think of Christ, whether he is God in the flesh, a great rabbi, an ascended master, or even a mythical figure, if these teachings are to have any value, then they ought to have been experienced by that "Ideal" in a real way.

And if you suppose that Jesus was a real person, one cannot escape much of what the NT speaks of in regard to the resurrection. The Apostle Paul made that adamantly clear in his first letter to the Corinthians:

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

How can one in Liberal Christianity not take the seriousness the matter of the resurrection? What hope have we if there is no resurrection? We might as well pack Christianity in altogether for if there is nothing beyond this life, then what's the point?

If the resurrection is not a "fact-event", then what does our hope in being resurrected mean? That it won't be a "fact-event" either?

Yes, I suppose it still comes down to a matter of faith, since there is no modern reason to believe that resurrection can occur. But then we are relying on science to prove something that may or may not be historical, depending on your point of view.

But then I haven't been fully convinced of evolution as a purely naturalistic process. There are many areas in the evolutionary model that are still problematic (though I am leaning toward a theistic evolutionary approach). I just can't seem to convince myself that every living thing on earth has come about purely by accident. It seems too contrived. Yet purists would have me believe in a unaided process.

Now I see that the concept of the resurrection has to be directly related to our view of the origin of the universe and the origin of species. For we are basing our rational thought of reality on how we view the natural processes that we believe were involved in bringing us to this moment of time. Our scince is built on the observation of these things, of the material world, uyet there is so much we don't know. We can't even agree on a unified theory. Why? Because the universe isn't behaving like we thought it ought to.

If we are to believe in God, then it is apparent that this God has made Himself about as invisible as dark energy and dark matter, only hypothetically as we seek to experience the spiritual world. They say there are at least six more dimensions that exist beyond the four we can detect with our senses. Would it be a stretch believe that this invisible God couldn't occupy these unseen dimensions with the ability to confound reality as much as the phenonema that confounds our scientific understanding of the universe?

Resurrection seems far fetched for us, but maybe we just don't understand the mechanics of such an event occurring due to our limited knowledge. Which I suppose brings us back to faith. But it is a faith that is hopeful that something like this might have a scientific explanation to it that we don't understand. At least I'd like to think that way.

[InLove]

Hi Dondi.

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm kinda scratching my head as I read these posts. I'm trying to see some kind of reconciliation with a belief in Liberal Christianity without a Resurrection.

(I hope that you don't mind that I did not repeat your post in its entirety. Just wanted something there for reference. Can't see the post number right now.)

I don't know whether or not you are referring to my last post. Just in case you are, I'd like to point out that I never denied that the resurrection literally happened. Nor did I refute the holiness of Biblical Scripture.

Regarding my comments on scientific method, I did say that we do not yet have all the components to prove that the resurrection literally took place. Also, the scientist I mentioned does not embrace all scientific theories regarding creation, evolution, etc.

I would be happy to expound on anything I said if you like, but I have no time to do so right now. Got some pretty serious things going on here in non-virtual life. I just want to be sure that my words are not taken in a context I did not intend. Maybe read over it again? (ingore typos, please!) For all I know, you weren't addressing me, but like I said...just in case.

InPeace,
InLove

"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us" (1 John 4:12).

"Teach thy tongue to say I do not know and thou shalt progress."...Maimonides.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by jiii

Before I go into the questions, I also want to ask something for clarification purposes. You defined "fact-event" as something that can be filmed. To me, this means "a physical event"...is that what you mean? I just think that would be a much easier way to refer to things..."fact-event" is a pretty awkward term. One films the physical world with a camera, not the emotional, psychological, spiritual, or what have you. So far as I know, cameras are only good for filming the physical word. So whenever I use the word physical here, that is what I mean. If I am wrong here, please tell me, because it may mean that I wrote this post still not understanding what you're referring to.

I think we're on the same track. As explained earlier, I too think cameras are good only for things that happen/appear in physical reality. "Fact event" was someone else's term and it worked for me but "physical event" works, too.

Well, my statement here is very general. I'm saying that many cases of literal Bible interpretation are examples of trust in irrational ideas about physical reality. I'm really not referring to mysterious ideas, at all...unless by mysterious idea you mean "an idea about physical reality that is not supported by rational evidence"

Yes, that is what I meant. It's mysterious in that it makes no sense yet it's written in the Bible and people take it literally.

Ruby: Whew! this seems like some precariously-built house of cards. Why don't they look deeper? I mean, this does not seem like respectable human thinking. Hopefully, I misunderstand what you are saying.

Jiii: I think I am starting to get lost here...and then...

That quote was my response to the idea that possibly people place their trust in irrational ideas just because the ideas require great faith to accept. The idea that a person's belief system depends on an attraction to "mysterious (irrational) ideas" seems to me like a precariously-build house of cards. I find it difficult to understand why they don't look deeper. The part "hopefully I misunderstand what you are saying" meant that I would hope nobody is quite this shallow (to build a belief system on an idea just because it's irrational).

...I know I'm totally lost. I don't claim to say any of these things on any authority in particular, I didn't know that is what was expected on a message board where people just share their thoughts. And, studies to prove what?

Well, normally a person's thoughts are based on something. Studies to prove that:

Specifically, in terms of your question, since what people choose to literally interpret sometimes is already absurd from a rational standpoint, there's really no limit to just how irrationally someone may believe so-and-so ideas...at that point, even uniformity of belief is unnecessary.

****************

Here's my confusion. Are you against fundamentalism or literal Bible interpretations (such as a physical resurrection)

Not per se. I am reacting against what the church did to me. It forced me to choose between accepting statements that make no sense (and thereby prove my faith) and being ostracized (not accepted as a community member). That is unfair treatment and I am very much against unfair treatment. Even worse, when I desperately sought to understand the statements that made no sense they refused to give logical or reasonable answers. They acted like they were building on solid statements. No one ever admitted that there was less behind their professions than logical rational thought. I find it very difficult to accept that I was treated so horribly just because they were attracted to irrational statements. This is the kind of stuff I am against. If this translates into literal interpretations and fundamentalism, as it seems to, then I am against those, too.

and believe that I am supporting fundamentalism or literal interpretations of certain Bible accounts (such as the resurrection)?

No I know you don't support fundamentalism or literal interpretations of certain Bible accounts.

Or, are you arguing from the opposite standpoint, that I am saying demeaning things about Christians?

No, I don't think you are being demeaning of Christians. I am just outraged at what the church--my parents, the community as a whole-- did to me. I was ridiculed, scorned, put down, rejected, hated, etc. for wanting to understand the things I was told to believe. Eventually I had to leave.

The fact of the matter is, I really didn't take any particular side in my post. It seems like you think I AM talking from a pretty biased perspective, but since I honestly don't feel as though I am, you've gotta be more clear as to what you apparently think I'm advocating here.

Maybe it's clear by now where I'm coming from. I don't think you are advocating anything. Just trying to answer my question of this thread.

If you told me why you hoped my ridiculous ideas (just that last paragraph or all of what I said?) were misunderstood,

Sorry, no, I don't mean that your ideas are ridiculous. I am taking your word for why people act the way they do. I think it's totally ridiculous that people act this way. I did not suspect it at all. It makes me think less of people. I don't like that. So I am hoping I am misunderstanding and that you did not mean that people act this way for the reasons you gave because I would hope people have given deeper thought to the things they believe than what you suggest.

then I could tell you why I say them or with what connotation I meant them. Unfortunately, you seemed to expand upon what I wrote, and then threw me for a curve when, at the end, you said it was ridiculous and that you apparently "hope I didn't mean what you think I mean." Well, I guess to answer what seems to be your most important question, you're going to have to tell me what you "think I mean" or "understand me to mean" overall. Or, in other words, what is it about what I expressed here, in general, that you apparently disagree with?

Okay, I tried to explain. And it's NOT your ideas that I think are ridiculous, and I am NOT disagreeing with you. Just trying to understand where you are coming from, what you mean by what you say. It is clearer now?

Ruby

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by InLove

John 3:13-15 records Jesus as saying:

"No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe, it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up—and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. (MSG)

I think of this as the Mystical Christ speaking. This is St. Paul's "Christ in us, the Hope of Glory."

Originally Posted by InLove

John 12:32 quotes Him again on the subject: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

The lifting up, we must do, regardless of our religious path, or outward code of beliefs (`creed'). The exaltation of the Christ within, is what leads to the appearance (outward fact) of the Christ manifest (the Christ "without," bodily manifest, in whomever).

Dondi, in response to your post, I think an important question is, what do we mean by `Resurrection?' And more specifically, "from the dead." It is here that my answer may diverge from some people's. But I think there will be parallels. I am interested in a scriptural, or historical background for people's belief - or something that proceeds from Myth. I like to capitalize that, too, since I think the teachings of Norse Mythology, or Greek, are every bit as valuable, helpful and Sacred as those of the Hebrew people, or European, or modern-day Westerners. What is our Mythology, btw?

Yes, there are a diversity of answers, among Christians and otherwise. I believe that death begins the next stage of a journey, ending only physical life. I believe in an Immortal Soul, which incarnates, and temporarily at-ones (or attunes) itself to the body, but does not cease to be the Soul thereby. ("Having pervaded this whole universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain." -Sri Krishna, Bhagavad Gita) And I believe that our goal, as humans, is to come unto the Resurrection, just as did Christ Jesus, and pass through all the same experiences.

It is here, that taking the Gospel Story literally, will yield the least assistance, I would suggest, for someone who is seeking to understand the process of the Birth of the Christ within, and it's coming into Perfection - within us (as indicated in Ephesians 4:13). An ideal will exist, but an ideal for what? For the way we all "should be?" And why is that? Why live righteously? Because it matters to God, to each other, to the well-being of the planet?

Ahh, I can accept that, and make it my code, my guidebook, my measuring-stick, and my way of life - if I devote myself and apply myself diligently.

The Mystery of the Resurrection, how someone could literally DIE, and be very, very DEAD, then walk again in the flesh, is something very powerful. I think it is the possibility that it could have happened, which intrigues and invites many - to investigate, and pursue, the meaning underlying Christianity, Christ Jesus, and the Master's Teachings.

Having studied enough Mystery Teachings now to begin to see the Universal Pattern - I do believe in an archetype which I find much more difficult to show missing, than to demonstrate as present, in all traditions. There is a Universalism that makes sense to me, but not the kind of notion that we can stumble around blindly, and just spontaneously become enlightened, or `Redeemed,' let alone `Christs.'

But there again, Redeemed from what? What was this Resurrection thing all about? And if it wasn't just bodily death - then WHAT? Again, as I say, I believe we're all Immortal Souls, incarnated here for a purpose, and NOT born of `original sin,' as such. Yet I also believe in a literal Resurrection, in that Christ Jesus did "all those things" - and if you'd had a video camera, I do think you coulda filmed it, for what it's worth.

And there is Mystery in that. We'd like to know how he did it! From a scientific point of view. And that's why, in my better moments, I try to take a scientific approach to things, too, asking those questions and integrating the answers with religious, philosophical, and common-sensical understanding - to hopefully get a more useful Whole. But that, like all else, is conditional, or limited. Back to Ephesians 4:13.

The Resurrection I think matters most, is the one that has already occurred in the hearts and minds of many, during Christ's Ministry 2100 years ago ... but which has occurred on a much larger, worldwide scale, in the last 130 years or so.

I do feel that my wagon is hitched to the Resurrection in a sense, but it's what that Star signifies to me .... that provides the transformative power, the magic. It is Christ, yet I believe He stands above all the Earth, looking down, and knows us ALL. From within, outward, there is no difference. This, too, is Christ. Somewhere in between ... ahh, that's US, that's the Soul.

And if descent into Generation (incarnation) is a Fall, or death of a sort (symbollically), then the Resurrection takes on an importance to me ... that goes well beyond flesh and blood. Flesh and blood, as a matter of fact, have almost nothing to do with it! And yet, what must occur, must occur while in the body, otherwise we wouldn't be here, now would we?

So flesh and blood - does matter.

How's that? Circuitous enough?

{Wow, oops. Having read to the end of your earlier post, Dondi, I think I see some incredible overlap - and ideas I wish I'd seen the first time around. There was a lot in there! still catching up ...}

In Love and Light,

andrew