liberal vs. literal Christian

[wil]

Originally Posted by Bandit

do you feel the need to beat up Christians for their beliefs? there are several posts around here of you doing so.

As this is a thread I started regarding my belieifs and the breadth and scope of what is called Christianity...you are more than welcome to call me on the carpet on any specifics where I "beat up Christians for their beliefs". I will be more than happy to either apologize or try to correct your perception of the meaning of what I wrote depending on the circumstance. As I answered your original question and your 6 followup questions as truthfully and honestly as I could, I'm sure you'll do me the honor of indicating where I beat you up so mercilessly.

i also understand that Jesus spoke in parables due to the fact that people are dull of hearing, because Jesus said so.

It is my understanding he spoke in parables and the bible is written with metaphor and allegory for two smilar reasons...Jesus had to concern himself with 'the law' and the literal dogmatic interpretations of scripture of those that were out to oppose his teachings....so he spoke in story form, not just because stories resonate more with an audience than dull explanations, but for self preservation. And the bible stories again are also to resonate with the reader, to be within the realm of acceptability, something the common reader can relate to and as you indicated discern many levels of meaning depending on their current circumstance and understanding. The knowledge and understanding of this in no way dilutes the word in my mind.



I do not wish to impose my beliefs on anyone, I do appreciate the right to express them, and your right to disagree with them. I love the variety of beliefs and believe them to be true to those individuals who absorb them into their life. But do object to anyone indicating that they have the one and only way for everyone, something I need to work on.

Now I do believe that every breath we take and every power we have, natural or supernatural as defined by others is because of our inherent relationship with G-d, tis obvious when I believe in omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. That I extend the equation from Jesus being son of G-d, we being children of G-d, we being brothers and sisters of Jesus, Jesus and the Father being one G=J=F=S=b=s=all one is an issue, it isn't my issue.

The fact that what I glean from masters and doctoral level theology students, information that is taught in Judaic, Jesuit, Christian, Catholic institutes of higher learning regarding the metaphors, myths, allegory, analogies contained in scripture differs from conventional concepts is expected. Doesn't mean I believe all I read, or that I will stop studying, asking questions and hopefully growing and learning.


Luna so the only way to cross the veil is through a physical death? No understanding in this lifetime is possible? I like panentheist as well. I think it true that until we cross into the next phase...or remember all the past ones, we really are playing in a land of limbo as far as understanding goes....but still see it within reach, currently not in my grasp, but within reach....

[lunamoth]

bump again (due to technical problems)

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

Luna so the only way to cross the veil is through a physical death? No understanding in this lifetime is possible? I like panentheist as well. I think it true that until we cross into the next phase...or remember all the past ones, we really are playing in a land of limbo as far as understanding goes....but still see it within reach, currently not in my grasp, but within reach....

Hi Wil, I was bumping the thread because I could not see you post above.

Well, it is mere conjecture on my part that we can't cross the veil in this lifetime. I think about the experiences of the Catholic mystics, who even in their union with God through contemplative practice still insist that something is yet held back, incomplete. I also think aobut people who have had near death experiences. Have they experienced complete reunion with God? I don't know. It seems that it would be difficult to come back sane from such an experience, or perhaps it is momentarily achievable, but not sustainable.

I also think that we can't even have "experience" unless we also have some degree of seperation from that which is being experienced.

peace,
lunamoth

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

perhaps it is momentarily achievable, but not sustainable.

I hear that!
In meditation, and contemplation, either in the usual circumstance, ie in the silence, or in a waking walking meditative state...there have been moments of oneness, fleeting moments of understanding (that while in that moment it was an eternity, taking a trip through the interior and exterior cosmos), moments where intense insight, bliss, amazing pleasurable happiness, complete understanding...and then in the return to this plane of existence it returns to the unexplainable, words cannot convey, and then all to quickly fades back into the fog...unsustainable as it were.

In healing work, I've been with a person for an hour...but it only took moments, completely lost in space and time, recollections of everything but the actual room and person, and then discovering the recollections the spaces I was in were the same as what was going through the clients mind..incredible moments.

I believe with time and exercise, as the frequency of the moments increase, the time of understanding will lengthen, and the ability to express will increase as well....even if one is forced to talk in parables so others may understand...I feel for Ezekial.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

As this is a thread I started regarding my belieifs and the breadth and scope of what is called Christianity...you are more than welcome to call me on the carpet on any specifics where I "beat up Christians for their beliefs". I will be more than happy to either apologize or try to correct your perception of the meaning of what I wrote depending on the circumstance. As I answered your original question and your 6 followup questions as truthfully and honestly as I could, I'm sure you'll do me the honor of indicating where I beat you up so mercilessly.It is my understanding he spoke in parables and the bible is written with metaphor and allegory for two smilar reasons...Jesus had to concern himself with 'the law' and the literal dogmatic interpretations of scripture of those that were out to oppose his teachings....so he spoke in story form, not just because stories resonate more with an audience than dull explanations, but for self preservation. And the bible stories again are also to resonate with the reader, to be within the realm of acceptability, something the common reader can relate to and as you indicated discern many levels of meaning depending on their current circumstance and understanding. The knowledge and understanding of this in no way dilutes the word in my mind.



..

i am not going through all the threads of how you refer to christian beliefs in the past. however i will make a note of it & bring it to your attention from here on out. you do have issues with traditional christian beliefs because you have brought them up many times.

i dont see where dogma comes from literal interpretations. it comes from people taking 3 or more scriptures & discard what does not fit into the dogma. as i have said there are many things that are black & white & there are many things that are gray. this is where i do not accept dogma that should be classified as paradox rather than absolute dogma & this is part of what seperates & makes religion.

Jesus declared that he spoke in parables & snippets because people are dull of hearing & their hearts are waxed gross. he spoke to the disciples in depth & in private & not to the public in depth. he knew it would be waste of time speaking to the public at that time because they did not believe on him. Jesus said it- not me.
it was the disciples who carried his message of the death burial & resurrection to the world after they were filled with the Holy Ghost & after Jesus rose from the grave. i dont think you are following it all the way through & appear to have to meet some other requirements instead of just the scriptures & what Jesus taught.

i think you are trying to mix & match other religions & different leaders into what Jesus taught & Jesus taught you cannot do that. i do not chase people around in circles to analyse ever detail of their beliefs. but i do know when the blood of Jesus is being rejected because that is what other religions choose to exclude. even though Jesus taught that is why he layed down his life. the death burial & resurrection of the Lord Jesus-once again is the foundation. if you remove that then you are into a different religion.
dont know what else to say.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Bandit

death burial & resurrection of the Lord Jesus-once again is the foundation. if you remove that then you are into a different religion.

Hi Bandit, for the record I happen to agree that the resurrection of Christ is a foundational Christian belief. But, I also happen to think that the diety of Christ is a foundational Christian belief and I have never been able to figure out if you believe the same. I don't mean to debate with you, and you don't need to answer here if you don't wish, but it goes to illustrate that Christians do hold different beliefs and yet remain Christian.

But I have long been curious about something. Why do you always refer to the death, burial and resurrection as the foundation. Why is burial important? Are you referring to the idea that Christ descended to death in order to conquer it? If you are willing to explain I've always wondered what you mean.

peace,
lunamoth

[wil]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i am not going through all the threads of how you refer to christian beliefs in the past.

Come on now, as I indicated I answered your questions, tongue and cheek as they were. You've made what is currently an empty unsubstantiated accusation and are intending on just leaving it on the table? I thought better of you. You've indicated I am a consistent Christian basher (being the blasphemous, heretical follower of Christ that I am)....Please pick 3 of those many alleged abuses to charge me with.

Originally Posted by Bandit

Jesus declared that he spoke in parables & snippets because people are dull of hearing & their hearts are waxed gross. he spoke to the disciples in depth & in private & not to the public in depth. he knew it would be waste of time speaking to the public at that time because they did not believe on him. Jesus said it- not me.

I'd like you to help me with this, I thought he refered to 'those with ears may hear' ie the parables were designed for those thinking above the average man. sort of like wake up, this is a story, yet deep and important. Sure would've have been nice if those deciiples to which he spoke to in depth had the forethought to take notes...instead of leaving it all to distant memories....

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Bandit, for the record I happen to agree that the resurrection of Christ is a foundational Christian belief. But, I also happen to think that the diety of Christ is a foundational Christian belief and I have never been able to figure out if you believe the same. I don't mean to debate with you, and you don't need to answer here if you don't wish, but it goes to illustrate that Christians do hold different beliefs and yet remain Christian.

But I have long been curious about something. Why do you always refer to the death, burial and resurrection as the foundation. Why is burial important? Are you referring to the idea that Christ descended to death in order to conquer it? If you are willing to explain I've always wondered what you mean.

peace,
lunamoth

because Jesus said he would be buried & Paul declared the death, burial & resurrection is the Gospel. the death burial & resurrection is mentioned in many many places. the burial has just as much paradox & meanings as his death & reusurrection. i do not leave his burial out for Jesus predicted he would be buried & things happened during that time.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul is reminding the church at Corinth about the gospel when he says, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, and in which you stand; by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; that Christdied for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He wasburied, and that Herose again the third day according to the scriptures."

i do not believe God turned into a man or God came through the womb & no i dont believe in the trinity or any godman doctrines. that is dogma that i do not see required to be a Christian.
-but do you see me make issues out of it?
no i do not.

yes i do believe that Jesus is in the Godhead & that Jesus is the fulness of the Godhead bodily & the mediator between God & man, because the bible says so. i do not remove Jesus from the eternal Godhead...i just see it from a different POV & eternal has more than one definition that can also have a starting point as in THE BEGINNING... & move forward. God does not have a beginning. there is an extra gear & cavern travelled to see what i see with Jesus so i dont discuss what i believe concerning this in public.
we can discuss it in private or one on one someday if you want.

i did not know you can discard the Gospel of the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus & still be a Christian. that sounds like a different religion, like Islam or Judaism or Hinduism.
his death burial & resurrection seems pretty black & white, Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone. but i suppose that does not matter either.

[I, Brian]

Just as a general note, it would be great if we focused less on different personal stances, and tried to address more the issue of "liberal vs literal Christian" as a meaningful distinction.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

Come on now, as I indicated I answered your questions, tongue and cheek as they were. You've made what is currently an empty unsubstantiated accusation and are intending on just leaving it on the table? I thought better of you. You've indicated I am a consistent Christian basher (being the blasphemous, heretical follower of Christ that I am)....Please pick 3 of those many alleged abuses to charge me with. I'd like you to help me with this, I thought he refered to 'those with ears may hear' ie the parables were designed for those thinking above the average man. sort of like wake up, this is a story, yet deep and important. Sure would've have been nice if those deciiples to which he spoke to in depth had the forethought to take notes...instead of leaving it all to distant memories....

wil, i am not going to make issues out of all your postings. i am not spending the day going through all your old postings just to create an argument to satisfy you.
we already went through this last year & you said you do not know how to word your beliefs & make them come across. i DONT KNOW where all your postings are & i aint looking them up but if i come across them i will certainly bring them to your attention you then.

read the bible. Jesus told why he talked in parables to the public. the parables were not explained to the public. he explained them in private with the apostles.
they are like baby talk with many literal hidden meanings that people do not get.

all the disciples did was write down what Jesus taught them, parables & all. read Matt 13 again. there is a LITERAL meaning behind the parables.
you & i are most likely not going to see eye to eye on this...so believe what you want to believe.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Just as a general note, it would be great if we focused less on different personal stances, and tried to address more the issue of "liberal vs literal Christian" as a meaningful distinction.

here you go - use this for a guideline. i doubt people can even agree on these definitons. i see myself fitting both categories.

Liberal
broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"



Literal
actual: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; "her actual motive"; "a literal solitude like a desert"- G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma"
without interpretation or embellishment; "a literal depiction of the scene before him"
limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text; "a literal translation"
avoiding embellishment or exaggeration (used for emphasis); "it's the literal truth"

[wil]

Originally Posted by Bandit

wil, i am not going to make issues out of all your postings. i am not spending the day going through all your old postings just to create an argument to satisfy you.

Namaste Bandit, again I'd either like you to retract your accusation or find three out of the many places I blast Christians for their beliefs. but I'll not hold my breath.

Originally Posted by Bandit

all the disciples did was write down what Jesus taught them, parables & all. read Matt 13 again. there is a LITERAL meaning behind the parables.
you & i are most likely not going to see eye to eye on this...so believe what you want to believe.

tis true we'll probably not agree, 'all the disciples wrote it down, yet very few wrote very much that we have today and what their is was written what 40 years after Jesus's death, written from memory and verbal history spanned Jesus's whole life, portions where the author was obviously not in attendance..yet very liberal with the quotes...nice to be a member of 'the club' and be able to have control of the secrets....especially when no one is around to dispute the writings.

The above to me are historical facts, but they do not diminish the value of the writings, simply increase the knowledge of what it is we are looking at...

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Bandit, again I'd either like you to retract your accusation or find three out of the many places I blast Christians for their beliefs. but I'll not hold my breath.tis true we'll probably not agree, 'all the disciples wrote it down, yet very few wrote very much that we have today and what their is was written what 40 years after Jesus's death, written from memory and verbal history spanned Jesus's whole life, portions where the author was obviously not in attendance..yet very liberal with the quotes...nice to be a member of 'the club' and be able to have control of the secrets....especially when no one is around to dispute the writings.

The above to me are historical facts, but they do not diminish the value of the writings, simply increase the knowledge of what it is we are looking at...

you dont know that. no one even knows for sure or can prove any of what you just said.

you have issues that go & go & go with Christianity AND the bible. the history, the authors, the religions, the secrets, disputing the writings, control & blah blah blah... you know you can always write your own book & make your own bible if you dont like the one that was put together by the catholics. i am not retracting nothing.

how many books do you need to figure it out? how many writings does it take? you can read 10 biliion books written about Jesus & until it gets into your heart it means nothing.

this thread is wasting my time. i have not learned a single thing here today.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Just as a general note, it would be great if we focused less on different personal stances, and tried to address more the issue of "liberal vs literal Christian" as a meaningful distinction.

You're right Brian and I apologize. I think I got us off track by asking about personal stances. Thirty lashes and all that...

lunamoth

[brucegdc]

Might I suggest that ALL posters, especially in this thread, re-read the code of conduct? Personal attacks are not welcome here. Brian pointed that out a while back in his subtle British manner. Being a brash Yank (albeit a transplanted Canuck), I'll be slightly more blunt. Knock off the personal attacks, folks.

... Bruce