liberal vs. literal Christian

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

...I think there is a problem, at least for me, with Spong's argument that he cannot accept miracles and supernatural happenings- that he cannot bend his mind into a first-century pretzel. As a scientist and a mystic, perhaps I'm just different from Spong...

Well, what's wrong with that? I don't entirely agree with Spong on everything either, but like you I got a lot out of reading his thoughts. It helped me appreciate the Bible in new and interesting ways.

If it's not necessary to take the Bible completely literally, then it's not necessary to take the Bible completely unliterally, right? If, as Spong says, the authors of the Gospels were giving a mystical experience legs, as it were, by transferring the reality of a transcendetal experience into narrative form, why can't we do the same? Why can't we put our mystical experience of the Christ in us into a form suitable for us as individuals? If the reality of your Christ experience includes the miraculous what's wrong with you having that in your narrative? If I see it differently I can place the emphasis differently to suit me. But there's no reason for me to say to you "you're wrong, I alone am right", is there?

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, what's wrong with that? I don't entirely agree with Spong on everything either, but like you I got a lot out of reading his thoughts. It helped me appreciate the Bible in new and interesting ways.

If it's not necessary to take the Bible completely literally, then it's not necessary to take the Bible completely unliterally, right? If, as Spong says, the authors of the Gospels were giving a mystical experience legs, as it were, by transferring the reality of a transcendetal experience into narrative form, why can't we do the same? Why can't we put our mystical experience of the Christ in us into a form suitable for us as individuals? If the reality of your Christ experience includes the miraculous what's wrong with you having that in your narrative? If I see it differently I can place the emphasis differently to suit me. But there's no reason for me to say to you "you're wrong, I alone am right", is there?

Chris

OK, so there's nothing wrong with that except...

The Body of Christ in the world is communal, not individual.

lunamoth

[China Cat Sunflower]

Luna,

So we all have to see things the same way?

Look, I don't understand the rules of this board and I really don't want to harsh anyone's mellow again, so I'm just going to stop right here before I "attack" anyone's religion.

See you around...

Chris

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

The Body of Christ in the world is communal, not individual.

That Community can and does speak through each and every one of us.



andrew

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

OK, so there's nothing wrong with that except...

The Body of Christ in the world is communal, not individual.

lunamoth

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Luna,

So we all have to see things the same way?

Look, I don't understand the rules of this board and I really don't want to harsh anyone's mellow again, so I'm just going to stop right here before I "attack" anyone's religion.

See you around...

Chris

Here are some passages from 1 Corinthians Chapters 12 & 13, {which shouldn't have been separated into two chapters, IMHO}

1 Corinthians Ch. 12 & 13 12:4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:...11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills....27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually...31...And yet I show you a more excellent way.
Chapter 13 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

We are both the communal body of Christ and individual members. As Paul demonstrated, the way to optimize this system is through the application of love. JMHO.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Here are some passages from 1 Corinthians Chapters 12 & 13, {which shouldn't have been separated into two chapters, IMHO}

We are both the communal body of Christ and individual members. As Paul demonstrated, the way to optimize this system is through the application of love. JMHO.

Excellent and perfect seattlegal.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Luna,

So we all have to see things the same way?

Look, I don't understand the rules of this board and I really don't want to harsh anyone's mellow again, so I'm just going to stop right here before I "attack" anyone's religion.

See you around...

Chris

Hi Chris, no I did not say that we all have to see things the same way. Boy, something about me or my posting style must hit you quite the wrong way! If I have offended I apologize. Yes, I do consider myself a 'traditional' Christian (for lack of another term), but I am far from conservative and far from literal in my interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps once we've conversed a bit more this will come through.

I also went through a religion in which the thoughts and actions of the membership were highly controlled for the sake of unity, and I would never say that is a good thing. I have my own unique way of understanding the Bible and I expect anyone else would, or should, also have that opportunity.

I did not say I don't like Spong--you are right--I have not read a lot of what he has written! For example, I like this line: "I do believe that the God met in Jesus is real,..." because it emphasizes the experience of the early Christians. In fact, I like pretty much all of that passage. What I said about Spong is that he seems to throw the baby out with the bath--that he does not believe that Christ was God or buy into the Trinity. That's where we part ways. But again, even asking these questions as literal, rather than as sacred or as a Mystery, is barking up the wrong tree.

People also criticize dogma and doctrine as if these things are dirty words. Well, when they are used to justify things like burning heretics I would absolutely agree. Should we all think alike? No. But I think it's good to have a common framework from which to begin, against which to compare our own thoughts, be they acceptance or rejection, especially if that framework has been honed over a couple of thousand years by the work of the Spirit. That's a lot more wisdom than I could come up with on my own in one short lifetime. Further, if all my beliefs begin and end in my own thoughts, then the whole purpose of religion, transformation out of my limited false self, has been subverted. I've begun and ended in myself; I've made myself the center.

Also, dogma may indeed be rigid, those final lines in the sand that when you cross you might no longer be considered Christian. But, really, if you've crossed those lines what is to be gained by keeping the title Christian? Unless of course you want to somehow identify with the community.

Doctrine, on the other hand, is more fluid I think. It is a teaching or instruction. I suppose if you look up doctrine and dogma in the dictionary they will be almost interchangeable, so just to be clear, I'm using this to indicate that there are core beliefs that when you throw them out Christianity is no longer a meaningful term. 'Course, we all do tend to disagree on what is rock solid rigid and what is more fluid, and thus we have all these different denominations. I'd say that for now, so, what's wrong with that? Lots of different flavors of Christianity out there.

I am an Episcopalian, born into it, left it and came back. I love being an Episcopalian because the doctrine, while there, is treated as quite open to questioning and interpretation. There is of course a wide range of Episcopalians too, from quite conservative to Spong! But, the great thing is that I don't worry about either end of the spectrum. They can believe what they want--the important thing is that we worship together and work together.

And that is where the liturgy and the Eucharist come in. That is where the communal aspect is strengthened.

Well, this is quite long. Ask me tomorrow and I'll express it differently. I'm not going to keep begging you to stay and talk. I don't know what you believe and I don't care! I'm here for the discussion; honest discussion where I don't have to apologize for my views either.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The mystery of it all is like a series of koans, getting me out of rational, ordinary thinking, so that I can grow in spiritual, supernatural thinking. I do not think faith is supposed to be entirely rational, or it would not be the "evidence of things not seen," and would simply be philosophy, social theory, or science.

Nice post path. I especially like this part about the koans--I view the mystery in much the same way.

cheers,
luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by taijasi

That Community can and does speak through each and every one of us.


andrew

I agree.

lunamoth

[InquisitiveInHalifax]

Originally Posted by Bandit

How anyone can read the NT or any book for that matter & miss the the plot is beyond me.

I don't think that it's fair to say that someone has missed the plot because they interpretted things differently.

my 2c

-R

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I don't know what you believe and I don't care! I'm here for the discussion; honest discussion where I don't have to apologize for my views either.

peace,
lunamoth

Before you lambaste me over this, I'll apologize as this did come off harsh in tone. Was a bit het up there. For the record, I am here at CR because I am interested in learning and hearing other people's ideas, not for shutting down every idea that I don't happen to agree with 100%. So, let me express it a different way, I'd like to know what you believe and think, but I'm not going to judge you on it. Disagreeing is different than being intolerant, I think.

Anyways...

lunamoth

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Before you lambaste me over this, I'll apologize as this did come off harsh in tone. Was a bit het up there. For the record, I am here at CR because I am interested in learning and hearing other people's ideas, not for shutting down every idea that I don't happen to agree with 100%. So, let me express it a different way, I'd like to know what you believe and think, but I'm not going to judge you on it. Disagreeing is different than being intolerant, I think.

Anyways...

lunamoth

No, it's not you or anything you said. I posted the quote from Spong, and then I started talking about how I see the Bible and how I don't think it's necessary for us all to read it the same way. But then I realized that I was again breaking the rules, since my beliefs don't exactly line up with mainline Christianity I'm not supposed to express them here. Now I've broken the rules again because that last sentence can be construed as a criticism of this board. I consider myself a Christian, but I'm not a Christian according to the criteria of this board. Since you've declared yourself a member of an established Christian group you can discuss your beliefs, but I can only ask questions, and I can't come up with meaningful questions if we can't have a conversation, and I can't have a conversation that I can't participate in. This just leaves me hamstrung and sputtering.

Believe it or not I'm one of the nicest people you could ever meet. When I said, "see you around", I meant on another board, not that I'm leaving.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

No, it's not you or anything you said. I posted the quote from Spong, and then I started talking about how I see the Bible and how I don't think it's necessary for us all to read it the same way. But then I realized that I was again breaking the rules, since my beliefs don't exactly line up with mainline Christianity I'm not supposed to express them here. Now I've broken the rules again because that last sentence can be construed as a criticism of this board. I consider myself a Christian, but I'm not a Christian according to the criteria of this board. Since you've declared yourself a member of an established Christian group you can discuss your beliefs, but I can only ask questions, and I can't come up with meaningful questions if we can't have a conversation, and I can't have a conversation that I can't participate in. This just leaves me hamstrung and sputtering.

Believe it or not I'm one of the nicest people you could ever meet. When I said, "see you around", I meant on another board, not that I'm leaving.

Chris

You are not breaking rules. You pointed out (quite clearly) that the Bible is important to you and your relationship with and understanding of God (as is humanly possible), but that you find the importance in the Bible to be that of the message to you and how to live your life before your Creator, as opposed to determining the literalness of each story as historically accurate, being the most important issue.

What I find ironic is that you pointed out a role reversal between the jewish authors and the western modern contemporaries who call themselves the faithful of the Jewish teacher that the originators were writing about...

Jews who tended to remain faithful to the letter of the law, changed tactics and wrote about a savior in such a way that they were insuring the future peoples remembered the spirit of the law that is the Bible. Yet today, Western Christians are struggling with whether the Bible is the letter of the law instead of embracing what the forefathers hoped for us...the spirit of the Law of the Bible.

Instead of agreeing on the hope and message of the Bible, we're arguing over the semantics and historical reality, which means we get nothing out of it but frustration, anger, disillusionment, and confusion.

I do not (for the most part) agree with Bishop Sponge's supernatural view (or lack of, and yes I get his newsletter regularly), but I tend to nod toward's his view that we are bumping into trees instead of reveling in the magnificence of the "forest".

I must also point out that for the first several hundred years, Christians did not have a Bible, nor knew of all the stories of Jesus, yet they had no trouble believing in His message, and in his offer of salvation, and passing it along.

Because of them, we have an opportunity to accept that salvation as well.

That is the "miracle" of the Bible, and the ultimate truth and hope it brings us, who believe.

Besides that, it is the best "operators" manual for Human beings that has ever come down the pike (not to mention the oldest).

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

Dang, now I've lied twice and said I wouldn't post on this board. But the conversation is good and it interests me. I just want to get along and not detract from other poster's experience here.

What really interests me about the Bible, other than the historical ramifications, is trying to figure out the authors' original intent. I'm most interested in what they were trying to convey to their contemporary readers, and what we can glean from that about what that ancient world looked like. I'm trying to figure out what it looks like over the author's shoulder and out the window. How is what he's saying a reflection of that historical reality. So, while a great many readers of, say, Daniel and Revelation are seeing prophetic words for our time, I'm trying to figure out what it meant for the author's time. It doesn't make sense that such an effort would have gone into preserving a manuscript that had no immediate meaning.

When I read the Gospels I find lots of little clues about the stress and strife of the aftermath of the Jewish Roman war of the first century CE. In the Gospel of John I find the seeds of dissent that grew into the schism between the "Church" and the Gnostics. When I read the Torah I see a fledgling state of Judah trying to establish a unique cultural identity and shake off it's jealousy of the former glories of it's richer northern neighbor Israel. When I read the creation story in Genesis a see a foundational myth that attempts in a very sophisticated way to put forth an allegory of the evolution of the human psyche.

I find extraordinary richness and meaning in the Bible. Every time I read it I find something new and interesting. I'm not interested in debunking the literal view of the Bible. I expect people who subscribe to that view to say the things and hold the opinions they do. But to me the Bible is an explosion of technicolor and Dolby surround sound, not a monochrome, monoraul experience filtered through rigid dogmas that "must be or our theology is destroyed."

That's all.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

...When I read the creation story in Genesis a see a foundational myth that attempts in a very sophisticated way to put forth an allegory of the evolution of the human psyche.

Every "myth" has a kernel of truth as its foundation...