Postliberal Christianity

[neosnoia]

'Truth is related to the distinctive doctrines of the Christian faith.' I don't agree with this (today). I tend to think that there is a common Truth that can be found in most religions, and that it is there in spades in Christianity.

Hehe, or I simply am not getting it.

One of the charges leveled against postliberalism by some is that it is "pluralistic." Heh. Can't please everybody eh?

I would consider myself to hold to narrative theology. I also think that scripture purports some propositional truths. I believe that the two go together quite well.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by neosnoia

Three great articles on postliberalism and neo-orthodoxy.

The Future of Postliberal Theology

Just What is Postliberal Theology

The Origins of Postliberalism

Narrative Theology - Wikipedia

The first three articles come from "Religion-Online." Wonderful site.

PS - Sorry for all my edits. Some of the links didn't work. Argh.

Great links neosnoia; thank you!

[path_of_one]

Interesting... I'll have to read further. I'm pretty much on the same wavelength as you are, Luna (as is usual! ). I am very concerned with the cultural and linguistic background of scripture and I do not think it is (all) meant to be taken literally. However, while I do agree that it is a symbolic text, I do not think that means everything is only symbolic, and I rebel against the tendency to strip Christianity of its Judaic roots and its historical context. I do not believe we should simply reinterpret scripture to fit with our contemporary society and needs, but rather carefully study what the text originally meant and then take it up with God in prayer to find how it is applicable today, given the changes in what we know about the universe and our society. I do view doctrine as a work in progress.Myth is basically the sacred narrative (in Christianity, the Bible), while doctrine is our theories about the myth. The trinity is a lovely example that has been discussed a lot on this forum. The Bible never says the word “trinity” or defines specifically how God operates. People infer the doctrine of the trinity from various scriptural passages. This means that doctrine, just like scientific theories, are based on our best current information- historical, linguistic, cultural, and spiritual.However, the isolationist idea doesn't appeal to me either. I believe there is Truth, but we cannot fully perceive it because we are limited by our cultural and linguistic backgrounds. I believe everyone who sincerely seeks after God, finds Him/Her/It, but that doesn't mean anyone really understands God, or can describe God, or anything of the sort. All our communication and theorizing is filtered through our linguistic categories (which shape our thought) and our history, culture, mythology.Finally, I agree that there isn’t one “right” way for everyone to approach religion. For some, institutions work very well. They feel comfort and satisfaction in the communal and historical traditions. For others, their very personality doesn’t work well with this sort of organization. I appreciate religion and churches, but that is not how I connect to God. I am individualistic and syncretic, and very experiential, and I have always been this way. It would not work for me to base my beliefs primarily on tradition or communal institutions because my faith is fundamentally tied to personal experience, study, and interpretation. Much more than people gathering together to do stuff (communion, pray, sing) and I feel stifled, as if I am being told the sky is green when to me it has always been blue, but somehow I should agree with the communal consensus anyway. I do not think everyone need go down the path of individualism and syncretism, but it is what works for me. Personally, I think it is odd to teach people to trust history and institutions (which are constantly changing anyway) rather than to trust their own feelings, experiences, and critical thinking skills. There are dangers in individualistic approaches to spirituality, but these can be tempered by careful study and so forth.I guess I just don’t buy into one-size-fits-all religion of any sort. There are too many different people out there.
Edited to add... I am sorry for the run-on paragraph with no breaks. I wrote it with breaks, but the forum is stripping them for some reason. Please bear with me...

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm getting lost in the labels so I'll just try to shoot something out and see if it makes any sense.

It seems like what we're talking about here is how to put the genie back in the bottle so that Christianity becomes a mystery again. How to get back to that orthodox ideal where the faith isn't to be understood but rather lived. The problem with that is that it smacks so heavily of institutionalized social control mechanisms of the past, and the objectification, idolatry basically, of worshipping something blindly and without understanding.

The problem with liberal Christianity, as has been pointed out, is that it universalizes, and individualizes theology to the point where it loses any concrete relationship of currency between the signs, symbols, rituals and their original context. The signs become self-referential, they refer only to themselves in a chase-your-tail manner that leaves the entire theology flacid and devoid of deeper meaning. This is what happens when mythology is removed from its original, arcane context and adapted for use in an entirely different sphere.

So I guess what the post-liberalists are saying is that the Bible story needs to be put back in its original context so that the mystery it evokes naturally will be revitalized. That sounds good, but...

The first problem is how do we deal with the compartmentalization of our thought process and world view that inevitably arises from being of two minds: one spiritual, arcane and unreasoning, and incompatible with modern thought, and the other deductive, logical, and completely incompatible with the first? How do we divide up our mental processes into two completely incompatible spheres?

The second problem is that to place the Bible back into it's original context requires figuring out what that context actually is. To get to the original context we have to understand the writing process and that leads ultimately to a de-mystification of the material. So by putting the material back into it's original context we've shot ourselves in the foot because we've peeked behind the curtain and peeled apart the layers. I suppose one could stop at the point where the Bible in it's present cannonized version emerged, accept the supremacy of the institutions of orthodoxy, and never question beyond that. Maybe that's the point: the re-establishment of the blind belief in the supremacy of the institution.

Here's what I think the real question is, at least for me: How do you have your Jesus and eat him too? On the one hand a watered down, post-modern, politically correct, universally appealing, fuzzy wuzzy, chicken soup version of Christian theology is at the core level unsatisfying and essentially unreal, but on the other hand a return to a mystical, authority driven, institutionlized theology which relies on the blind faith of the adherents is even less attractive. And since any compromise tends toward the liberalization of the theology, there can never be a happy medium.

Chris

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The first problem is how do we deal with the compartmentalization of our thought process and world view that inevitably arises from being of two minds: one spiritual, arcane and unreasoning, and incompatible with modern thought, and the other deductive, logical, and completely incompatible with the first? How do we divide up our mental processes into two completely incompatible spheres?

The second problem is that to place the Bible back into it's original context requires figuring out what that context actually is. To get to the original context we have to understand the writing process and that leads ultimately to a de-mystification of the material. So by putting the material back into it's original context we've shot ourselves in the foot because we've peeked behind the curtain and peeled apart the layers. I suppose one could stop at the point where the Bible in it's present cannonized version emerged, accept the supremacy of the institutions of orthodoxy, and never question beyond that. Maybe that's the point: the re-establishment of the blind belief in the supremacy of the institution.

Here's what I think the real question is, at least for me: How do you have your Jesus and eat him too? On the one hand a watered down, post-modern, politically correct, universally appealing, fuzzy wuzzy, chicken soup version of Christian theology is at the core level unsatisfying and essentially unreal, but on the other hand a return to a mystical, authority driven, institutionlized theology which relies on the blind faith of the adherents is even less attractive. And since any compromise tends toward the liberalization of the theology, there can never be a happy medium.

Chris

Interesting...I have no problem flipping back and forth between a mystical mode and a scientific one, but I'm naturally like that and so I deal well with compartmentalization. Really, I operate naturally in a mystical mode, but I'm good at logic and deductive reasoning, so I can "switch off" mysticism and "switch on" the logic. Personally, I don't find the two incompatible, but rather complementary. I have a lot of ideas that would seem entirely illogical to most people, based on contemporary ideas about "what we know," that are very logical if you lived my life's experiences. Furthermore, we have to drag in what logic and modern thought mean. Most everyday folks believe, logically, that they exist as an individual only in one universe and life (this one they experience). However, lots of wonderful scientists now think that the evidence points toward many universes, many of which have a "me" in them, but a "me" that I can't currently experience or access. Where the public at large draws the line between reality and fantasy, logic and crazy ideas, is very different from where specialists draw it. So what does that mean for mysticism? Is there a nugget of hope there that some shamans react to string theory with a shrug and a "been there, done that"?-----As to the second problem, I think this depends on how someone approaches the scriptures and mystery. I study the scriptures more or less methodically and scientifically. I pick them apart, I read what I can find on linguistic and cultural context to find the original author's intent. Yet the mystery of all this is that the text is also a medium of communication between God and me. Beyond the study is the Spirit. On the one hand, I am applying the brain God gave me. On the other, I am applying the soul. The former seeks to understand how these other people, embedded in history and culture and language, described their experience with God and the theories that experience generated. The latter seeks to use the scripture as a vehicle to my own experience with God. The interaction of the two renders my belief system. I am very much about the Mystery, and yet I do not filter it through an institution, nor do I ignore my intellectual capacity which I feel is also a gift from God to help us know Him/Her/It. Perhaps society at large is being too dualistic in their thinking- too eager to embrace one or the other, and turn away their other abilities. I believe God made humanity both deductive and intuitive for a reason- both for our survival as a species, and for our capacity to experience Him/Her/It.-----As to Christ, I do perceive Him/Her/It as universal. I don't perceive Jesus as universal. In my own experience, I have experienced Christ as any number of visions and events; Christ is universal and exists outside of time and space (as does God). Jesus was the physical manifestation of Christ and is embedded, like all humans, in time and space, thus unifying divinity and humanity. Neither is the vague sort of thing you get in some of the modern movements. One is an eternal aspect of God, the other an historical manifestation of this apsect. I don't know if this puts me in the fuzzy-wuzzy Jesus category or not.

[Quahom1]

If I may cut in... Postliberal Christianity, goes way beyond the first two key stages in Christianity. And not everyone is ready for this new stage (which I believe is where we're supposed to be heading and should have been in, long ago). The first stage is the literal stage (infant stage). That is everything that is Biblical is absolute. We had to do that because we had to develop a set of core Christian values that could not be shaken. So, all the extremis was weeded out during this first stage (consequently one very positive note to this is the fact that people began to learn about more than themselves and their own existence, as being all important). Once that "core set of values" coalesed, Christians became "secure" in their basic belief system, which allowed for inquisitives to begin to question, what if?

This leads to the second Key stage in Christianity, namely comparing the Biblical stories to the world around us, with the "new" scientific data we have. Suddenly, we wonder why the Bible was so short on details as to why this or that happened. And where is the proof, or evidence to back up these Biblical passages?...We now enter the adolescent stage. This is where we rebel, or question, or demand proof. Often times a "Christian" either, go back to the first stage, or walk away from Christianity all together, or just go numb, because reality is fighting with what we were taught as children.

The third stage is where we need to go. This is the stage were we understand what we were taught, and accept that there is conflict with what is current, but understand something fundemental. The Bible is our ABCs, and life is our classroom, and once we've graduated from class, we are to apply what we learned and know to today.

In the third stage we realize there is God, and there is us. The Bible has some powerful lessons for us to make use of (if we are wise) and now we know why many things work, but that God, isn't in a Book. The living Bible isn't a book at all...it is us, and how we live, and how we relate to our God, nature, people...

This is the point where we take what we've learned and experienced, and use it to fulfill the wholeness of us and God. This is where we "Walk with God" through the rest of our lives. Fear is gone. Uncertainty is gone.

In this stage we don't need to run back to scripture for confirmation on this or that, we don't have a rebellious attitude about what may or may not be literal. We understand that we and others are in various states of learning, but we have the tools and more importantly, the line of communication open between us and our Creator.

"I AM" manifests Himself through us...and we look forward to it, and count on it, and delight in it.

In short, we have become "adults" in our relationship with God...(at least as close as we can until the next phase of our life).

What are the tell tale signs for this new stage? "I forgive" and "I apologise", roll from our hearts as easily as they do from our tongues.

The "Bible" is considered absolute truth, in that we know it teaches us to be better people, people of God. Nothing between the pages are stumbling stones for living a good life, or getting closer to God.

There becomes more out there than being a success unto ourselves. We simply delight in the pleasure of...God.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I'm getting lost in the labels so I'll just try to shoot something out and see if it makes any sense.

Yeah, it is rather a bog isn't it.

It seems like what we're talking about here is how to put the genie back in the bottle so that Christianity becomes a mystery again. How to get back to that orthodox ideal where the faith isn't to be understood but rather lived. The problem with that is that it smacks so heavily of institutionalized social control mechanisms of the past, and the objectification, idolatry basically, of worshipping something blindly and without understanding.

I'm not sure, but there may be something to your point about returning to the Mystery aspect again. For me it's been part of my tradition all along, yet I don't associate it with institutionalized social control mechanisms, etc. But, perhaps I am just blind to this. Doesn't seem that way to me. I think the point of doctrine is trying to understand... as I said above I see doctrine as an evolving thing. My experience just seems so 180 from the charges I see leveled at tradition. Maybe it has something to do with being an Episcopalian.

The problem with liberal Christianity, as has been pointed out, is that it universalizes, and individualizes theology to the point where it loses any concrete relationship of currency between the signs, symbols, rituals and their original context. The signs become self-referential, they refer only to themselves in a chase-your-tail manner that leaves the entire theology flacid and devoid of deeper meaning. This is what happens when mythology is removed from its original, arcane context and adapted for use in an entirely different sphere.

When taken to an extreme. I don't think we can think of liberal and orthodox as a simple dichotomy. There's a huge spectrum in between.

So I guess what the post-liberalists are saying is that the Bible story needs to be put back in its original context so that the mystery it evokes naturally will be revitalized. That sounds good, but...

I'm beginning to think that postliberalism is not really clearly enough defined to be useful! One idea is that it opposes liberal theology, another is that it goes beyond liberal theology to something new. It's hardly without its critics. But, what you say here is about what I understand about it as well. Not just the mystery, though. There seems to be a pretty good emphasis on morality/ethics in postliberalism too, which is not where I'd put my emphasis.

The first problem is how do we deal with the compartmentalization of our thought process and world view that inevitably arises from being of two minds: one spiritual, arcane and unreasoning, and incompatible with modern thought, and the other deductive, logical, and completely incompatible with the first? How do we divide up our mental processes into two completely incompatible spheres?

I don't these describe the two thought processes. Does anyone really process the information they receive only by logic and deduction? Only for academic reasons I think. Most of us process information in ways that are both rational and relational/spiritual (ie, assigning priorites of thought around things that are not purely logical, but based upon what is important to us). I think is a false separation to say that we have these different mental capacities. But, yes, there are some things in life that I do put in a place where I don't analyze them scientifically because they do not pertain to scientific/material questions. I am not looking to the physical Resurrection of Christ to learn about how to bring my dead loved ones back.

There are some Biblical passages that could have bearing on how I understand my material and social world, and these I am going to look at with greater scrutiny, and flexibility.

The second problem is that to place the Bible back into it's original context requires figuring out what that context actually is. To get to the original context we have to understand the writing process and that leads ultimately to a de-mystification of the material. So by putting the material back into it's original context we've shot ourselves in the foot because we've peeked behind the curtain and peeled apart the layers. I suppose one could stop at the point where the Bible in it's present cannonized version emerged, accept the supremacy of the institutions of orthodoxy, and never question beyond that. Maybe that's the point: the re-establishment of the blind belief in the supremacy of the institution.

Starting with this last point first, no, I reject that notion. I'm not sure how you make the jump from accepting the cannon as your starting point or foundation to accepting the supremacy of the institutions of orthodoxy. But, you're not the first person to point this out so I guess there is something there. Since I look at it as community, rather than supreme institution, I experience it differently than you suggest.

Back to your first point in this paragraph, I think its very very interesting to peel back the layers and try to understand the original context. That does not mean I wait for the Jesus seminar to tell me what I can trust. I trust it all, regardless of the layers of editing that went into it and the ideas that did not 'make the cut.' No matter how the cannon came to be, it is my sacred Text, my sacred history. I trust it, yet I also understand it in my own way, and in the light of doctrine/tradition and in the light of progressive Biblical scholarship and reason. It is a synthesis. Not only that, even without some Institution telling me what to think, when I hear the Bible narrative, the liturgy, I do enter into it, and I do hear Christ speaking to me. This is a very real experience for me and I don't understand it. It happens to me a lot and I accept it.

Here's what I think the real question is, at least for me: How do you have your Jesus and eat him too? On the one hand a watered down, post-modern, politically correct, universally appealing, fuzzy wuzzy, chicken soup version of Christian theology is at the core level unsatisfying and essentially unreal, but on the other hand a return to a mystical, authority driven, institutionlized theology which relies on the blind faith of the adherents is even less attractive. And since any compromise tends toward the liberalization of the theology, there can never be a happy medium.

Chris

I don't know Chris. Somehow I just do. I think the happy medium is a good place to be. I focus on one thing: Love. Everything else flows from there.

luna

[lunamoth]

Wow, great posts Path of One and Q, and yours too China Cat! I'm getting kind of brain dead but Path, as usual, you said it better than I ever could, and Q, I really like where you take this idea of Postliberalism: adulthood. I can only hope...

luna

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If I may cut in... Postliberal Christianity, goes way beyond the first two key stages in Christianity. And not everyone is ready for this new stage (which I believe is where we're supposed to be heading and should have been in, long ago). The first stage is the literal stage (infant stage). That is everything that is Biblical is absolute. We had to do that because we had to develop a set of core Christian values that could not be shaken. So, all the extremis was weeded out during this first stage (consequently one very positive note to this is the fact that people began to learn about more than themselves and their own existence, as being all important). Once that "core set of values" coalesed, Christians became "secure" in their basic belief system, which allowed for inquisitives to begin to question, what if?

This leads to the second Key stage in Christianity, namely comparing the Biblical stories to the world around us, with the "new" scientific data we have. Suddenly, we wonder why the Bible was so short on details as to why this or that happened. And where is the proof, or evidence to back up these Biblical passages?...We now enter the adolescent stage. This is where we rebel, or question, or demand proof. Often times a "Christian" either, go back to the first stage, or walk away from Christianity all together, or just go numb, because reality is fighting with what we were taught as children.

The third stage is where we need to go. This is the stage were we understand what we were taught, and accept that there is conflict with what is current, but understand something fundemental. The Bible is our ABCs, and life is our classroom, and once we've graduated from class, we are to apply what we learned and know to today.

In the third stage we realize there is God, and there is us. The Bible has some powerful lessons for us to make use of (if we are wise) and now we know why many things work, but that God, isn't in a Book. The living Bible isn't a book at all...it is us, and how we live, and how we relate to our God, nature, people...

This is the point where we take what we've learned and experienced, and use it to fulfill the wholeness of us and God. This is where we "Walk with God" through the rest of our lives. Fear is gone. Uncertainty is gone.

In this stage we don't need to run back to scripture for confirmation on this or that, we don't have a rebellious attitude about what may or may not be literal. We understand that we and others are in various states of learning, but we have the tools and more importantly, the line of communication open between us and our Creator.

"I AM" manifests Himself through us...and we look forward to it, and count on it, and delight in it.

In short, we have become "adults" in our relationship with God...(at least as close as we can until the next phase of our life).

What are the tell tale signs for this new stage? "I forgive" and "I apologise", roll from our hearts as easily as they do from our tongues.

The "Bible" is considered absolute truth, in that we know it teaches us to be better people, people of God. Nothing between the pages are stumbling stones for living a good life, or getting closer to God.

There becomes more out there than being a success unto ourselves. We simply delight in the pleasure of...God.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

Interesting ideas. I'd never thought of it like that, maybe because I'm still going round in circles in the adolescent phase.

[wil]

In the third stage we realize there is God, and there is us. The Bible has some powerful lessons for us to make use of (if we are wise) and now we know why many things work, but that God, isn't in a Book. The living Bible isn't a book at all...it is us, and how we live, and how we relate to our God, nature, people...

Namaste all, great stuff Q, and I relate until the above quote.

There is G-d and there is us v. Omnipresence/There is G-d/Oneness/G-d is all there is. Creator and created are we.

I agree G-d isn't a book. But G-d is in the book and the book in G-d. G-d is in us, and us in G-d. I and the father are one. What you do to the least of man, you do to me... Oneness.

Maybe my issue isn't that this third stage you refer to isn't the stage I am looking at.

Butch brought up in church last Sunday our path through Dualism, Semi-dualism, Non-dualism...and indicated their is another...the vedas are said to take this path to Pure Non-dualism...I don't know where Butch was headed...But the concept that I see Jesus taught of oneness....that is what I see us headed towards (or getting back to)

[neosnoia]

Hi Chris. Just a couple of thoughts in response to your post (as Luna pretty much summed up my own thoughts perfectly).

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It seems like what we're talking about here is how to put the genie back in the bottle so that Christianity becomes a mystery again.

I don't see a need to put the genie back in the bottle, because imo, it has never gotten out. The more I dig into scripture, the more I'm amazed at the truths to be found there, layer upon layer. It's like diving into a pool and trying to reach the bottom, only to find out that there is no bottom.

To get to the original context we have to understand the writing process and that leads ultimately to a de-mystification of the material.

My experience has been just the opposite. The writing process, the original languages, the meanings of words and what they might have meant to Jewish ears ... As I research all of these things, I walk away completely awed.

[flowperson]

Wonderful reading here. I'm always sorry when I have to go away and earn money for a couple of days and miss the spontaneity of the interactions.

It is clear that we are in a major transition from adolescence to adulthood when it comes to recognizing our true age and responsibilities. Q, you did a great job in structuring the timeline of our relationship with G-d and the messages given to us in scripture. I also fall into a category of being a spiritually-driven mystic and pragmatic analyst at the same time as Path so aptly described. And Luna and China Cat, your summary and observations of where we've been theologically were very informative for me. Too many big words though.... Kay, I didn't get a chance to visit the info sites yet, but I plan to.

But then I've done a fair amount of serious writing and one cannot create new things to affect the beliefs of others out of the messages a person gleans from the wispy ethers without being touched by spiritual forces. It makes sense to me to view the writers of the Bible in this way, and that's how I see G-d's intent being announced and fulfilled through their words to our brains, and into societal activities. I see it as a massive plan to assist the growth and welfare of humanity through time.

My experiences connected in intimate ways to the creation process in science and technology convinced me, Q, that we needed to grow up in our attitudes concerning the powerful societal influences that we were bringing into the light through our research and development activities. This began to happen to me about twenty five years ago after a near death experience, among other things. People are just now beginning to see and question the introduction of all of the new things I had hands-on experiences with back then... nanotech, stem cell modification, gene therapy, genetic evaluation, genetically modified plants and animals grown for human consumption, digital realities, etc., into our everyday lives.

Up until now the overall attitude has been, as long as it all creates jobs and an enhanced quality of life in the long run, it's ok to do. But my associations with theologians in an advanced seminar concerning issues related to religion and science, convinced me, Q, that some wise people realized that we were becoming adult citizens of the cosmos, and that we had better start thinking and acting in the adult mode as a species, or else we would increasingly find ourselves in mortal dangers in our future. We are becoming, as adults of the cosmos, Created Co-Creators, as these theologians so wisely emphasized to me. And I believe that this has been G-d's intention for us as a species all along. We're just now beginning to do it, and we're doing it poorly.

I am greatly distressed by the apparent and almost total disregard by our political leadership of these important and critical matters. I see leaders of both parties that are allowed to make laws and devote resources on our behalf doing so in almost total ignorance of the real issues involved here. They mimic ostriches sticking their heads into money pits and golf cups in their collective attempts to avoid dealing with this future that is already upon us in some very real ways. And so we turn on the news each night, or read it on the internet, and see people being spiritual infants when it comes to the welfare of their brothers and sisters.

Instead critical resources are wasted on questionable and expensive military ventures that only seem to create fear, death, and destruction. We can believe in a lot of things, but if we cannot believe in the eventual transformation of the collective human spirit into activities that begin to harmonize our soulful purposes in constructive, and not destructive, undertakings, I fear greatly for my children's futures.

I've probably written too much here, but trust me... when comes a time when you almost die.. you really begin to concentrate on the important stuff.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by neosnoia

Hi Chris. Just a couple of thoughts in response to your post (as Luna pretty much summed up my own thoughts perfectly).



I don't see a need to put the genie back in the bottle, because imo, it has never gotten out. The more I dig into scripture, the more I'm amazed at the truths to be found there, layer upon layer. It's like diving into a pool and trying to reach the bottom, only to find out that there is no bottom.



...The writing process, the original languages, the meanings of words and what they might have meant to Jewish ears ... As I research all of these things, I walk away completely awed.

O.K. I agree with what your saying. I too find amazing little nuggets of truth every time I read the Bible. Here's the thing, though: I want to know what the authors' original intent was. To find out I need to know who his original intended audience was. Why? Because the deepest truths lie somewhere down there at the bottom of the ocean of time that has swept in and covered over whatever the original context was.

In Christianity we have a conception of what the pre-christian Jewish experience was that heavily colors our understanding of what Jesus means as messiah and savior. We take as fact a Christianized version of what all that stuff in the Torah means based on a very superficial understanding of the material. But I've been talking to Jews and they don't see it the way we do. So, digging down into the layers I'm first confronted with the disparity between Jewish and Christian thought about what the geniune context of the Torah, and the balance of the OT is.

Now I'm intrigued and I wonder what the real history of Judaism is outside of the foundational mythology. I want to know how and why the foundational myths were created. See, that's part of historical context that explains the Bible authors' original intent. So I look for unbiased sources, and I find that the archaeological record doesn't support the historicity of the foundational myths. O.K., so they're myths, and that makes them very powerful in their proper sphere, but it also completely undermines any possible literality in the Jesus story where elements of the Jewish myth are appropriated and used for color, nuance, ambience, or detail.

Now, how can I put all of that aside, compartmentalize it into one portion of my brain, and in another part of my brain still embrace the mystery of a prophetically foretold neo-Jewish messiah? And I'm not knocking or mocking Jesus or Christianity, I'm just trying to explain my personal dilemma.

On the other hand I could do the liberal thing and say, "well, the story isn't literally true, but if I supply a new context and new derrivative meaning I can still make it work. Jesus doesn't have to be the Jewish messiah, he can be...uh,...a cosmic avatar like Buddha, yeah." But that's just another way of compartmentalizing, isn't it?

So there you go...my dilemma for whatever it's worth.

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by flowperson

I am greatly distressed by the apparent and almost total disregard by our political leadership of these important and critical matters. I see leaders of both parties that are allowed to make laws and devote resources on our behalf doing so in almost total ignorance of the real issues involved here. They mimic ostriches sticking their heads into money pits and golf cups in their collective attempts to avoid dealing with this future that is already upon us in some very real ways. And so we turn on the news each night, or read it on the internet, and see people being spiritual infants when it comes to the welfare of their brothers and sisters.

Instead critical resources are wasted on questionable and expensive military ventures that only seem to create fear, death, and destruction. We can believe in a lot of things, but if we cannot believe in the eventual transformation of the collective human spirit into activities that begin to harmonize our soulful purposes in constructive, and not destructive, undertakings, I fear greatly for my children's futures.

I've probably written too much here, but trust me... when comes a time when you almost die.. you really begin to concentrate on the important stuff.

flow....

Hiya flow, excellent points there. It certainly seems like we are in dire need of some kind of collective awakening. Thank you.

luna

[lunamoth]

Hi Chris, Just a few thoughts on what you say here, take it all with a dose of salt.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

O.K. I agree with what your saying. I too find amazing little nuggets of truth every time I read the Bible. Here's the thing, though: I want to know what the authors' original intent was. To find out I need to know who his original intended audience was. Why? Because the deepest truths lie somewhere down there at the bottom of the ocean of time that has swept in and covered over whatever the original context was.

According to postmodernism you can't ever know the author's original intent and it doesn't matter anyway...heehee, just kind of joking with you here. I think those truths are there, but you don't need historical scholarship to find them. You can find them for yourself. As you said before, once you get the hang of it the Bible is actually one of the easiest books to read, if one that takes a lifetime to mine the depths. And they don't have to be the same truths anyone else gets out of them. Actually, I'd be pretty surprised if the list of truths you get from the Bible vary much from the list I'd come up with. But then, I like being surprised from time to time.

In Christianity we have a conception of what the pre-christian Jewish experience was that heavily colors our understanding of what Jesus means as messiah and savior. We take as fact a Christianized version of what all that stuff in the Torah means based on a very superficial understanding of the material. But I've been talking to Jews and they don't see it the way we do. So, digging down into the layers I'm first confronted with the disparity between Jewish and Christian thought about what the geniune context of the Torah, and the balance of the OT is.

Now I'm intrigued and I wonder what the real history of Judaism is outside of the foundational mythology. I want to know how and why the foundational myths were created. See, that's part of historical context that explains the Bible authors' original intent. So I look for unbiased sources, and I find that the archaeological record doesn't support the historicity of the foundational myths. O.K., so they're myths, and that makes them very powerful in their proper sphere, but it also completely undermines any possible literality in the Jesus story where elements of the Jewish myth are appropriated and used for color, nuance, ambience, or detail.

Excellent, excellent point. Here's my take on it. We are being disingenious if we look at the OT as having the sole purpose of pointing to Christ. In fact, we are being disingenious if we think of it any other way than realizing that we (Christians) look back at the OT and reinterpret it in the light of the Christ experience recorded in the NT and find a whole new array of meanings. Bottom line for me: prophecy is not so much about 'magical' foretelling of the future as it is about the telling of eternal truths. The writers of the Gospels believed they experienced God among us, so they wrote their Gospels to convey this. It is a kind of (can't think of a good word here) adoration in writing, as well as 'spin' to direct their message to a particular audience. If you want someone to listen to you you need to use a language and symbolism they can relate to, and be convinced by.

Now, how can I put all of that aside, compartmentalize it into one portion of my brain, and in another part of my brain still embrace the mystery of a prophetically foretold neo-Jewish messiah? And I'm not knocking or mocking Jesus or Christianity, I'm just trying to explain my personal dilemma.

But, is that really what is meant by the Mystery? That the Messiah was prophetically foretold? Or is the Mystery something else? Is there an eternal truth in the Gospel message that shines through whether the events were literal or not, and is that truth unique or universal, or some of both? (I'm not answering these questions, just saying these are the kinds of questions I ask of Scripture).

On the other hand I could do the liberal thing and say, "well, the story isn't literally true, but if I supply a new context and new derrivative meaning I can still make it work. Jesus doesn't have to be the Jewish messiah, he can be...uh,...a cosmic avatar like Buddha, yeah." But that's just another way of compartmentalizing, isn't it?

So there you go...my dilemma for whatever it's worth.

Chris

I'm not sure that liberal Christianity needs to make Christ into an avatar, but I guess that's an option. I see Christ as God among us, and God is Love. I guess you could call it the KISS school of Christian thought.

2 c,
luna