What does it MEAN to be a Christian?

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

One can consider the "other" board from one of two perspectives Wil.

Never let a bull run through a china shop, or

Never pit a speed boat against a loggerhead.

Either way, the aggressor loses.

And yet ... if competition is the name of the game, then I'd just as soon play a video game. Or see who can knit faster (I wouldn't know where to begin!). Either way, it's a safe bet I'll lose!

If debate is all we're after, then could we take a lesson from the Tibetan Buddhist monks, who at least get lively with it, and do it all in good spirit, but do so only to test each other's wits, and to keep sharp the Dharma?

Speaking of sharp, I'll tell you what it means to be a Christian. Every so often I remember that wonderful screen production of Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge. The old version is very moving. Bill Murray's is okay, yet it definitely still gets the point across.

To me, there is a good example of one who demonstrates Christianity - more and more, as the movie evolves. Was he perfect? Not by a long shot. He simply applied himself, diligently.

I remember bringing it up with Bandit, some time back, relative to plot, and other literary devices. It was a good thread.

taijasi

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

And yet ... if competition is the name of the game, then I'd just as soon play a video game. Or see who can knit faster (I wouldn't know where to begin!). Either way, it's a safe bet I'll lose!

If debate is all we're after, then could we take a lesson from the Tibetan Buddhist monks, who at least get lively with it, and do it all in good spirit, but do so only to test each other's wits, and to keep sharp the Dharma?

Speaking of sharp, I'll tell you what it means to be a Christian. Every so often I remember that wonderful screen production of Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge. The old version is very moving. Bill Murray's is okay, yet it definitely still gets the point across.

To me, there is a good example of one who demonstrates Christianity - more and more, as the movie evolves. Was he perfect? Not by a long shot. He simply applied himself, diligently.

I remember bringing it up with Bandit, some time back, relative to plot, and other literary devices. It was a good thread.

taijasi

Point well taken. Just be sure to tuck before you nip the row...or else it all unravels.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Working from the Prologue to the Gospel of St John, by your assumption, if you are the Trinity then:
"In the beginning was taijasi: and taijasi was with God: and taijasi was God.
The same was in the beginning with God."
John 1:1-2

And yet if we are to have eternal life then it follows that we have always had eternal life. Eternal goes both ways.

And if St Paul is right that we are living the new life of the risen Christ, that we are the body of Christ, then we are in some way Christ.

There is more subtlety to be had here than can be handled with a partisan retort. We can finesse our way through these discussions like any politician, but why?

It is clear that Christ came to spread the good news across the Earth. It is not the number of people that matters, it is the openness with which it is shared. Belief is not a matter of a creed, oddly enough. What could be more arid or pointless than an assertion of the characteristics of God? What makes belief substantial is how it is borne out in our lives.

Jesus said (IIRC) "By their fruit you shall know them. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Again "Not all those who call me Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but those who do the will of my heavenly Father." So look around. Who is living in accordance with Christ's teaching? Even among those who deny the existence of God there are many who know Christ better than they realise and better than some nominal Christians do.

But abondoning some of the trappings of the Christian religion does not render it null. I can still be a follower of the Way of Christ, a part of the Body of Christ, without believing in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the miracles, redemption or even a free life extention. Dropping this baggage also allows me to recognise fellow-travellers who do not necessarily share my Christian upbringing. And this, in my ultra-humble opinion, makes me more a Christian than if I clung on to it.

[wil]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Why I am taijasi/a


From the Encyclopedic Theosphical Glossary online:

Taijasa (Sanskrit) [from tejas light] Radiant, flaming, bright; sometimes the higher parts of a human being, such as the manasa-rupa, are designated as taijasa. A star is called taijasi, the feminine form.

Thanks for the info on your name, don't know why I wouldn't think didn't have some profound significance.

Timing is always interesting, check out my blog from yesterday on the very subject of light...

http://wil.zaadz.com/blog

Sometimes I'm slow to figure this stuff out.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Chris, Excellent post. I'm not really sure we can call Christianity an ethnicity based upon the secularization of Christmas, but whatever floats your boat. I do agree however that arguing over the title Christian is not only a humongous waste of time but also distracts from and often goes against our commandment to love each other.

My post was not in defense of the title "Christian," but in reponse to the idea of someone complaining that Christianity has no meaning or distinction after gutting the main beliefs of traditional Christianity. Perhaps I read it wrong above, but it struck me as someone killing the lion then looking at the corpse and complaining: who could ever consider this dead beast beautiful and majestic? Sorry, I was just shooting form the hip there. That's what you respect, right?

I don't know where to put myself in the spectrum of Christianity these days and I don't know if I ever will. It certainly would be nice to be certain, but I have a healthy distrust of certitutde. I don't know. I don't think we can read the Bible on our own and come up with some 'plain' answers. You've suggested in the past that the Bible is an easy book to understand if one takes the time to read it. I'm not so sure about that. I do think, however, that I can come up with some living Christian principles, such as love each other, take care of widows and orphans.

I'm living in the tension Chris.

Christianity is, foremost, for the disenfranchised. If it's not, then Christianity surely is dead.

luna

Hi Luna, how was Ireland?

Just for the heck of it sometime try putting aside the preconceptions you have about the Bible and just read it for what it says at face value. It's not easy, but you can do it if you try. Just put all your beliefs aside (temporarily of course) and read it like a story. See, I think the problem with the Bible is that we come at it from a connect-the-dots perspective. This text here, plus this other text over here, equals this bit of dogma. So, what I'm suggesting is to try removing all the sacredness and religious baggage, just temporarily, and read it from an ordinary perspective like you would any other book. You'll be surprised how easy it is to understand when the text is allowed to mean what it says at face value.

Of course that's just the surface veneer, I'm not saying that there aren't layers of meaning under that, but most people have never allowed themselves to experience that surface level because they want to dive immediately into the super symbolic stuff underneath. But that's like hoping to be a great pianist without ever practicing.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Hi Luna, how was Ireland?

Just for the heck of it sometime try putting aside the preconceptions you have about the Bible and just read it for what it says at face value. It's not easy, but you can do it if you try. Just put all your beliefs aside (temporarily of course) and read it like a story. See, I think the problem with the Bible is that we come at it from a connect-the-dots perspective. This text here, plus this other text over here, equals this bit of dogma. So, what I'm suggesting is to try removing all the sacredness and religious baggage, just temporarily, and read it from an ordinary perspective like you would any other book. You'll be surprised how easy it is to understand when the text is allowed to mean what it says at face value.

Of course that's just the surface veneer, I'm not saying that there aren't layers of meaning under that, but most people have never allowed themselves to experience that surface level because they want to dive immediately into the super symbolic stuff underneath. But that's like hoping to be a great pianist without ever practicing.

Chris

Wow, she won't Chris (answer you in kind, that is). She isn't rude. Nor does she deliberately try to hurt with words. But you and I, we understand the power of words. And we both know what "brutally honest" means.

The only difference between you and me sir, is I can't use them as veiled weapons because I promised God I wouldn't. But I never said I wouldn't step in front for someone else...

Oh, and I can play the piano, pretty damn good. (I never practiced...go figure). I think, yeah they call it "playing by ear"...

guess I'm not the only "jerk" around here.

v/r

Joshua

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Wow, she won't Chris (answer you in kind, that is). She isn't rude. Nor does she deliberately try to hurt with words. But you and I, we understand the power of words. And we both know what "brutally honest" means.

The only difference between you and me sir, is I can't use them as veiled weapons because I promised God I wouldn't. But I never said I wouldn't step in front for someone else...

Oh, and I can play the piano, pretty damn good. (I never practiced...go figure). I think, yeah they call it "playing by ear"...

guess I'm not the only "jerk" around here.

v/r

Joshua

Does this really come off as me trying to be rude Joshua? Because I swear that's not my intention. I don't what to say. Never mind then Luna, I appologize.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Does this really come off as me trying to be rude Joshua? Because I swear that's not my intention. I don't what to say. Never mind then Luna, I appologize.

Chris

As close to "perfect" as it gets Chris. I'm sorry too.

v/r

Joshua

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, if that's true then I must come off as rude, inconsiderate, and insensitive all the time. I'm completely miffed by that, but I accept your criticism Joshua. I withdraw.

Chris

[lunamoth]

Hi Guys,

Chris, I didn't read your post as rude, although you did presume, which what I think Josh was referring to. Joshua, I appreciate your concern but I think all is well here. No worries.

And you did presume incorrectly Chris, at least in part. No, I have not read allllll of the Old Testament, but I have read all of the New.

At one point in time, back in my early agnostic days, I set out to read the Bible as you suggest. I found it, in parts: interesting, perplexing, excrutiatingly boring, maddening, infuriating, confusing, and mostly pretty irrelevant to my life. And the NT was even worse because I did understand mroe of it and I found it outdated, quaint, contrived, silly and superstitous, and again, irrelevant and infuriating.

Because I had no context. I had no idea when these things were written, for who, or why.

You do assume that the only Bible I hear is in church and explained by clergy and reconstituted into doctrine. And in that you are wrong. I've done a couple of Bible study courses (the Pentateuch and Isaiah, one year long each), kind of evangelical in bent so not really my cup of tea but I did get a lot more of the history, and it helped to have the chronology of the different books pointed out for me. It helped me find my way around the Bible, learn the characters, get a hang on the language and symbols and recurring themes. And I've read the NT many many times on my own--emphasize on my own. I've read it quickly like a story, I've read it slowly, I've studied it and I've prayed with it.

And now, after all that yes, it seems easy. But it's still not easy.

It's as you say, you need to practice scales before you can play Mozart. I've done the scales and I'm nowhere near Mozart but at least now I can peck out a tune or two.

Easy would be to read Paul and conclude: God says homosexuality is always and everywhere wrong. And this would be an incorrect conclusion. We could come to the conclusion that it is never right to speak out against our government, even when the things it does are unjust. We could conclude that slavery is fine and women should be quiet in church and submit to their husbands. We could conclude that the Jews really deserve all the 'wrath' that has been poured out on them. And that would all be wrong.

If we read the Bible superficially, literally and only literally, and say 'God Says So,' then we are going to miss the good news, and the most important thing: I love you, love each other. Love each other as I love you. It's not there between the lines, it's there plain as day. It's just we allow all our other hang-ups to blind us to this, and then use the Bible to justify all the reasons we don't really have to love each other.

Ireland was great! Thank you!

luna

[China Cat Sunflower]

Luna,

I just slammed that post in without parsing my words. I'm having phone line trouble and was trying to get it posted before my internet connection died again. I didn't mean to be presumptuous, if I had had time to rework my post it would have come out better. For one thing I would have said "a person" instead of "you", because I didn't have you specifically in mind.

I'm really concerned that I'm coming off as intentionally rude. I'm often sarcastic, but that's the way my sense of humor is. It supposed to be funny, damn it! I don't know, maybe it's time for me to move on. I've had nothing but trouble since I've been here. I'm tired of it, and I'm tired of pushing for a freedom of expression that no one else cares about.

Chris

[Quahom1]

No. it is me Chris. Sorry Luna. (Hands off).

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Luna,

I just slammed that post in without parsing my words. I'm having phone line trouble and was trying to get it posted before my internet connection died again. I didn't mean to be presumptuous, if I had had time to rework my post it would have come out better. For one thing I would have said "a person" instead of "you", because I didn't have you specifically in mind.

I'm really concerned that I'm coming off as intentionally rude. I'm often sarcastic, but that's the way my sense of humor is. It supposed to be funny, damn it! I don't know, maybe it's time for me to move on. I've had nothing but trouble since I've been here. I'm tired of it, and I'm tired of pushing for a freedom of expression that no one else cares about.

Chris

No worries Chris. I don't read you as rude (well, most of the time anyway--sometimes you are a bit um, raw, for effect, right?). And I don't know what else has gone on because I really have not spent as much time in some of the other forums as I used to.

BTW, I saw your post in the Good Men Hate God thread (what a title!) and so now I think I understand better where you are coming from. But are you not making the point that we can't just read the Bible without some kind of context to help it make sense? Anyway, maybe I'll be getting flamed next for my post over there.

luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No. it is me Chris. Sorry Luna. (Hands off).

No worries Q. I think I understand.

luna

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

No worries Chris. I don't read you as rude (well, most of the time anyway--sometimes you are a bit um, raw, for effect, right?). And I don't know what else has gone on because I really have not spent as much time in some of the other forums as I used to.

BTW, I saw your post in the Good Men Hate God thread (what a title!) and so now I think I understand better where you are coming from. But are you not making the point that we can't just read the Bible without some kind of context to help it make sense? Anyway, maybe I'll be getting flamed next for my post over there.

luna

What I'm trying to do is write like I talk. I'm trying to be, in print, the person that I am in real life. In real life I'm a hard workin' blue collar guy with rough hands and a big heart. I smoke, I drink, and I swear like a sailor. I try to keep it toned down a bit here because I'm honestly not trying to offend people, but...I have a filthy, sarcastic sense of humor and it just kinda slips out.

On the Bible study thing: Yes, there's no way to get any depth of meaning out of it without some kind of commentary. But here's the thing: if I'm relying on an outside source of information I've got to place a limitation on myself so that I don't forget that I didn't do the leg work, and I haven't personally verified what I'm accepting. I can't say honestly that I know something when I've merely accepted someone's scholarly opinion. And if I don't do any of the leg work, but just accept a conveniently boxed set of opinions, then I really don't know anything. And, if I'm unwilling to admit to myself that I don't really know, but substitute "faith" for my lack of knowlege, then I'm really all screwed up. So, I think you (a person) have to just be a bit humble and honest about what you do and don't really know, and a bit cautious about accepting grand theological schemes.

I want to hit on something you said in your earlier post. That when you read the Bible without preconceptions it was confusing, contradictory, silly...etc., but that when you applied Christian theology it made sense. My experience is that applying the Christian theology seems to smooth things out at first, but then when you look at it closer the cracks start to reappear. For one thing, it doesn't make sense to discount the Jewish point of view about their own scriptures. Secondly, in order to get at what's really going on in the OT you (a person) have to immerse yourself in the historical context. At the very least you've got to have a map of the ancient world and have some understanding of who the nations and peoples of that world were. What the socio-political scene was...etc. You've got to try to get into the author's heads and look out of their eyes upon their world.

So really, you have to rely on commentary, but you also have to make a pretty sizable personal effort to understand the context of what you're reading. And even at that you (a person) still have to be honest about what you know and don't know.

Losing my train of thought...

Chris