Saltmeister said:
Hello, guys. I'm new to this forum and what I've read is quite interesting!!!!
Hello to you, as well, and welcome to CR!
Actually, I'm not sure what this "Alternative Christian" or mystic Christian stuff is, but I am curious to know. I attend a Baptist church and you could probably term me a "mainstream" and "denominational" Christian in the sense that I am part of a particular denomination.
I think we're just talking about experiencing Christianity in a non-mainstream way; many of us also go to mainstream churches. Mysticism in any religion is simply direct experience of the divine and ongoing personal revelation. So Christian mystics experience God personally and directly, and feel that His revelation to them can be known in a direct manner. Mystics often still go to church and value study of sacred texts as well, but believe that God interacts with them directly- no church, doctrine, priest/minister, etc. is necessary.
Path of One, I don't mean to be personal, but I was surprised to find you here. I didn't know you were "Christian."
On the thread "Is the Bible written by God or man?" where I "tried" to explain why God would order the killing of the Canaanites, no matter what I said you didn't agree with me. I got the impression you weren't "Christian."
No problem. I am a Christian as I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Light. His teachings guide me in following the path of peace, love, and joy. I'm also a modern Druid. If you look at my Christian Druidry post in the Alternative section, you'll get a sense of the two combined for me, that is- if you're curious.
I am not a Christian in the sense of buying into a lot of the doctrine that various churches propogate. I believe the important thing in reading the Bible is understanding, as AdD puts it, the meaning behind the myth. (And I don't mean "myth" in the sense of false stories- I mean it in the anthropological sense- a sacred narrative.) Many churches I have gone to tend to focus on the literal story, and spend a lot of time discussing whether or not certain events happened, how miracles could have occurred, etc.- for example, "proving" a seven-day creation and such. If that works for others' spirituality, I would encourage them in that path, but it doesn't work for me. I'm not concerned with those questions. I'm concerned with experiencing God and understanding what the Bible means for my life right now, the truths it points to for uniting my spirit with God.
As for the discussion about the Canaanites, my experience of God is that He would never dictate killing children as acceptable or righteous behavior, nor the wholesale slaughter of animals, nor the mass murder of any cultural or ethnic group. I know it is in the Bible, but I do not believe the Bible is infallible. I believe it is inspired, and that there is a difference between "inspired by" and "written/inscribed by". I must first honor my personal relationship with God and the guidance I receive from the Holy Spirit when I ponder questions of morality, in my own life or in attempting to make a judgment about past events. Secondly, I must honor my God-given sense of logic and my knowledge gained as an anthropologist- for rational thought, science, and theory are also gifts humanity has been given by God. Nothing in either strain has ever indicated to me that my God would order mass killings of a group for any reason. We can call it "ritual cleansing," but by definition it is genocide- the extermination of a specific ethnic or cultural group. "Genocide" defines the action, not the motivation. My God and my Christ have ever indicated to me that killing (even killing plants and animals) is wrong without need for personal and immediate self-defense or survival (food). I do not think God changes, but I do think people's perception of God does. From both the historical and anthropological evidence, as well as from my own spiritual experience, I cannot agree that the wholesale killing of any group is justified or would be promoted by God.
Christians often disagree with one another. There's a lot to interpret in the Bible, and much of our personal experience of God and our faith to also guide us. Disagreement, however, does not mean one or the other is not following Christ. Over time, you'll probably find some cases in which we agree as well, though I fully admit I tend to march to a rather distinctly different drummer!
If Alternative Christianity is a kind of Christianity that doesn't include the Old Testament, and has things like the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Barnabas then I would understand where you're coming from.
This depends on who you talk to here. I include the OT, though I don't accept the meaning of the Bible as a literal and infallible text. I believe much is symbolic of greater meaning, and also must be interpreted with the guidance of the Spirit as well as the findings we have from archaeology, history, and such. I am open to other Christian writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, if the Spirit indicates to me that they are inspired. I am not open to all texts- I've read some that just didn't resonate at all with my experience of God and Christ.
I don't know if that's where our differences lie -- that you must believe in the Second Adam.
I don't really think about it that way, which can certainly mean you may categorize me as non-Christian. In the end, none of our categories matter, really. It is only God who knows the heart. Honestly, I don't think following Christ is about what we think about him, but rather what we do with our relationship with Him. After all, the very demons know He is the son of God. I think what makes one Christian is to acknowledge Christ as the Light that illuminates our path, and to take His teachings as our guide- to "take up the cross, and follow Him." Thus, I don't think spirituality is about beliefs as much as it's about what we do with our beliefs. No doubt, with the fallibility of the human mind, none of us really have a solid grasp of the true nature of God. It is the striving to know Him, to cultivate a relationship with Him, to become more loving, more peaceful, more joyful, more compassionate... that matters. At least, that is my belief.
In the words of St. Columba: "My Druid is Christ, the son of God, Christ, the son of Mary, the Great Abbot, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." Christ is friend to those in need of a friend. Savior to those who need saving. Teacher, philosopher, mentor, and guide to those who need teaching. Comforter to those who need comfort. I believe it matters not the need we recognize at any moment in our soul, the need that brings us to Christ. What matters is that we turn toward God and ask Christ to guide us on our journey.
On the other hand, I'm not too fond of the idea of Christian worship being centered in a public building. I think it would be much better if we had more meetings in "house churches" -- small gatherings of Christians. It makes things more close and personal.
I agree. I've attended a few "mega" churches with thousands of people, and it just isn't for me. It's very impersonal feeling. Aside from the issue of the monetary support it takes to support the giant building, PA systems, etc. That's OK for others, but I just prefer smaller groups and more money going toward charity. I like the way the Amish meet in different families' barns each week. Druids, when they get together, just meet at someone's house, a public park, or out in wilderness. I wish church worked that way. I feel more connected to God outside in the world He created anyway. Still looking for that unique church that meets outside...
Stories are more powerful than doctrines, and these are the things we should believe in.
Very interesting- the whole discussion of doctrine v. teaching. I think there is the danger of both. Doctrine happens when people interpret a story/myth one particular way (outside of the obvious) and then assign certain characteristics to God, cosmology, etc. based on this interpretation. I can go into detail, but I don't think this is the thread for it. I think there is no correct doctrine- it's all false, or more suitably, incomplete- including my own. We can think of doctrine as the analysis of myth- the higher level deductions we make from the myths we believe are sacred. As such, all doctrine will be limited by our minds and incomplete. I believe it is the journey of experiencing God and His guidance, through the interpretation of the stories, that is key. Myth guides us in an exploration of God, our world, and ourselves. This is why I feel it is very good for people to form their own doctrine- their own analysis- from the sacred text rather than just adopt one of the ready-made ones out there without a good deal of thought and prayer. False teaching would be, as you put it, to tell the story incorrectly. I too believe the story is more powerful than the doctrine, but to believe in the story is not necessarily to believe in it as literal (like reading the newspaper) but rather to alternatively (or additionally) believe in its
meaning. Sacred stories are always about the meaning and not just the story itself.
I believe that life is about rituals. The idea is for our rituals to be holy rituals. It is for our sentiments, desires and passions to be holy.
You reap what you sow. What goes round comes round. By following your good instincts you make the people you live with more agreeable to live with. Follow you evil instincts and you cause hatred, iniquity and wickedness to come even from those closest to you.
I agree, with the caveat that life isn't about ritual, but rather about action. I think, after reading a few posts, you really mean action rather than ritual. It could be that we are talking past one another.
Ritual, in anthropology, has a very specific meaning. It is action that is social (it can't just be your own, but must be shared in a group), has a set liturgical order (it is planned ahead of time with a particular order to it), is formal and stylized, and occurs at set times and places. An example in Christianity is communion. Everyday life doesn't qualify as ritual. I think you mean that life is about your actions, and making your actions holy and righteous, and that if we fail to produce good actions, we can cause further iniquity that manifests beyond ourselves. Am I interpreting your statement correctly, or did you literally mean
ritual specifically, as in ritual action like communion, Mass, baptism, etc.?
I've felt myself getting a bit "too close to nature" because of the view I've had above.
I'm just curious what you mean by this. I'm not sure I understand it.
Neat conversation, by the way, and I love this thread. It is really interesting and uplifting to read about people's faiths.
Peace to you (and to all)
