Liberal Christianity without Creation?

[wil]

God is supposedly so high and holy that no sin can be tolerated by him. But humans are completely incapable of making up for their failures because the good things we might use to make up should we have done anyway. So it all boils down to the need of a saviour who paid our debt. Something like that is how the theology goes that I was raised with.

Namaste Ruby, I don't see it that way at all, I see G-d as so High and Holy that spirit can't see sin, period. G-d sees us as created in his likeness pure and simple. Tis funny after the apple it is written that we became like them...but then we were clothed in skin (our skin) and became separate. Our higher self is healthy, whole, eternal, perfect, our material nature, temporary, has mental and physical issues at times and occasionally misses the target (sins). G-d accepts us all as we are, doesn't see our faults. Again I understand why thousands of years ago that explained away a lot of things...gotta blame someone, surely I didn't cause this issue, musta been G-d.

ps, I'd love to see how you listen and not respond Q, how many posts you gonna sit idly by?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I'm curious - surely if Jesus was sacrificed but there was no Garden of Eden "original sin" to atone for, then doesn't that very much reduce Jesus in standing as a religious and spiritual figure? A great man, rather than God incarnate?

Not if the "the Fall" is a metaphorical story about how we lost sight of our connection to "God," and Jesus's willingness to sacrifice himself for the sin's of others is a guidepost to point us back to that connection.

 

[Dondi]

Rev. Wane,

Thank you for those African tribal comparasions. It will make my point easier.

Romans 5:12-19:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Even if one doesn't wish to subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, I don't think that necessarily negates the point about our original condition before God.

When we talk about Original Sin, what are we really saying? That there is a Ideal that God has for Man. That God and Man ought to be in a Perfect Harmony with each other in Love. And that Man somehow, someway has failed to achieve this Ideal. Or if Man had it, he lost it. It's not so much the matter of one particular sin, but rather the fact that our condition compels us to sin.

Whether or not you believe in a literal Adam or that Man evolved to the present species of Homo. Sapien, we are not where we ought to be, need to be. We are still Earth (Adam) bound. And whether or not God is trying to restore us to a pre-Fall state or evolve us toward the Ideal, the end result is the same: To Perfect our Love.

Sin, when one gets down to it, is the distortion of Perfect Love, Perfect Relationship with God and our fellow Man. We are judged because we are imperfect. Our nature is such that we are attendant to our basest nature, the dirt nature from which Adam was made. We are found within ourselves the inability to be perfect. And I think that our perception of imperfection is in the consciouness of everyone in the earth, and why these African tribal legends of creation are simliar to biblical creation. We do not have the resources with ourselves to be perfect, for we neither the example (rule or measurement) nor the strength to achieve it. To try to be perfect within ourselves would be like trying to build a house without a blueprint.

What Christ did was demonstrate that possibility of restoring ability to express Perfect Love, through the Spirit. That is KEY. Christ is the Last Adam in the sense that He came to restore all things back to God. He demonstrated through the Power of the Holy Spirit how we can Love. He drew strength from God and lived the Life that Adam ought to have had. that we ought to have. His continuous reliance on God and not Himself is what got Him through, for He even struggled with God's Will in the Garden: "Nevertheless, not Mine will, but yours". The battle is in the will.

I believe we can in this Life believe we can get to the state of God's Perfect Will, only as long as we relinquish our will to God. We can come to a state of Grace whereby we operate in the Spirit and not in the Adamic flesh, which would drag us down. But we have to be willing to Love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, which includes Loving our neighbor as ourself. Is this hard to do? You bet! But if we seek to try and live like this, it ought to get easier as time progresses.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Even if one doesn't wish to subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, I don't think that necessarily negates the point about our original condition before God.

Amen! And I hope I did not come across in a manner that would seem any different. The point I chose to quote, after all, was:

"It's also worth noting that the Genesis account doesn't need to be literal in order to subscribe to Original Sin as humanity falling from Grace."

This comment struck me, because it upholds an idea that I would embrace, that just because someone might disagree that the creation account is in all points literal, does not automatically preclude any possibility of their also believing in the doctrine of original sin. Those who hold to the literal position sometimes make that error.

And the instances cited about African religions were intended only to show that there are variations of the same themes in other traditions. In retrospect, that may be neither here nor there in regard to the question of literal/not literal. It has less to say against the biblical doctrine of original sin than it does to affirm the belief, though differently expressed, in other religions. With the added point that these seem to have been uninfluenced by the major religions of the world, a doctrine of original sin in another tradition, being a truth which we accept in our own tradition, raises certain questions. One would be, where did they then come by such truth? My own take on it, and I don't assert it as dogmatic fact, is that they too received it by revelation from God.

But when I say things like that, I usually get a chorus of boo's from well-meaning Christians who want to claim all of revelation and allow none to leak out to anybody else. So perhaps I'd better affirm that above all I see Christ as the Supreme Revealer. I just think that if we see things expressed in other religions that we affirm as true in our own, and which we can't trace back to having been "borrowed" from Christianity (or patterned after it), then it seems disingenuous to try to claim they did not receive it by some revelation from God, be that a "lesser" revelation if one feels it must be so expressed.

Your point about sin "compelling" us is a good point, and one which I cannot adequately address, as I am no expert on the religions I spoke of. I have seen nothing in the accounts I've read to affirm or deny whether they would view it that way. I get the idea that in those particular accounts, the focus was on origins and causation, and directed more toward "we had relation with God, we sinned, and that sin brought the separation we now see." Cause and effect, I suppose, and a common feature of African story-telling, so no surprise that it would be that way in telling their religious stories (I have seen them described by some authors as "why" stories).

As for the rest of what you posted, I am in wholehearted agreement as well.

 

[Dondi]

I think the Bible does address those who do not have full revelation, as in Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

And later in Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

This seems to tell me that there are two sources of revelation apart from scriptures: creation and conscience.

As for the compulsion toward sin, my view is that as long as we are living in a fallen world in corrupt and dying bodies, our tendency is going to sway toward sin. Now the Holy Spirit is able to sustain us as we allow His control, but until we are made perfect in the incorruptable bodies, we are always going to have problems with temptation.

 

[Ratanya]

I am not really sure if I qualify as a Liberal Christian. I do know that I am not a traditional Christian however.

My view does not see the original sin story as actual event. I see it rather as an explanation of why many of us live feeling separated from the creator. Mankind lived in innocence and at some stage willed themselves to be like Gods, to learn and to supposedly evolve. Mankind is born into sin, because we are born into the world *knowing*. We very quickly learn as infants to manipulate our parents. We are born needing *worldly* comforts. We need to feel secure, we need to eat, most of us need to feel loved, and from this stems most of the worlds *sin.*

Before Christ, many cultures and in particular the culture described in the bible, sacrificed animals or even people to gain favour from the Gods. From my learning and own experience, it would appear it is not the sin itself so much that keeps you from God, it is the *knowing* of it being wrong that does. The guilt and sorrow that comes with commiting a sin.
eg. A farmer kills a snake to protect his family and has no remorse. An animal rights activist accidently kills a snake and is filled with guilt. This guilt then leaves him with feelings of unworthiness etc.. feeling bad about himself.. which keeps him from God.

To me, Jesus died for the original sin.. in the sense of all mans unavoidable sin.. (ick.. how to explain it) But Jesus didn't just come to die. The most important aspect to me is his teachings, particularly the ones that talk about how to treat each other, and how to know God. He certainly seemed to revolutionise the way people thought of God/Gods at that time.

From my own view there are very few books of the old testament of spiritual value. They serve me mainly in the aspect of being semi-historical and as an idea of the faith system in a god which evolved somewhat for the people of the time.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I see a few people responded to my post from a while ago. I have not been keeping up with this thread. Original sin is a concept that does not make sense to me.

Nor does the need for a saviour from this sin make sense to me. Wil, I like your take on it because it's so positive and simple. Often I have a problem following complex theory like the esoteric postion if there is no human story to go along with it to show me how it relates to everyday life on the level of human experience.

I have to do it for my studies but that seems to use up all the energy I've got for this sort of thing. I come to these boards in part for a break--to read something simple and easy to understand but with an intellectually stimulating element.

Q, you asked me to tell about liberal Christianity. But that was before this forum was set up. I think, Q, you can probably learn from what has been said in this forum something about liberal Christianity and its view on original sin.

The bottom line for me is: What is the human experience on specific issues?

If the human experience does not validate a claim I think the claim is invalid. Some things can be detected by the senses only with the use of high-tech equipment. However, I classify it as part of the human experience. The scientists who observe these things via high-tech equipment are very much human and it is part of their experience.

Evil in all its forms is also part of the human experience. Humans experience it at the hands of other humans and from the natural elements. But when we look closely and deeply at what prompts the "evil acts" of humans upon other humans, in practically every case we see some form of abuse or neglect of the instigators' lives in their formative years.

I believe the human is capable of choice. However, I also believe that there is often a lack of insight in oneself to realize that things could be different. And then there are people who choose to ignore these insights for whatever reason.

Possibly some formative experience taught them to not trust these insights or to take a hard-nosed approach to life and others. I don't understand the attitude, but some people justify harsh treatment of others because "It's nothing compared to what I endured as a kid." I believe there is a psychological reason for a person to take this attitude.

However, I have seen and read about too many cases of human experience where there was a true turn-around when and if unconditional love connected with the individual. This convinces me that humans are good deep down PROVIDING love can penetrate all the defenses of the human heart to connect with this good.

And each individual is different. What constitutes true love for one person may be at best a matter of indifference for another and at worst a serious offense and/or abuse. That has been my observation of the human experience.

Others will say their observation of the human experience convinces them that human nature is inherently evil. I believe those people lack the ability to stand back far enough and to see deeply enough into the human heart and to understand correctly the many-layered motivations of any specific act or deed.

This being the case, I do not believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus serves any specific value for us today except as a sacred myth and allegory for us not to give up in impossible situations. I like to see it as exactly that: A sacred myth created from various sources that is today all too often taken as literal factual historical event.

To get back to the original question of this thread. I think my position is representatitve of at least some segments of liberal Christianity. And, as stated, I see neither the creation story of the fall of man nor the NT theme of the Crucified Christ as redeemer as being relevant beyond their their role as allegorical sacred myth.

However, the value of the allegorical sacred myth can hardly be over-emphasized. So great is its value and power and its ability to guide human action and thought for the conscientious person. I think that sums up my position on original sin and its antidote the crucified Christ. Whether this can be seen as a liberal Chrisitan position or as a position outside Christianity is not something I am quite sure of at this point.

It seems like we are coming up with or developing a new form of Christianity better suited to today's understanding of the universe and human nature. Given that we and our ancestors have grown up with, and lived and died by, the Christian story, it is so much an integral part of our inherited thought structure that we cannot give it up completely.

But neither can we endorse propositions that the past several centuries of scientific discovery have disproved. For this reason I see this development of a new form of Christianity as a very good thing.

 

[Caimanson]

However, I have seen and read about too many cases of human experience where there was a true turn-around when and if unconditional love connected with the individual. This convinces me that humans are good deep down PROVIDING love can penetrate all the defenses of the human heart to connect with this good.

And each individual is different. What constitutes true love for one person may be at best a matter of indifference for another and at worst a serious offense and/or abuse. That has been my observation of the human experience.

Others will say their observation of the human experience convinces them that human nature is inherently evil. I believe those people lack the ability to stand back far enough and to see deeply enough into the human heart and to understand correctly the many-layered motivations of any specific act or deed.

This being the case, I do not believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus serves any specific value for us today except as a sacred myth and allegory for us not to give up in impossible situations. I like to see it as exactly that: A sacred myth created from various sources that is today all too often taken as literal factual historical event.

To get back to the original question of this thread. I think my position is representatitve of at least some segments of liberal Christianity. And, as stated, I see neither the creation story of the fall of man nor the NT theme of the Crucified Christ as redeemer as being relevant beyond their their role as allegorical sacred myth.

However, the value of the allegorical sacred myth can hardly be over-emphasized. So great is its value and power and its ability to guide human action and thought for the conscientious person. I think that sums up my position on original sin and its antidote the crucified Christ. Whether this can be seen as a liberal Chrisitan position or as a position outside Christianity is not something I am quite sure of at this point.

Ruby, that inherently good nature that you claim in humans is a Rogerian concept that a big chunk of humanist psychology upholds, it is true, but its not the whole truth IMHO.
You are right, unconditional love and a positive environment are necessary to cultivate a decent human being. But that same inner potential for growth when betrayed is what creates in the extreme cases the psychopats and the worse criminals.
We are all born with genuine need for acceptance, respect, love, etc. When these needs are unmet, our inner selves will do whatever it takes to meet them or alleviate them even if it takes very distorted and destructive paths. Its just human nature, and you know what, I think a humanist heaven will not wipeout suffering, we can sort ourselves as best we can, but still we cannot guarantee that further generations will not be hurt. All it takes is a fatal accident for a little child to loose his/her parents and cause severe psychological damage, no matter how loving or caring the parents where, nobody can control the imperfections of life. Needless to say that family/society/culture oppresses all human beings every second of our lives, how do you get out of that predicament?

I am not advocating the fall as a dogma here, all I am saying is that considering the idea on the lines that Christ came to re-establish a spiritual connection between man and God cannot be a bad idea, because I think that pure human effort is not able to deal with the issue, it has to be something beyond humans.


Alvaro

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Ruby, that inherently good nature that you claim in humans is a Rogerian concept

Carl Rogers may well have been the first to come up with this idea in the professional setting but I came to this conclusion long before I knew about Carl Rogers. I arrived at this conclusion in the way I described.

that a big chunk of humanist psychology upholds, it is true, but its not the whole truth IMHO.
You are right, unconditional love and a positive environment are necessary to cultivate a decent human being. But that same inner potential for growth when betrayed is what creates in the extreme cases the psychopats and the worse criminals.

This may, or may not, be the outcome when one is betrayed. Not all criminals and psychopaths had a worse childhood than some of the most saintly among us. To the best of my knowledge, it is not yet known or fully understood why some people turn out well while others turn out badly.

Its just human nature, and you know what, I think a humanist heaven will not wipeout suffering, we can sort ourselves as best we can, but still we cannot guarantee that further generations will not be hurt.

Does humanism claim to get rid of suffering and tragedy? I don't think so.

All it takes is a fatal accident for a little child to loose his/her parents and cause severe psychological damage,

Alvaro, this does not have to be the case. If that child is loved and well cared for before and after the death of the parents, he/she will probably turn out just fine. Some mental illnesses have very little or nothing to do with childhood events. Many are genetic and physical.

no matter how loving or caring the parents where, nobody can control the imperfections of life.

I don't think humanism tries. I am not sure how this fits into a thread about salvation. I don't understand salvation to be about controling the imperfections of life, but to help us find ways to live life fully and joyfully IN SPITE of the imperfections, tragedies, etc.

Needless to say that family/society/culture oppresses all human beings every second of our lives, how do you get out of that predicament?

I just point blank disagree with that. If you feel so seriously oppressed all the time then perhaps there is a problem that needs to be investigated. Or perhaps you expect more out of life than is realistic. I have no way of knowing.

I am not advocating the fall as a dogma here,

What, then, do you think you are doing?

all I am saying is that considering the idea on the lines that Christ came to re-establish a spiritual connection between man and God cannot be a bad idea,

Perhaps Christ came to re-establish a spiritual link between God and man, but I have nowhere and never seen or heard it stated like this. Nor does the evidence support the idea. In ancient literature and art there is much evidence that a strong spiritual link existed between God and humanity eons before the time of Christ. I see no evidence that this improved after Jesus' alleged death and crucifixion. There are important differences between the Old and New Testaments, but this may reflect the mentality and religion of the human writers more than it reflects the reality of the divine-human relationship. Also, I think Christianity as a whole has taken a dark view of the OT and its God that is probably not justified or warrented. I think this was done for the express purpose to exhalt and justify the establishment of the Christian faith.

because I think that pure human effort is not able to deal with the issue, it has to be something beyond humans.

Your experience is yours and my experience in mine. Belief in God had absolutely nothing to do with my "new birth" experiene. It is something that happened to me unasked for, unexpected, undreamed of.

It took me at least five years to figure out what might have been going on. Today, seven years later, I am still not positive, though I am at the point where I am investigating theories. But one thing is totally beyond question. It had NOTHING to do with belief in God.

You know what--we're right on the seventh anniversary of the event.

 

[flowperson]

Happy anniversary Ruby ! We're glad that you made the trip. By the way, Abogado and I were discussing on another thread just how lucid your writing and stories are. Are your ears burning ?

I believe that you should try your hand at some nature-based poetry. You'd be good at it. Just an observation and suggestion.

Peace....
flow....

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Flow, it is nice to know that people like me. But please keep it on the level of human friendship. I don't want to be some admired hero who has lost touch with regular people. Okay?

 

[flowperson]

Ruby:

I meant nothing more than a compliment and a suggestion based upon "human friendship". Sorry if you read things differently.

flow....

 

[Dondi]

From my own view there are very few books of the old testament of spiritual value. They serve me mainly in the aspect of being semi-historical and as an idea of the faith system in a god which evolved somewhat for the people of the time.

First of all, welcome to the CR Forum!


But I disagree with the above statement. I think that there are many spiritual truths one can glean from the OT. Many of the stories have underlying moral and spiritual implications that are applicable to our own spirtital growth.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that without a solid knowledge of the OT, one cannot grasp the fulness of what the NT offers.

I've spent most of my Christian life relying on a NT perspective of Christianity. Oh sure, I've read stories of Noah, Moses, David and Abraham in Sunday school, etc. But most of what I learned concerning spiritual matters in relationship with God have come from the NT, particularly in the matter of salvation through Christ. Such are many denominatons today.

But a couple of years ago, I strayed from Christianity for a time because I couldn't bring myself to imagine that all these people from other religions are automatically defaulted to Hell. Surely, if God is to be glorified, then He ought to have a better track record than just the some 2 billion Christians out of 6 billion people in the world with a chance of heaven, even assuming those 2 billion Christians have a true faith in Jesus.

So I took a step back and started from the beginning and began studying the OT from a Jewish perspective and found many elements that were missing in my NT church paradigm. I found that God just might be a bit more lenient than a just dogmatic view of salvation in Jesus Christ alone.

Did you know, for example, that OT teaches salvation by faith? I didn't know that, for I thought it was all about the Law. I would go into more detail about this more, perhaps in another thread. But my point is that there is much more to the OT than we think.

 

[Dondi]

From my own view there are very few books of the old testament of spiritual value. They serve me mainly in the aspect of being semi-historical and as an idea of the faith system in a god which evolved somewhat for the people of the time.

First of all, Ratanya. Welcome to the CR Forum!


But I disagree with the above statement. I think that there are many spiritual truths one can glean from the OT. Many of the stories have underlying moral and spiritual implications that are applicable to our own spirtital growth.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that without a solid knowledge of the OT, one cannot grasp the fulness of what the NT offers.

I've spent most of my Christian life relying on a NT perspective of Christianity. Oh sure, I've read stories of Noah, Moses, David and Abraham in Sunday school, etc. But most of what I learned concerning spiritual matters in relationship with God have come from the NT, particularly in the matter of salvation through Christ. Such are many denominatons today.

But a couple of years ago, I strayed from Christianity for a time because I couldn't bring myself to imagine that all these people from other religions are automatically defaulted to Hell. Surely, if God is to be glorified, then He ought to have a better track record than just the some 2 billion Christians out of 6 billion people in the world with a chance of heaven, even assuming those 2 billion Christians have a true faith in Jesus.

So I took a step back and started from the beginning and began studying the OT from a Jewish perspective and found many elements that were missing in my NT church paradigm. I found that God just might be a bit more lenient than a just dogmatic view of salvation in Jesus Christ alone.

Did you know, for example, that OT teaches salvation by faith? I didn't know that, for I thought it was all about the Law. I would go into more detail about this more, perhaps in another thread. But my point is that there is much more to the OT than we think.

 

[Ratanya]

First of all, Ratanya. Welcome to the CR Forum!

Thanks Dondi, I have been coming here irregularly for a couple of years now. I don't often post however, which can be seen clearly

But I disagree with the above statement. I think that there are many spiritual truths one can glean from the OT. Many of the stories have underlying moral and spiritual implications that are applicable to our own spirtital growth.

I am glad you disagree with it. I felt after posting that it incorrectly expressed my thoughts as well. I suspect that in paraphrasing it I will also mangle my attempt. A better way would be for me to say that many of the old testament scriptures, impact me negatively, unless I view them from a historical sense, rather than seeing them as divinely inspired.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that without a solid knowledge of the OT, one cannot grasp the fulness of what the NT offers.

I certainly agree with this.

But a couple of years ago, I strayed from Christianity for a time because I couldn't bring myself to imagine that all these people from other religions are automatically defaulted to Hell. Surely, if God is to be glorified, then He ought to have a better track record than just the some 2 billion Christians out of 6 billion people in the world with a chance of heaven, even assuming those 2 billion Christians have a true faith in Jesus.

It was similiar thoughts that encourage me to look at many faiths and started me on my spiritual journey. Ultimately I guess, I feel that all faiths, when used by evil people, will impact the world negatively. My faith and belief are at odds with each other. For although I follow primarily Christian thought, I also believe that God reveals himself to all people differently and that each of us has a personal relationship with God that I am myself, wary of influencing.

Did you know, for example, that OT teaches salvation by faith? I didn't know that, for I thought it was all about the Law. I would go into more detail about this more, perhaps in another thread. But my point is that there is much more to the OT than we think.

No, I didn't know this and would love to hear more of this subject.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

[This was written in response to Post 46. I spent quite a bit of time on it and now I see Ratanya replied in the meantime. I guess I will post it for what it's worth.]

We very quickly learn as infants to manipulate our parents. We are born needing *worldly* comforts.

I find a serious contradiction in these two sentences. It is the infant's need for physical care that demands parents attend to them. Infants do not intentionally manipulate their parents. The cry is the infant's only means of communication.

I have seen parents who responded to an infant's first whimper. That child uses the cry only to alert/inform the parent of a need, as a means of communication. That child knows that the parent will respond and has no need to develop a full-throated cry.

I have also seen a tiny baby left to cry itself hoarse. That child never again did a normal cry; it was always a hopeless wail. This proves to me that how a parent responds to an infant determines to a large extent how an infant uses its only means of communication.

We need to feel secure, we need to eat, most of us need to feel loved, and from this stems most of the worlds *sin.*

It is not a sin to have needs.

From my learning and own experience, it would appear it is not the sin itself so much that keeps you from God, it is the *knowing* of it being wrong that does.

We feel guilt only as a reaction against a perceived violation of ethics. If we as infants are made to feel that it is a sin to have needs, then we will spend much time feeling guilty. Much negative behaviour can grow out of this feeling of guilt.

When we learn that we are okay as we are--right along with all our needs, we can let go of the guilt and express our needs. The concept of divine forgiveness allows us to feel okay as we are with all our needs.

I believe this is why some people experience such enormous relief when they "commit themselves to Jesus," or "accept Jesus as their personal Saviour." They have finally found a way to be "okay" with their neeeds.

To me, Jesus died for the original sin.. in the sense of all mans unavoidable sin.. (ick.. how to explain it)

I do not believe in original sin. I know humans are fallible. To me, there is a huge difference between "original sin" and fallible human nature. The first presumes to label motivation; the second simply describes reality.

But I don't think Jesus came to die any more than you or I came with the express purpose to die. A guy who behaves like Jesus did in his time and place automatically ended up on a cross.

If these things are factual history, then I must presume that the miracle stories and virgin birth, etc. are thrown in for effect rather than as actual facts. If he actually claimed to be the Christ, then it logically follows that his followers had to find meaning in his failure in succeeding to set up a visible kingdom of God.

I am more inclined to believe that the Jesus story is a collection of myths from various sources, and that these formed the basis for a mystery religion practiced by a certain group of Jews in the middle of the first century. After it spread among the Gentiles or non-Jews, someone wrote up both the extant teachings (i.e. Paul's letters) and the stories (i.e. gospels). Much later all of this was put together into a closed canon.

It is not surprising to me that the Christians attracted imperial attention. They caused a serious amount of trouble for governors with their continued civil disobedience. First there was this Jesus guy, whether real or imagined. Then there was Paul or a series of writers masquarading as a man named Paul.

So powerful was the movement that Rome itself could not stop it. Is this evidence of its basis in factual reality? Not in the least. All major world religions started with similar tales. As they say, "If you can't fight them, join them." That is what Constantine did. He legalized the religion. Ever since it has existed as a force to be reckoned with on the social and political levels.

 

[wil]

....A better way would be for me to say that many of the old testament scriptures, impact me negatively, unless I view them from a historical sense, rather than seeing them as divinely inspired.....

What you have issues with murder, rape, incest, greed, war, genocide? Seriously I for years had huge issues with reading those portions of the bible. It drove me crazy, and then it was discussed that there were many levels of interpretation (some say seven...and seven levels in each of those). Like dream work, if you place the warring parties as parts of your consciousness fighting for superiority over some decision that is troubling you...the story changes...or if you take the Judaic meanings of the names of people, places, wells, mountains....the story changes...if you add meaning to the numbers...the story changes.

At first I discounted all the above when someone started showing me this...then I opened my eyes to the importance, reverence given to 12 and 12+1 and 40...and then started looking further. When I read all the name and emotion connections...I thought it fantasy...till I found some older texts...and went to a couple Jewish baby naming ceremonies...these thoughts are older than the books themselves, thinking they had no influence on the writings definitely discounts the whole.

The books all have historical, societal, political, religous, control, metaphysical, allegorical aspects...

 

[Dondi]

No, I didn't know this and would love to hear more of this subject.

OK. I could speak volumes of the subject of OT faith. So for the sake of continuity, I'll start another thread, so as not to derail this one.

 

[Dondi]

What you have issues with murder, rape, incest, greed, war, genocide? Seriously I for years had huge issues with reading those portions of the bible. It drove me crazy, and then it was discussed that there were many levels of interpretation (some say seven...and seven levels in each of those). Like dream work, if you place the warring parties as parts of your consciousness fighting for superiority over some decision that is troubling you...the story changes...or if you take the Judaic meanings of the names of people, places, wells, mountains....the story changes...if you add meaning to the numbers...the story changes.

At first I discounted all the above when someone started showing me this...then I opened my eyes to the importance, reverence given to 12 and 12+1 and 40...and then started looking further. When I read all the name and emotion connections...I thought it fantasy...till I found some older texts...and went to a couple Jewish baby naming ceremonies...these thoughts are older than the books themselves, thinking they had no influence on the writings definitely discounts the whole.

The books all have historical, societal, political, religous, control, metaphysical, allegorical aspects...

Precisely, wil. I haven't studied much on numerology (I guess that's what you would call it, though I'm not talking about in psychic terms). I would venture to say that one could go back to the Israelite occupation in Egypt before the Exodus and would find some coorelation with Egyptian influence. But nevertheless, Jewish literature, even apart from Scriptures, is intriguing.