Protestant or Catholic (priests, ritual, moral, tradition, birth control)

[spiritually inclined]

He is very interesting, and what little I have read of him is the only thing that opens me up to considering a Christian path again, at least, a neo-Christian path. However, what will happen to the Bible in this new Christianity? It will certainly not retain its status of infallability (which I have determined through my study is absolutely ridiculous.) Can other religious and even secular literature possibly be introduced and read in a metaphorical, inspirational way, like parts of the Bible? One of my obstacles to considering a neo-Christian path is the Bible because I find much of it, especially the Old Testament, horrific, barbaric, outdated, and irrelevant, though there are some parts of it that could be retained by a modern, sensible person.

Also, can the new Christianity be inclusive enough to be informed by other religious traditions as well as by science?

James

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

Also, can the new Christianity be inclusive enough to be informed by other religious traditions as well as by science?

James

It has for me. I find a great deal of profound wisdom in the Bible. But I also find it the Tao te Ching, Buddhist writings, the Baghavad Gita, the great philosophers and scientists, especially Einstein and the geniuses of quantum mechanics, great novels, poetry and literature.

My experiences and views on this subject of how a new Christianity can have meaning in a new world are summarized pretty fairly here:

Angels In the Architecture

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

However, what will happen to the Bible in this new Christianity? It will certainly not retain its status of infallability (which I have determined through my study is absolutely ridiculous.) Can other religious and even secular literature possibly be introduced and read in a metaphorical, inspirational way, like parts of the Bible? One of my obstacles to considering a neo-Christian path is the Bible because I find much of it, especially the Old Testament, horrific, barbaric, outdated, and irrelevant, though there are some parts of it that could be retained by a modern, sensible person.

What do you mean by "infallible"?

Interestingly, the part of the Christian bible that you call the Old Testament IS the Jewish bible, the Tanakh. And in Judaism there is a long, rich tradition of reinterpreting scripture in light of current experience.

Personally, I love many of the stories in the "Old Testament."
Adam and Eve
Abraham and Isaac
Jacob wrestling with God
Moses and the Exodus
Job
Jonah...

and the Psalms.... love poems to God.

[spiritually inclined]

Infallible...that means every word is true...there are no historical or scientific errors. There are no contradictions. Every rule should be followed, and nothing in the Bible should ever be changed or re-interpreted....

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

Infallible...that means every word is true...there are no historical or scientific errors. There are no contradictions. Every rule should be followed, and nothing in the Bible should ever be changed or re-interpreted....

True and factually correct are not always the same. At any rate, in Judaism the Tanakh is reinterpreted. In fact, some would argue that the Christian interpretation of the OT is a reinterpretation, because it is viewed differently in Christianity than in Judaism. Re-interpreting, challenging, exploring, probing, is all in keeping with the tradition from whence Christianity came. Many liberal Christians are returning to that. And some liberal Christians never left it.

[spiritually inclined]

Do you think the early Christians took an approach that would be different from fundamentalists today?

James

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

Do you think the early Christians took an approach that would be different from fundamentalists today?

James

very much so
They did not have the Bible in a collated form
so could not have seen it as the whole word of God.
Theirs was a verbal tradition passed down through their teachers.
Few would even have had the concept of a universal church.

They learnt about the prophets , the life and teachings of Jesus his death and resurrection the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life.

Had you told them every thing they needed to know was in a book,
and all they had to do was believe in it and Jesus to be saved,
they would have laughed at you.
They may have been mostly uneducated peoples but they were not simple.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by spiritually inclined

Do you think the early Christians took an approach that would be different from fundamentalists today?

James

There were all kinds of approaches among "early" Christians, but something essentially like modern Christian fundamentalism was certainly in practice as early as Justin Martyr, and probably as early as Ignatius and Polycarp, while, just like today, there were also more liberal Christians who understood the Gospel more for its metaphorical connotations and were less concerned about the Law.

Indeed, the genuine Pauline epistles (e.g. Galatians) suggest early divisions had developed as early as the middle of the first century between his free-wheeling faith/grace model and the "Jewish" Christians in the Jerusalem Church, who were still dedicated to continuing in obedience to the Jewish law.