• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Heterodox

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
For those of you within dogmatic religions, have you any heterodox beliefs? Not necessarily heretical. Or maybe just beliefs that are considered minority, even though acceptable?

Do share.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
For those of you within dogmatic religions, have you any heterodox beliefs? Not necessarily heretical. Or maybe just beliefs that are considered minority, even though acceptable?

Do share.
Phew! How long have you got? :D
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
I don’t believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins

I don’t believe in a trinity of persons

I don’t believe you can be saved by faith alone

I don’t believe in Adam and Eve

I don’t believe the earth was flooded

I don’t believe in a second coming

I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant

I don’t believe the Bible is literal

I don’t believe Christianity, in general, represents the Lord’s church

I don’t believe in tithing to religions

I don’t believe angels are created beings

that should be enough for now
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Trinity and Bible - same as Jeremiah Ames (above).

Reincarnation is more probable than just one life and resurrection.

I don't agree with "no salvation outside church".

I don't believe Jesus Christ is the "fullness and mediator of all Revelations".
 

Viker

Häxan
These are heterdoxies/near heresies to my earlier LaVeyan Satanic roots.

I believe in progress not social Darwinism ( might is right and ends justifies means )

I believe in the exactment of justice not vengeance. Especially not two eyes, some teeth and legs for one eye. I also believe in forgiveness and personal atonement.

I do believe in indulgence. I also believe abstinence may be necessary for some. Indulgence is not a free for all go crazy til one overdoses hall pass.

Egotism is the debasement of the self.

I believe we are all connected. We aren't all one. But we seek one another.

LaVey said himself that Satan was a force of/in nature. I simply up the ante. :D

I believe in the classic Greek concept of daimons, manifestations of divinity. ( Almost makes me a heretic to Modern Satanists)

I'm difficult to label in the Left Hand Path. This makes me profoundly individualist. An eagle among goats, so to speak. But I lack anything resembling antisocial sentiment or misanthropy. I like folk, mostly.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
My commitment to Christian orthodoxy has been slipping precipitously for some time. I have come to question its sectarian claims to exclusive access to religious truth. God is bigger than any religious sect. I'm also sympathetic to the notion of reincarnation. I think the research that has gone into the supposed past-life memories of young children should not be dismissed out of hand.

I still very much believe in God and I still think Christianity is very much a valid pathway to communing with the divine. (I still identify as Christian). What I have come to question is the claim that any given religion has the whole picture.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
My commitment to Christian orthodoxy has been slipping precipitously for some time. I have come to question its sectarian claims to exclusive access to religious truth. God is bigger than any religious sect. I'm also sympathetic to the notion of reincarnation. I think the research that has gone into the supposed past-life memories of young children should not be dismissed out of hand.

I still very much believe in God and I still think Christianity is very much a valid pathway to communing with the divine. (I still identify as Christian). What I have come to question is the claim that any given religion has the whole picture.
Some forms of Judaism accept reincarnation so I think you as a Christian could at least have that as a basis to do so.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Some forms of Judaism accept reincarnation so I think you as a Christian could at least have that as a basis to do so.
I am aware of that. I'm not saying I definitely believe in reincarnation. I just can't bring myself to definitely reject it either.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don’t believe Jesus died on the cross for our sins

I don’t believe in a trinity of persons

I don’t believe you can be saved by faith alone

I don’t believe in Adam and Eve

I don’t believe the earth was flooded

I don’t believe in a second coming

I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant

I don’t believe the Bible is literal

I don’t believe Christianity, in general, represents the Lord’s church

I don’t believe in tithing to religions

I don’t believe angels are created beings

that should be enough for now
If you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, on what grounds to you claim to be a Christian? Just curious.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
If you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, on what grounds to you claim to be a Christian? Just curious.

There is an alternative view, it holds that the whole purpose of creation is for the Incarnation, God's sharing of life and love in a unique and definitive way. God becoming human is not an afterthought, an event to make up for Original Sin and human sinfulness.
From this perspective, God is not an angry or vindictive God, demanding the suffering and death of Jesus as a payment for past sin. God is, instead, a gracious God, sharing divine life and love in creation and in the Incarnation.
The Prologue of John's Gospel (1:1-18) gives us this magnificent vision, proclaiming that all creation came to be in the Word, God's self-expression who became flesh, Jesus.
John's meditation on God's supreme act of love in the Incarnation (also see 3:16) has led some theologians to consider that this event alone was sufficient to save the world. John's Gospel does not see Jesus' death as a ransom (unlike the synoptic Gospels, for example, Mark 10:45), nor does it use the language of sacrifice or atonement. There is, instead, emphasis on friendship, intimacy, mutuality, service, faithful love—revealing God's desire and gift for the full flourishing of humanity, or in other words, salvation (see the Farewell Address, John 13:1—17:26). Jesus' crucifixion (usually described as being "lifted up") is part of his "hour" of glorification, which also includes his resurrection and ascension. For John, this hour is not sacrifice but epiphany.

Hundreds of years later, in the Middle Ages, the question about Jesus was expressed very explicitly: Would the Son of God have become incarnate if humanity had not sinned? St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) answered in the negative, viewing the Incarnation as a remedy for sin.
Another philosopher and theologian, John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), disagreed with Thomas's emphasis on sin. Duns Scotus proclaimed and defended the primacy of the Incarnation. He based his view on the Scriptures and early theologians and on logic. He argued that God's supreme work, the Incarnation, had to be first and foremost in God's mind. It could not be dependent on or occasioned by any action of humans, especially sin.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There is an alternative view, it holds that the whole purpose of creation is for the Incarnation, God's sharing of life and love in a unique and definitive way. God becoming human is not an afterthought, an event to make up for Original Sin and human sinfulness.
From this perspective, God is not an angry or vindictive God, demanding the suffering and death of Jesus as a payment for past sin. God is, instead, a gracious God, sharing divine life and love in creation and in the Incarnation.
The Prologue of John's Gospel (1:1-18) gives us this magnificent vision, proclaiming that all creation came to be in the Word, God's self-expression who became flesh, Jesus.
John's meditation on God's supreme act of love in the Incarnation (also see 3:16) has led some theologians to consider that this event alone was sufficient to save the world. John's Gospel does not see Jesus' death as a ransom (unlike the synoptic Gospels, for example, Mark 10:45), nor does it use the language of sacrifice or atonement. There is, instead, emphasis on friendship, intimacy, mutuality, service, faithful love—revealing God's desire and gift for the full flourishing of humanity, or in other words, salvation (see the Farewell Address, John 13:1—17:26). Jesus' crucifixion (usually described as being "lifted up") is part of his "hour" of glorification, which also includes his resurrection and ascension. For John, this hour is not sacrifice but epiphany.
Thank you for answering. Your views are very interesting.

Actually John does consider the crucifixion to be a sacrifice -- he has Jesus being depicted as the Lamb of God. He even changes the day of Jesus' death to the day BEFORE Passover (unlike the synoptics) in order to line his death up with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs.

I'd like to hear from Christians on what you have said, whether one is a Christian when one does not believe Jesus died for the sins of the world.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you for answering. Your views are very interesting.

Actually John does consider the crucifixion to be a sacrifice -- he has Jesus being depicted as the Lamb of God. He even changes the day of Jesus' death to the day BEFORE Passover (unlike the synoptics) in order to line his death up with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs.

I'd like to hear from Christians on what you have said, whether one is a Christian when one does not believe Jesus died for the sins of the world.
This thread may be somewhat helpful Atonement theories. | Religious Forums
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
If you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, on what grounds to you claim to be a Christian? Just curious.
Christ means Messiah. So Christian means believing Jesus is Messiah. He was killed like many others but his message of love, faith and inner transformation is salvific for humanity.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Christ means Messiah. So Christian means believing Jesus is Messiah. He was killed like many others but his message of love, faith and inner transformation is salvific for humanity.
Wait. Is it his *message* that saves, or his sacrificial death? Because in all my lifelong associations with Christians, it has always been the latter.

If it is his message, what exactly is that message?

I personally think the historical Jesus taught Torah, although he argued with other Pharisees about its interpretation, as is Jewish tradition to do. If you stick with just that, then yes, it goes along with Torah.

But the Jesus of the gospels made many other claims, for example, to be the Messiah, the "only begotten" son of God, etc.; claims that are irreconcilable with the Tanakh.

Furthermore, Paul's theology is clearly one of Jesus' death being redemptive. Perhaps you are a person who claims to accept teh Gospels, but not Paul's epistles?
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
For those of you within dogmatic religions, have you any heterodox beliefs? Not necessarily heretical. Or maybe just beliefs that are considered minority, even though acceptable?

Do share.

I don't see Hinduism as dogmatic, but I did have heterodox beliefs when I was Hindu. Something I also learned is that in some cases, not all, it may be best not to take on too many heterodox beliefs should you be looking to keep the same religion continually, as it can sometimes be a slippery path that makes one move to other faiths, in my honest opinion. Basically one starts with one heterodox belief, then two, then three, then pretty soon, they may lose some of the original meaning of the faith.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
If you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins, on what grounds to you claim to be a Christian? Just curious.

You not being a christian I find the question a bit strange.

I have no grounds to question your religious identity.

I would like to answer though, since it sounds like you’re genuinely interested.

And I will attempt to do so with your scriptures.
In addition to the gospels only.

Let me get back to you as soon as I get an answer put together.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I'd like to hear from Christians on what you have said, whether one is a Christian when one does not believe Jesus died for the sins of the world.

It is a view held by the Franciscans. There is a German bishop, criticized by conservatives when he publicly stated this view;
The Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, believes that Christ’s crucifixion is just a psychological support for those who suffer.
On Holy Saturday, the archbishop denied the Expiatory Death of Christ in an interview with the German TV station 'Hessischer Rundfunk'. Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had needed a sacrificial offering or something like a scapegoat" - the archbishop said.
According to him the dying Christ simply expressed "solidarity" with the suffering of the people even to death. This way, Christ showed, the archbishop said, that even suffering and pain have been taken up by God.
According to Zollitsch "this is the great perspective, the tremendous solidarity," that Christ went so far that he suffered all "with" me.
He stated that God has given "his own son in solidarity with us unto his last agony” to show that: You mean so much to me that I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation."
"Christ has become involved with me out of solidarity – out of free will" – the archbishop repeated in the interview.

Yet another view opposed to a bloody sacrifice;
The German biblical scholar Hartmut Gese claimed that the todah stands behind what Jesus did at the Last Supper. He goes so far as to argue that Jesus' giving thanks over the bread and wine came in the context of a todah sacrifice rather than a Passover meal. However, no other Scripture scholars have followed Gese's theory about the todah backdrop of Jesus' meal, because the evidence for the Passover in the Gospel narratives is overwhelming but its an interesting theory.

I leave it to you for a Jewish insight as to the Todah.

A todah sacrifice would be offered by someone whose life had been delivered from great peril, such as disease or the sword. The redeemed person would show his gratitude to God by gathering his closest friends and family for a todah sacrificial meal. The lamb would be sacrificed in the Temple and the bread for the meal would be consecrated the moment the lamb was sacrificed. The bread and meat, along with wine, would constitute the elements of the sacred todah meal, which would be accompanied by prayers and songs of thanksgiving, such as Psalm 116.

"In the coming Messianic age all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering [todah] will never cease."
After David had defeated the last Canaanite stronghold, he decided to bring the ark of the covenant up to Jerusalem. The bringing of the ark to Jerusalem was the occasion of a great national todah festival. The sacrifices were "peace offerings," and the todah was the most important and common peace offering. All the elements of the todah were present. For example, David offered bread and wine along with the meat of the sacrifices (1 Chron. 16:3). Most importantly, David had the Levites lead the people in todah hymns, that is, psalms of thanksgiving (1 Chron. 16:8-36).

The Last Supper celebrated in the upper room is both a Passover and a todah meal. The Passover has all the same elements found in the todah: bread, wine, and sacrifice of a lamb, along with hymns and prayers. Hallel psalms (113-118), that were sung during the Passover meal were all todah psalms! The Exodus narrative itself has the basic contours of a todah hymn, with Israel in distress and lament calling out to the Lord (cf. Ex. 2:23-25), while the Lord in turn hears their cry and delivers them (cf. Ex. 6:5-7). The Passover has both the form and content of the todah, because it is a concrete example of a todah sacrifice.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It is a view held by the Franciscans. There is a German bishop, criticized by conservatives when he publicly stated this view;
The Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, believes that Christ’s crucifixion is just a psychological support for those who suffer.
On Holy Saturday, the archbishop denied the Expiatory Death of Christ in an interview with the German TV station 'Hessischer Rundfunk'. Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had needed a sacrificial offering or something like a scapegoat" - the archbishop said.
According to him the dying Christ simply expressed "solidarity" with the suffering of the people even to death. This way, Christ showed, the archbishop said, that even suffering and pain have been taken up by God.
According to Zollitsch "this is the great perspective, the tremendous solidarity," that Christ went so far that he suffered all "with" me.
He stated that God has given "his own son in solidarity with us unto his last agony” to show that: You mean so much to me that I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation."
"Christ has become involved with me out of solidarity – out of free will" – the archbishop repeated in the interview.

Yet another view opposed to a bloody sacrifice;
The German biblical scholar Hartmut Gese claimed that the todah stands behind what Jesus did at the Last Supper. He goes so far as to argue that Jesus' giving thanks over the bread and wine came in the context of a todah sacrifice rather than a Passover meal. However, no other Scripture scholars have followed Gese's theory about the todah backdrop of Jesus' meal, because the evidence for the Passover in the Gospel narratives is overwhelming but its an interesting theory.

I leave it to you for a Jewish insight as to the Todah.

A todah sacrifice would be offered by someone whose life had been delivered from great peril, such as disease or the sword. The redeemed person would show his gratitude to God by gathering his closest friends and family for a todah sacrificial meal. The lamb would be sacrificed in the Temple and the bread for the meal would be consecrated the moment the lamb was sacrificed. The bread and meat, along with wine, would constitute the elements of the sacred todah meal, which would be accompanied by prayers and songs of thanksgiving, such as Psalm 116.

"In the coming Messianic age all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering [todah] will never cease."
After David had defeated the last Canaanite stronghold, he decided to bring the ark of the covenant up to Jerusalem. The bringing of the ark to Jerusalem was the occasion of a great national todah festival. The sacrifices were "peace offerings," and the todah was the most important and common peace offering. All the elements of the todah were present. For example, David offered bread and wine along with the meat of the sacrifices (1 Chron. 16:3). Most importantly, David had the Levites lead the people in todah hymns, that is, psalms of thanksgiving (1 Chron. 16:8-36).

The Last Supper celebrated in the upper room is both a Passover and a todah meal. The Passover has all the same elements found in the todah: bread, wine, and sacrifice of a lamb, along with hymns and prayers. Hallel psalms (113-118), that were sung during the Passover meal were all todah psalms! The Exodus narrative itself has the basic contours of a todah hymn, with Israel in distress and lament calling out to the Lord (cf. Ex. 2:23-25), while the Lord in turn hears their cry and delivers them (cf. Ex. 6:5-7). The Passover has both the form and content of the todah, because it is a concrete example of a todah sacrifice.
This is all very fascinating. Thank you for sharing. I've never heard such a thing before and so it is very interesting to me.

A Thanksgiving offering was done at the temple, so as far as Judaism is concerned, what Jesus did at the last supper cannot possibly be a Thanksgiving offering.

German bishops are notoriously liberal, so I am not surprised they would deviate from standard Catholicism in this way. I tried to verify that this was Franciscan teaching, but was unable to find anything that said one way or the other.

I did however, find this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
616 It is love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction.

So according to the CCC, the orthodox Catholic position is that Christ's death was a sacrifice that atoned.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Wait. Is it his *message* that saves, or his sacrificial death? Because in all my lifelong associations with Christians, it has always been the latter.

If it is his message, what exactly is that message?

I personally think the historical Jesus taught Torah, although he argued with other Pharisees about its interpretation, as is Jewish tradition to do. If you stick with just that, then yes, it goes along with Torah.

But the Jesus of the gospels made many other claims, for example, to be the Messiah, the "only begotten" son of God, etc.; claims that are irreconcilable with the Tanakh.

Furthermore, Paul's theology is clearly one of Jesus' death being redemptive. Perhaps you are a person who claims to accept teh Gospels, but not Paul's epistles?
Are you asking about my (heterodox) belief or established theology?

In my opinion it's the message that is salvific. Actually the message points to salvation - the word is like a seed (see The Parable of the Sower).

What exactly was his message? John the Baptist, Jesus and the Twelve preached that the Kingdom of God is near and the people should repent. So yes, he taught Torah ("the greatest commandment" is cited from Torah).

The gospels expressed the faith of later followers. There is not only what Jesus taught during his life but also what followers later interpreted and started to believe about him, later relations between sects etc. This is also different from gospel to gospel...

So it's not simply Paul vs. gospels. Jesus’s death interpreted as a (freely chosen) sacrifice for sins is also expressed in the G-John (Jesus as the "Lamb of God"). Paul's point was that every man is a sinner and needs to be justified. Striving for righteousness (obeying the law) doesn't change the fact. Nobody is perfect. I agree with that but I don't believe that blood sacrifice is necessary.

What I accept in Paul's epistles is that a Gentile can also be in covenant with God but without keeping all the mitzvot. This is not what Jesus initially taught but Paul is supposed to receive new instructions from Jesus.
 
Top