Christians: Where do you draw the line?

[uss_bigd]

What I am saying is that a mystery by definition cannot be completely explained otherwise it would not be a mystery. Humility leads to more wisdom than pride does.

we had a topic during one chrurch gathering " why was it for the greater good than adam sinned " isn't that a mystery? it is. its been a topic for debate in many forums. but using the bible, that mystery was explained. The mystery was reavealed through the bible. that is what i am saying.

 

[Hope]

As do I, I believe we are all part of the deity, all of us are 100% God and 100% human also, but Jesus was just the first to start a religion based on that idea. it made him not so popular with the theistic monopoly of the time.


we are physically mortal but we are made in the image of the creator (contain within us a fractal image of the universe) ---we too are creators, we all can make change in the world, can make a difference because we are always creating (entire universes if you believe chaos theory).

our very existence has an effect on the world around us, its unavoidable.

Just a gentle reminder----this is a same faith debate.

 

[Troublemane]

Just a gentle reminder----this is a same faith debate.

Im christian, as I believe in the example of christ. unless you are questioning my faith?

 

[Hope]

Im christian, as I believe in the example of christ. unless you are questioning my faith?

I believe it is justifiable for me to do so, based on what you've said you believe. Panenthiesm is totally contradictory to the basic tenets of Christianity. Believing in the example of Christ is a far different thing than believing in Christ Himself----almost all religions believe in the example of Christ. Muslims believe in the example of Christ, but they are most certainly not Christians, and would adamantly deny such an affiliation.

Anyway.....hopefully you get my drift by now. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, just pointing out respectfully that this debate is amongst Christians, as Christians are normally defined. Thanks.

 

[sandandfoam]

I believe it is justifiable for me to do so, based on what you've said you believe. Panenthiesm is totally contradictory to the basic tenets of Christianity. Believing in the example of Christ is a far different thing than believing in Christ Himself----almost all religions believe in the example of Christ. Muslims believe in the example of Christ, but they are most certainly not Christians, and would adamantly deny such an affiliation.

Anyway.....hopefully you get my drift by now. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, just pointing out respectfully that this debate is amongst Christians, as Christians are normally defined. Thanks.

I hold the same view as Troublemane - It is not about believing in Christ, it is about trying to be like him. I too consider myself Christian. Christianity is a very broad church. Christianity provides the cultural context from which I am wondering about, and at existence.
I consider history myth, it would be peculiar if I took scripture literally. Would you deny me my Christianity because of this ?

 

[Troublemane]

Anyway.....hopefully you get my drift by now. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, just pointing out respectfully that this debate is amongst Christians, as Christians are normally defined. Thanks.

Thats whats funny, due to the OP---thats exactly what this thread is about. What is what defines a Christian---and I think the fact that I include Chritianity in my own set of beliefs (but not limiting myself to them) is what does it for me. Not someone else defining me. Although in past centuries I may have been burned at the stake for having disagreement with just one part of the Bible, thats not today. So if you are telling me I cant post here, Id rather hear that from a Mod.:angel2:

 

[sojourner]

Isaiah 53


Who has believed what we have heard?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him of no account.

Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have all turned to our own way,
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
Who could have imagined his future?
For he was cut off from the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people.

They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb with the rich,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
When you make his life an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

Out of his anguish he shall see light;
he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

QED

So? It's always a mistake to read OT writings, assuming that the authors were talking about Jesus. They weren't. Ask any Jew.

 

[sojourner]

hahahahahahahaah!

you make me laugh, you make your self sound like some smart guy who thinks he knows that he is talking about.

whose teachings are in the bible? are you that stupid to make such a term as biblian???? gee ... i will not waste my time on you... say what ever you want.

I'm glad I've added to your joy. I'd say that someone who carries a 4.0 in an accredited seminary pretty much knows what he's talking about. The term is intentionally perjorative and ridiculous ... much like this post to which I'm responding. We aren't Christians because we "follow the Bible." That would be...idolatry. We're Christians because we follow Christ.

What's in the Bible are the Church's recollections and interpretations of Christ's teachings -- not the teachings themselves. The teachings came from Christ to the original disciples, and have since been passed down to the rest of us via the Apostles, hence, the Church. What you read and understand is your interpretation of what the authors wrote, filtered through the lens of what you are capable of an prepared to understand. Therefore, to say that you follow the Bible is to say you are a "Biblian" ... to put it provocatively.

 

[sojourner]

I will admit to the laughing part.

belittling is only belittling when it is not true.

but if something is made to look stupid as matter of fact. it is not belittling.

Maybe if you would stoop to write a complete, concise and intelligible sentence, with its attendant correct punctuation and grammar, that the rest of us low-lifes can understand, you would garner more credibility.

Belittling is belittling. Truth has nothing to do with it. Intent and motive have everything to do with it.

 

[uss_bigd]

I'm glad I've added to your joy. I'd say that someone who carries a 4.0 in an accredited seminary pretty much knows what he's talking about. The term is intentionally perjorative and ridiculous ... much like this post to which I'm responding. We aren't Christians because we "follow the Bible." That would be...idolatry. We're Christians because we follow Christ.

What's in the Bible are the Church's recollections and interpretations of Christ's teachings -- not the teachings themselves. The teachings came from Christ to the original disciples, and have since been passed down to the rest of us via the Apostles, hence, the Church. What you read and understand is your interpretation of what the authors wrote, filtered through the lens of what you are capable of an prepared to understand. Therefore, to say that you follow the Bible is to say you are a "Biblian" ... to put it provocatively.

when Christ said, love your wife as your own body,that is not the interpretation, that was the teaching itself.



a degree is not required to understand the bible, a pure heart is.

 

[Dunemeister]

So? It's always a mistake to read OT writings, assuming that the authors were talking about Jesus. They weren't. Ask any Jew.

Of course the original authors weren't talking about Jesus. At least, they weren't intending to. But Christians argue that in light of Jesus, we need to re-evaluate traditional interpretations of these texts. Christians aren't unique in reading the OT in light of contemporary issues. Jews did (and do) so, too. All the prophetic writings, for example, are in part commentaries on both contemporary political situations and the law and promises of God. In the first century, all Jewish sects (Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Christians, Zealots, and others) interpreted the canonical writings in light of contemporary political developments. For Christians, of course, Christ is decisive, and it is natural that they would (re)read the texts in light of him.

So what would give the Christian interpretation more legitimacy than others? Well, for one, the fact that their prophet had risen from the dead, thereby vindicating his claim to prophetic status. After the resurrection, Christians could legitimately point to Isaiah and say, "See, it was foretold right here. Jesus fulfilled this passage."

 

[sandandfoam]

.. Christ is decisive, and it is natural that they would (re)read the texts in light of him.

So what would give the Christian interpretation more legitimacy than others? Well, for one, the fact that their prophet had risen from the dead, thereby vindicating his claim to prophetic status. After the resurrection, Christians could legitimately point to Isaiah and say, "See, it was foretold right here. Jesus fulfilled this passage."

It strikes me as an impotent God who would be trapped in a book written by humans. That's one reason why I believe the Bible should be not taken literally.

 

[Dunemeister]

It strikes me as an impotent God who would be trapped in a book written by humans. That's one reason why I believe the Bible should be not taken literally.

Why trapped? Why not revealed?

 

[Starfish]

It strikes me as an impotent God who would be trapped in a book written by humans. That's one reason why I believe the Bible should be not taken literally.

Did you decide this before or after reading it?

 

[sojourner]

when Christ said, love your wife as your own body,that is not the interpretation, that was the teaching itself.



a degree is not required to understand the bible, a pure heart is.

But what meaning does that have to you? That's an interpretation. What about people who hate their own bodies? What do we do about that? Any time we apply the teaching, we engage in interpretation.

No, but it sure helps! That's why the pure of heart have always turned to teachers and theologians for help in understanding.

 

[sojourner]

Of course the original authors weren't talking about Jesus. At least, they weren't intending to. But Christians argue that in light of Jesus, we need to re-evaluate traditional interpretations of these texts. Christians aren't unique in reading the OT in light of contemporary issues. Jews did (and do) so, too. All the prophetic writings, for example, are in part commentaries on both contemporary political situations and the law and promises of God. In the first century, all Jewish sects (Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Christians, Zealots, and others) interpreted the canonical writings in light of contemporary political developments. For Christians, of course, Christ is decisive, and it is natural that they would (re)read the texts in light of him.

So what would give the Christian interpretation more legitimacy than others? Well, for one, the fact that their prophet had risen from the dead, thereby vindicating his claim to prophetic status. After the resurrection, Christians could legitimately point to Isaiah and say, "See, it was foretold right here. Jesus fulfilled this passage."

and, in having witnessed the crucifixion, perhaps we should also reexamine the part that talks about suffering as God's will...

 

[Dunemeister]

and, in having witnessed the crucifixion, perhaps we should also reexamine the part that talks about suffering as God's will...

Well, that's the point of the passage I quoted in Isaiah, which portrays "the suffering servant." It was God's will to bruise the righteous servant. And since the servant is no greater than his master, the followers of Jesus should expect persecution and suffering as part of their lot -- as their Master intends. God hasn't yet eliminated suffering. For now, he subverts it to his redemptive purposes.

Back in the day, some Jews mocked Jesus. "He said he was a prophet; let's see if God will take him down from the cross, then we will believe in him." But the point of the crucifixion is that God Himself suffered the worst that evil could throw at him. And having come through the other side, offers us hope, not that we will escape suffering in this life but that all our suffering serves God's redemptive purpose. But yes, one day, God will eliminate suffering. Just not yet.

 

[lunamoth]

It was God's will to bruise the righteous servant.

It was not God's will that Jesus would suffer. That was entirely our doing.

But yes, one day, God will eliminate suffering. Just not yet.

Why doesn't God eliminate suffering right now?

 

[sojourner]

Well, that's the point of the passage I quoted in Isaiah, which portrays "the suffering servant." It was God's will to bruise the righteous servant. And since the servant is no greater than his master, the followers of Jesus should expect persecution and suffering as part of their lot -- as their Master intends. God hasn't yet eliminated suffering. For now, he subverts it to his redemptive purposes.

Back in the day, some Jews mocked Jesus. "He said he was a prophet; let's see if God will take him down from the cross, then we will believe in him." But the point of the crucifixion is that God Himself suffered the worst that evil could throw at him. And having come through the other side, offers us hope, not that we will escape suffering in this life but that all our suffering serves God's redemptive purpose. But yes, one day, God will eliminate suffering. Just not yet.

So let's just let people hang on their crosses, to serve as an example of perseverance. No, wait! Let's go further and find ways to hang others on crosses, like, oh, I don't know...German Jews, blacks, women, homosexuals, desperate women who have abortions, substance abusers, indians, Haitians, Hispanics who come to us for work and food, South Africans, etc. ad nauseum, in order to help bring about God's will of human suffering.

I guess Jesus healed people and fed people so that he could be the "rebellious child" of God, eliminating the suffering he saw around him. I suppose battered wives should stay in their marriages and "suffer for Jesus."

Yes. We suffer. but I think it's a mistake to provide an easy answer for a difficult problem by just saying that "it's God's will." I don't think we should expect to suffer, just because we're believers. Plenty of non-believers suffer, too. That doesn't seem to be a defining paradigm, unique to Christians. What does seem to be a paradigm unique to Christians, is that, when we suffer, God stands with us and can be found within our suffering, not as a cause, but as an Advocate of our diginity and our humanity and our divinity.

The point, my dear Theophilus, of the crucifixion, is that human beings can be horribly cruel, especially when their own ego is at stake. So cruel, in fact, that our cruelty spills over out of humanity and affects God. Why? Because God loves us and has dared to enter into a relationship with us, and remain steadfast to us in spite of our cruelty. The point is not that the cruelty was necessary in order to effect salvation. The point is that salvation was effected in spite of cruelty. We don't have hope of escaping suffering, but we have the hope that God will not abandon us when we suffer.

 

[sandandfoam]

Did you decide this before or after reading it?

I cannot answer this question properly because I don't know the answer.
This is my view now, I am unsure when it became my view, maybe it was always my view ? I don't know.