Cipher,

I agree 100% with all of your comments and I can say that I’ve experienced more progressive versions of Christianity. Until I saw that I had no clothes!

That being said, I’m still glad there are Mikes and Joels in the world. I may critique them for what I see as a lack of consistency, but polticially and socially, the world is a better place because of them. In my opinion.

I second that.

That being said, I’m still glad there are Mikes and Joels in the world. I may critique them for what I see as a lack of consistency, but polticially and socially, the world is a better place because of them. In my opinion.

Certainly. I don’t think it will be enough to salvage this sorry civilization – but I agree.

I agree 100% with all of your comments and I can say that I’ve experienced more progressive versions of Christianity. Until I saw that I had no clothes!

That being said, I’m still glad there are Mikes and Joels in the world. I may critique them for what I see as a lack of consistency, but polticially and socially, the world is a better place because of them. In my opinion.

One simple example is the injunction to parents to have a disobedient son put to death. This troubled the rabbis during the medieval period, and they claimed that it rarely happened. One of them got pretty hot about it and declared, “It never happened!”, so that became the official opinion – it never happened, and it never will. My problem is that I don’t believe it; I think it did happen, as a matter of societal control, and was approved of; that’s why it was included.

I mentioned recently that I’m friendly with (a very liberal and open-minded) Orthodox rabbi. I told him this the other day – I don’t think that there are any “deeper” or “hidden” meanings; it was written by people in a primitive state of development, and it reflects their savagery. Progressive evangelicals (both of them!) and liberal Christians in general often say that we atheists have the same understanding of the Bible as do the fundamentalists. Well – yeah. I think the fundies are correct; I don’t think that there are, for the most part , any subtle or nuanced meanings (perhaps later on, by the time you get to Revelations, but we lost the key to that a long time ago). I think it means what it seems to mean. Put your child to death. Commit genocide. Later on – if you don’t believe, you’ll be burned alive for all of eternity. All of the attempts, on the part of both Christians and Jews, to see it otherwise are rationalizations, and nothing more.

Christians often use flowery, sentimental language to refer to the Bible – it’s God’s “love letter” to humanity, etc. Obviously, I think that’s a load. It’s a bloody, savage series of books, written by people in a primitive stage of development and it reflects their inherent violence and cultural outlook (as well as, as I keep saying here, centuries upon centuries of accumulated self-loathing). I agree with the fundies – either you accept it, or you reject it. I reject it. I can’t do otherwise. I don’t think ill of liberal Christians and Jews who accept it and try to reinterpret it; as I’ve said repeatedly, salvific exclusivism is the line of demarcation for me. As long as you don’t believe that the rest of us are going to hell, I don’t have a problem with you. And if you have more than a few neurons to rub together, we can talk. On the subject of the Bible’s origin and inherent worth, however, we can never agree.

And, if it really is the product of divine revelation, we’re in a shitload of trouble, because God is obviously psychotic.

And now Mike will probably stop talking to me altogether.

I

think the problem here is that you want me to say something incriminating and bigoted. It’s easier to criticize a fundie who’s shoving hellfire and damnation down your throat, than it is to deal with someone like me.

Joel, I’m trying to do no such thing. I will say again that in most ways, I really do appreciate you, Mike, and others who have a more tolerant view. However, I’m just making the point that the “fundie” who elevates the Bible and Jesus seems, in my opinion, to at least be more consistent in their arguments. That doesn’t mean that I think they are better and it definitely doesn’t mean that I am having this discussion to trap you. If you’ve checked the links to our previous discussions about this, you’ll realize that I’ve talked about this often, am not trying to entrap anyone, and definitely don’t have a problem “dealing with you”. The last one is especially insulting. I can respect your beliefs, but please don’t pretend as if they are original. I’ve been there Joel.

in the back of my mind, it’s “why couldn’t they have done this twenty, thirty years ago?”

I’m going back to school to get my PhD to answer exactly this question.

(Translation: I’m going to be studying the history and roots of the emerging church movement over the past 60 years.)

I suppose, Mike, the answer is that they weren’t ready. Or it was in the incubation stage. Progressive Evangelicalism probably had to develop as a reaction to the expanding imperialist fundamentalism of the past thirty-odd years – “This is not your father’s Christianity.”

…and I still think this is too oversimplified, as I would mention the same thing: some of the world (and the people in it) is (are) amazingly beautiful and again, I find that to have nothing to do with a belief in god.

Well, maybe. But, I think most would say someone that doesn’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection is “lost”, no matter what that means. It’s hard to quantify that with numbers (Mike says the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t say this), but if you don’t think that that’s the case, then why be a Christian? Why elevate Christ? If being a Christian is about being restored from my broken self, then don’t I need Christ? If it’s just about a path or “the way”, then why do I have to believe in Jesus’ resurrection to do that?

Well first off, I’d definitely agree that I think those not living in God’s love are going in a direction that will neither benefit them, nor help them solve their personal problems. I do think that trusting God with our lives is a journey, and it’s not all over when someone says the “sinner’s prayer”.

I think that the best way to go about this discussion is to explain what I believe about my faith, sin, redemption, hell, and in the course of the post, maybe answer some of your questions.

I would hold that there are very few, if any, complete people who don’t have some sort of reliance on God, in some religious form or another. Of course there are amazingly beautiful people, some of whom don’t believe in God; but even amazingly beautiful people struggle with doubt and failure inside of them, and awareness of their own shortcomings. If they don’t, then they haven’t lived long enough to know their own fallibility, and sadness in the world.

That’s the contention that Christians make; sin (regardless of what it means for eternal judgment) is an internal force in everyone, and it causes a lot of grief and pain and loss. It’s there when we’re born, and it’s there when we die. We can still do good things, but we’ll be haunted by sin. It’s the struggle between two things that we Christians believe; that people are created in the image of God, which makes us beautiful and wonderful and valuable; and conversely that we are held by sin, unable to escape it on our own.

Of course as a Christian I hold to the belief in the resurrection. But I also hold to the belief that as humans, we need something outside of ourselves, greater than us, to save us from ourselves. When I talk about resting in the “strong hand of love”, I’m resting in an outside force that I believe is beyond sin, and because of Christ’s sacrifice, where there was a separation between a holy God and sinful people, there is now no separation. I’m not sold on any one perspective about when or how exactly person becomes “saved”. I hold to the conviction that God works with “faith of a mustard seed”, and contrary to what the fundies think, it’s not for them to decide how that works. It’s not for me to decide how that works. That much is in God’s hands.

As to the afterlife? You got me. The ideas surrounding Heaven and Hell in the Bible are very complex, and interwoven with descriptive narrative, allegory, and parables, not to mention the fact that there is a lot of prophesy thrown in for good measure, so that it makes it all but impossible to nail one definition down. I’m kind of leaving that up to God while I try and study it, and work out my own understanding of it.

I think it’s pretty obvious that the Bible speaks about Heaven, Hell, salvation, sin, and all issues central and pertinent to the Christian faith. However, I don’t think there’s a problem with there being a number of approaches to those issues. It’s what makes Christianity such a dynamic faith. It’s really a shame that the fundamentalists feel their perspective is the exclusive Christian perspective, because for me, part of understanding Christianity is respecting and being open to the perspectives of all Christians, and all philosophies therein.

So to sum up, Christianity is a journey of discovery that I will be on for the rest of my life, and I’m still working out the details. I’m humble enough to say that I don’t have it all figured out yet; the difference between us is that I’m headed towards trying to find meaningful reasons for my faith, and you’re headed towards trying to find confirmation against Christianity. Our perspectives are fundamentally focused on opposing ends of the spectrum. I respect that, and of course, hope that perhaps someday you’ll consider looking back into what Christianity means.

Joel, this sounds like dodging. If you believe he Bible, it would be very clear that you know damn well that my life is not fulfilled. The Bible calls me a fool, liar, and many other things for rejecting the existence of god or the divinity of Christ. In fact, this sounds an awful lot like the comments Cipher mentioned earlier:

I think the problem here is that you want me to say something incriminating and bigoted. It’s easier to criticize a fundie who’s shoving hellfire and damnation down your throat, than it is to deal with someone like me. I’m not going to do that, because I am still working the answers out myself. The Bible is complicated and nuanced, and I don’t just take it on face value. Like I said, I’m still trying to work my own salvation out; but I think I’ve sufficiently given a “reason for the hope that is in me”, as St. Paul said. You can take it or leave it. I’m not going to proselytize. I’ll pray for you personally, I’ll talk with you if you’re interested. But it IS your issue with God, it’s not on my shoulders. I have neither the wisdom, nor the authority to make a call on your standing with God.

I do agree however, that everything isn’t equal. I really do think that Christianity is more fulfilling, and more meaningful as a form of belief. If I didn’t think it was, then why would I believe in Christianity in the first place?

I’m sorry to say this, but I am a busy guy, and I really don’t have the time or energy to keep up this discussion. Not to mention the fact that our little rabbit trail has gone really far off course of the original subject at hand, that we ought to finish it up. I think after 10 or 15 long posts, I’ve said enough to make it clear what my position is, and I hope that’s helpful in the course of this interaction. I don’t plan on responding from here on out. I have had a good time, and I wish everyone here all the best.

I suspect that Brooks is laying ground work for that because McClain was a prisoner of war. But I’m a suspicious person.

I get a lot of emails from people who quote Bible verses to condemn me and believe that they are speaking for God. As my sister says (jokingly because she doesn’t buy into any of it), “It’s always good to hear the Word.” Even when they’re using it to beat you about the head.