Perchance

All right, that's fair. Not what I agree with, but fair .

I suppose my main disagreement rests on three reasons:

1) I think there are far too many ways the words in the NT can be interpreted to insure that the outcome is always loving.

2) There are things that are very important- and would, I think, have been important even in that time- that Jesus did not speak strongly enough against or did not talk about, such as sexual love and issues of slavery and women's rights.

3) I have a problem with the idea of "serving" anything unless I choose the service.

This doesn't mean I don't think it can be a good guide for some people; I just don't think it's a good guide for me.

I think there is some good stuff in the NT. However, since I don't think that (for example) love is always a virtue, or selfishness always a sin, I would be hesitant to live my life by it.

I, too, would worry about people who don't kill others simply because the Bible says so .

You do seem to be a liberal Christian, then . The theonomy movement, and some "Jesus freaks" I've encountered, really do seem to believe that the Bible is the "answer for today," and we haven't moved beyond it.

Thanks for explaining, Tercel.

-Perchance.

Tercel

I think people are capable of misinterpreting anything.

Hmmm... Christianity wasn't a political movement. It was never aimed at controlling or condemning society, but at transforming individuals from within to make them better people. Jesus likened Christians to salt, suggesting that by virtue of their individual goodness the Christians could permiate society as a whole and transform it by transforming the individuals first - not by imposing their own values on others.
No NT writer shows the least interest in any political action such as condemning slavery, banning infanticide, giving women rights etc. Yet the early Christians themselves dedicated their lives to helping others, taking in orphans, looking after widows, caring for children left to die etc. Early Christianity simply wasn't a political movement in any way, shape or form, but a movement of individual renewal.

And IMO was much better for it. Just look at the messes that the Church got itself into when it gained political power. We all know how... great, honest and upright... politians are. Combining politics with the Church could only ever have one result.
Even so the fundamentalists don't seem to want to learn the lessons of History and are still bent on trying to force their beliefs on everyone else using political means.

You do seem to be a liberal Christian, then . The theonomy movement, and some "Jesus freaks" I've encountered, really do seem to believe that the Bible is the "answer for today," and we haven't moved beyond it.

Hmmm, well okay. As I see it, serving others is something that flows from love for them. Christ said that we should love others as he had loved. As I see it, the primary decision we must make as regards Christianity is whether we are prepared to commit to this unconditional service of others and God, or whether we decide to live our lives for our own benifit.

In what way?
The greek word for "love" in the NT is "agape", which the KJV translates as "charity" which -if taken in the full sense of the word as meaning charitable love plus actions expressing it- seems to me to sum up the calling of Christianity. How can this be not always a virtue?
I would almost equate selfishness with sin by definition. What is your understanding of sin, that you feel selfishness is sometimes okay?

I would generally regard myself as a liberal Christian, yes. However this would put me in most people's minds in a category which also contained people like Bishop Spong etc who I would not regard as Christians on the basis that they don't actually believe even the basics. Hence I prefer to call myself a "Moderate" Christian.

Of course people have numerous understandings of what the word "liberal" means. I regard myself as liberal because:
* I reject fundamentalism and conservativism. I see the value of the Bible not as "the Word of God" but as a record of the beliefs and teachings of the early Christian Church.
* I don't reject evolution.
* I'm happy to reject traditional authorship of various books where I feel the evidence warrent it.
* I'm happy to accept the idea that parts of the Bible might be metaphorical, myth, politically motivated, or flat out wrong. The OT and I don't go very well together as a general rule.
* It takes a bit more than "This one verse says this" to convince me to accept a doctrine. If it doesn't accord well with other doctrines and the main ideas behind Christianity, then the verse can say what it likes for all I care.

Of course this all makes me sound pretty radical when compared to the fundamentalists, but in reality I'm a believing Christian and my thoughts on these things are well within the bounds of what Christians have historically thought. I can read most all (except where the writers take different sides on an issue of course) of the writings of the great Church writers and sit there nodding all the way through. It really demonstrates what a large deviation fundamentalism is from traditional Christianity.

Perchance

Agreed .

I've heard some people argue that it was, that Jesus was the first socialist/Marxist/communist and preaching rebellion against the leaders... but I don't necessarily think it was, just that it could be interpreted that way.

I think the idea of Hell was aimed at "controlling or condemning society." Perhaps one could argue that it was targeted at specific individuals, rather than the whole, and this makes it less political. Still, it's there. "If you sin and don't repent, you will go to Hell" seems a lot like "if you commit a crime, you will go to jail." A penalty or punishment for wrongdoing.

Also, if someone is going to be transforming me, that implies that that person doesn't think I'm "up to standard." I would like to know what standards I'm going to be changing to before I do it. And since I don't accept the idea of objective morality, this means It Is A Problem.


If they were going to be "transforming" or "permeating" society, then how could they avoid imposing their own values on others? This doesn't mean that I think Christians were or are the only ones who ever did or do so, but I don't see how, if you're telling someone, "There's a better way to live your life," you can avoid the imposing of standards.

And some, like Paul, will only reluctantly admit that it's better to marry than burn, tell women to keep silent in churches, and so on. No, thank you.

So when it started spreading to large numbers of people, it became political? I'm not sure what the cutoff point for "early Christianity" is.

Agreed that churches and politicians don't have a stellar track record. However, I think this is a generalization. Not every politician or church official has been corrupt. Depending on their politics, I might not want them ruling over me, but they aren't necessarily evil just because of that.

Besides, I know an awful lot of people who seem to think that they wouldn't be corrupt if they could somehow attain power...

Using a book that you've just said wasn't political and that I think at least partially is, yes. That's part of what scares me. They seem to be either twisting a religious message into a political one, or else taking one political message and insisting it can serve for all times and all places, which is ridiculous on the face of it.

With respect, Tercel, I think one only needs make that decision if he or she believes Christianity to be true. Otherwise, it can just be a choice of deciding to believe one religion over the other. Rejecting Christianity for non-believers doesn't mean rejecting truth or service to God, just rejecting a religion.

Back to service...

I see no reason to worship anything, which is what "serving God" seems to mean. Even if a power exists and created me, why worship it? Wouldn't it get bored? Why would it want the devotion of inferior creatures? Why isn't it off amusing itself?

As regards service to others, I have no problem with this if both parties agree to it. But I think an equal footing is almost always better, or at least service where both parties feel comfortable. If a person is getting paid for the service or is doing it out of, say, his or her pleasure in the work, that is one thing. Doing something you deliberately hate is extremely strange to me.


I've seen love- even "charity"- drive people to do stupid things, or advocate stupid things for others around them. I once got in a fight with my entire political science class, who couldn't believe my admission that I like writing better than working with the homeless. "Don't you LOVE them?" blah blah blah. By the end of the class, at least half of the twenty people in there had said there should be laws mandating community service for everyone. I really, really badly wanted to point out that that would mean even the homeless would have to do community service (to what? the rocks?) but the class ended.

Love is by no means always a virtue. Part of the problem, though, is that when it leads to disastrous consequences, such as crimes of passion, then almost everyone redefines it so it's not "love." "Oh, he didn't really love her, or he wouldn't have killed her. That's not love." I'm sorry, but they believed it was love BEFORE he killed her. Why change their minds without even explaining anything?

You asked about my understanding of sin. I have no understanding of sin. By "sin" I usually think of the concept of something inherently wrong, violating the objective moral laws of the universe. But I don't think there are any objective moral laws of the universe. I could say there are actions I've always thought are wrong, like rape and child abuse, but that doesn't mean they are inherently wrong, just wrong to me.

So selfishness is not always a sin or wrong. I think rational self-interest, so called, is one of the more honest approaches to life. And when someone acts "selfishly" to pull himself or herself out of, say, a situation that is destroying or hurting him or her, then I will applaud. I don't think that's wrong.

You have the right to whatever name you wish, of course . I was using "liberal" in comparison to the fundamentalists.


I'm glad there's at least one believer out there who thinks rationally!

Part of the fear I have of fundamentalism is that it's the most rapidly growing religious movement in the U.S. (at least according to the last statistics I saw). The theonomy people, among others, really think that someday they'll have enough people to "peacefully" take over the government.



-Perchance.

P.S. Sorry the post got so long! I'm having fun, though... .

seebs

Of course it's the answer for today! It's just that, just as people two thousand years ago needed to *WORK* to understand that answer, people today need to *WORK* to understand that answer.

For as long as there have been theists, there have been people who ignore any instruction or commandment that would require them to think about how to go about it. "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? If it isn't satisfied by donating something to charity occasionally for the tax write-off, we don't want to hear about it.

The answer is, as it was two thousand years ago, "care about each other, and *THINK*. Love, God."

Some of the specific applications or issues we have to think *about* have changed - but the basic rule hasn't.

MHO.

Perchance

Seebs-

I could just as easily claim the Greek myths are the "answer for today," and that people just need to "work to understand them," in the eyes of a non-believer. The best way to insure that someone stays a devotee is to insist that there is ever more knowledge to be discovered, that we can understand it if we only work at it, that there's something there if people will just pay attention. Yet any understanding that doesn't accord with the teacher's turns out to be "faulty."

Besides, beyond moral precepts I was referring to the theonomic beliefs that, for example, all churches that are not Christian should be shut down, that children should be stoned to death for disobeying their parents, and so on. We've moved a long way politically beyond a book that was written when democracy as we understand it didn't exist.

Yep. And a lot of people don't want to hear others questioning their religious faith, either, or their political beliefs, or telling them that someone they've always believed is good and true really had personality problems or did extremely strange things (what I call "legendslaying;" I can't tell you how disappointing it was to find out that Lincoln was in favor of shipping African-Americans back to Africa in his youth).

Just because someone finds something uncomfortable doesn't mean that the proponents of the uncomfortable thing are right. In my case, I couldn't "love my neighbor" because I can't love an amorphous mass; I can only love individuals. If my "neighbor" comes across to me as a good person, someone whom I can respect and admire even more than agree with (I've had good theist friends), and who has other traits I find essential for love, then I can love him. But I can't love everyone. If that is a failing, then so be it.

As Ayn Rand makes the point in Anthem, people don't earn love just by being born.

I don't know about the "think" part. What about all those verses condemning intelligence and wisdom, and saying that "the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God" and so on?

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

I'm entitled to think that there are many, many complexities in the world, many individual situations, that are far too complicated to be resolved by a "love thy neighbor" repeated ad infinitum. And I'm glad I think that. Living in a world where there was one self-evident, objective, basic moral rule would be boring.

IMPO, of course.

-Perchance.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

seebs

A good point. I think that model is in error; if you're teaching someone, and they come to a new conclusion, rejecting it as faulty might be foolhardy, especially in tough philosophical questions.

Agreed. I guess I don't see that stuff as the core message - indeed, much of the law that you refer to is, so far as I can tell, explicitly disclaimed now.

I think they do - I'm just not sure they earn respect.

I do grant that mere discomfort with an idea doesn't show it to be right. However, my point was that one of the reasons that people often present such hostile attitudes as "Christian" is that they're avoiding the hard parts of the system.

I think they're directed at people who think they already know everything; it's a reminder that merely having studied a lot doesn't mean you're done thinking. I may be incorrect.

I dunno. The implications are complicated enough that I doubt I'll live long enough to run out of tough questions.

Perchance

That's why I try my best not to reject out of hand even arguments that I don't believe in (like most theist arguments ).

I try my best to find out why I disagree with them, and especially, if I find them really odious, why my reaction is so strong. That's why I have to say that just having questions about the Bible doesn't invalidate it for everyone; but I think, for me, it invalidates the Bible having all the answers.

Depends on who you talk to, I think. Liberal or moderate Christians tend to argue that Jesus fulfilled the sacrifice laws, etc., so we don't have to keep on doing animal sacrifices. Other people (like the Christian Reconstructionists) think the laws are still binding.

However, if you think the laws like that were explicitly disclaimed, then I don't think I have to be afraid of you .

Fair enough. I think even some non-believers would argue that it is possible to love the whole of humanity. I know that I can't do it, however (which is one reason that I don't call myself a humanist). Love for me always has been and seems likely always to be a very picky, individual thing, just like respect.

(This doesn't mean I would argue that someone whom I dislike should have his legal rights violated. I do think that I can treat people with politeness and consideration, because I choose to. However, giving money to someone, not arguing with deeply-held beliefs of his that I find really strange, and offering him help and a sympathetic ear ready to believe his side of the story over others without question are not things that someone could walk up to me on the street and claim. I need to know an individual's track record before I give those things).

Oh, you were talking about Christians avoiding the implications? I thought you meant everybody, which was one reason I was reacting the way I did. I don't see how the rules are binding for people who aren't Christian unless one insists they're binding as part of an objective moral law of the universe- which, as I've made clear, I don't believe in .

I agree that if they have freely adopted the religion, they have the responsibility to explore all the implications and come up with good ideas about avoiding the obligations, if they can.

I suppose it depends on how one applies the words "intelligence" and "wisdom." I assume that someone who calls himself or herself intelligent will also have a good reasoning ability, and someone called "wise" HAS to have one. Therefore, I react badly to the Bible verses that insist God doesn't value what I understand as the most valuable attribute humans possess.

Yet doesn't having a "rule," much less a "basic" one, suggest that everything comes back to that, and that is the one thing you can trust?

I think certainties of any kind tend to be restrictive sooner or later, even if they feel unbounded. I also don't see much evidence for "love thy neighbor" as a binding moral law of the universe, rather than something that humans think is really cool.

But that may just be me .

-Perchance.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Perchance

Found a theonomy page that gives an explanation of some of the ideas behind it...

<a href="http://www.forerunner.com/theofaq.html" target="_blank">Scary Twisted Ideas</a>.

This really makes me want to scream, puke, reach through the computer and strangle the guy who wrote it, or all three at once .

-Perchance.

schu

Mt 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If xians believe wht JC said it would seem they are commanded to follow the OT law. But why should they believe what JC is supposed to have said when they can make up the story to suit themselves.

Perchance

This conflict between belief and behavior would not, I think, be so appalling to me if the people practicing it didn't insist at the same time that they are doing exactly as the Bible says.

I think that people should be able to pick and choose their own religious beliefs, but if so, admit it! Don't say, "I am following the Bible in every respect," and the moment that someone points out the part that you're ignoring, say, "That doesn't count."

This is part of the reason nothing has persuaded me to listen to the Bible yet.

-Perchance.