ManM

Tercel,
There is a fine difference between the Orthodox and Catholic views of original sin, but I think it is more significant than you suggest. The Catholic interpretation is that Adam sinned, thus bringing down a curse from God. God creates death as a punishment for sin. This punishment affected all of humanity, so when we are born we are still under this curse. The Orthodox interpretation is that when Adam sinned he chose to fall away from God. God is life, so when Adam fell away from God he found himself in death. In the Catholic view, God creates death. In the Orthodox view, God does not. This <a href="http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm" target="_blank">web page</a> has a more in depth (and extremely biased) explanation.

Mad Kally,
I'm glad it finally makes sense to you.

HelenM

ax here's a quote from A New Christianity For A New World, by John Shelby Spong, to give you an idea about liberal Christians...although each one has a little different viewpoint - in liberal Christianity that's ok...(just like there's no 'requirement' on atheists, say, to have exactly the same viewpoints)

I'm just suggesting, keep your options open and don't think that you have to 'rush' into any particular belief or lack thereof.

love
Helen

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

IvanK

OK, so here's my non-literal interpretation of the Bible for you to evaluate:

When Jesus is quoted as saying things like, "none come to the Father but through me," he's speaking metaphorically. What he really meant was, live a good life in the here and now without worrying about what might happen to you after you die. Believe in God if you want to and don't if that makes more sense to you, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. All this Heaven, Hell, God and angels, sin, forgiveness and redemption and immortal soul business in the Bible is only metaphorical and parabolic.

In fact, Jesus probably never said most of the parables and metaphors attributed to him in the Bible. Other people made them up. Their real message was as I have stated above. This message was understood by all the early Christians who merely talked in parables and metaphors to each other because they liked things that way.

Christianity itself is therefore simply another branch of freethought. The proper understanding of Christianity, its parables and metaphors is that there's no way to know whether such a being as God exists; it's not important one way or the other and the important thing is to live a good life in the here and now without thought for any future after death.

Practices opposed to this way of thinking and behaving are inimical to a proper understanding of Christianity, based as it is in the parables and metaphors of the Bible.

Ergo, freethinkers are the only True Christians (TM), QED.

Hear the Word of the Lord, ManM, convert to freethought and be saved!

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

daemon

I don't know where you got this from--it sounds like the current Fundamentalist view. The current teachings of the Catholic Church are closer to your Orthodox explanation. Take a look at the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm" target="_blank">Catholic Cathechism</a>, specifically <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm" target="_blank">Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraph 7</a> (!!! enough subdivisions?)

diana

Hi ax.

I have big problems with things like "original sin" and stuff, and all the xians that I talk to about it cannot understand it!!

Would you mind expounding upon this idea? What problems, specifically, do you have with "original sin"?

It seems all my futile attempts to explain these things to them is simmilar to yelling at a deaf person (I think I heard that saying here somewhere).

Similar to one I picked up from a Greek-speaking friend: "You can bang all day on the door of the deaf."

d

ManM

daemon,
Thank you for the correction. It was my understanding that the Catholic stance had not changed much since Augustine and Anselm. Now I know better. Has the satisfaction theory of atonement also gone away?

Laera

Is that why the bible is otherwise known as "The Good Book?"

CX

Well, kiddo, it's rough letting go of belief. The transition from belief to nonbelief is usually a very jarring and difficult one. I know for me I was sad that I wasn't going to live forever. I was disappointed that I wasn't going to find out the answer to every question in a utopian afterlife. I wonder what the hell the point of life was. I was angry that I had been lied to by well meaning and deluded adults. But those feelings went away and were replaced by a sense of peace and understanding. And by a cherishing of life and the lives of those I love. After a lifetime of having all your decisions dictated by some omnibenevolent father in the sky, it's kind of scary having to call the shots on your own, but then you realize that your accomplishments are your own and not thanks to some magic invisible friend and that you are not "as filthy rags" nor deserving of punishment and suffering. Overall it's pretty liberating. It just takes awhile to get over the disappointment and resentment. But you will. The important thing is to never turn off your critical thinking. Never stop questioning. Look for real answers not easy ones. The truth is sometimes its own reward. best wishes.

CX

Apologetic gibberish and not even very good apologetic gibberish. I don't really have time at the moment to refute everything on that page, but if you have specific questions raise them in BC&A and I or someone else will respond (along with some theistic counterpoints from resident theists).

Laera

I agree 100%! The most painful thing I've EVER gone through were the months between first doubting and my eventual release of the FEAR of god - even though it meant giving up so many things, not least of which was my close relationship with my parents (who now consider me dead when they're not deluding themselves into thinking I'm going through a phase).

It's funny that losing the most important relationships of my childhood (my parents and God) made me feel more comfortable than I've ever been. Realizing there's no god was not easy, but once I did there was this very real clarity and all cognitive dissonance was gone. My parents being existant, I can work on our relationship and hopefully it will be strong again.

I know at least two testimonies that have none of the things you list above: mine and Rational Ag's. We both had marvelous childhood experiences and great relationships with our respective parents. I still don't take issue with the churches I've attended as I thoroughly enjoyed being a part of all of them. And both of us have sought out many perspectives from both sides of the religious fence. If emotion drove my boyfriend's decision, it'd be about the only decision he's ever made on that basis. And if emotion were driving my decision, I'd be firmly in the Theistic/Christian camp right now - it'd be a helluva lot easier and would've saved me and my family a lot of pain.

Regarding Liberal Theologies:
Ax, if you want to find out about non-fundamentalist Christianity, I'd recommend ELCA Lutheran or Episcopalian. They're similar to Catholic only the ceremony is much reduced and the theology is open to personal interpretation for the most part. They both stress the Love and Grace of God and some of them even have reasonable explainations for many problems fundies don't. I don't have links to their respective homepages, but I'm sure a search would get you there.

Bishop Spong (who I think was quoted in this thread?) was an Episcopalian (same as Anglican) but he was definitely on the Liberal side and isn't respected throughout the whole church.

I have some books my Lutheran parents gave me to read that you might like, but I'll have to list them later. Sorry you're going through such pain, but you have a lot of people here who can sympathize including me!