• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

A question for Christians who aren't bible fundamentalists.

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Alright, so you probably don't take the Old Testament literally. But where do you stand on Jesus and the New Testament?

Did Jesus perform miracles? Did he die for our sins? Did the resurrection happen? Or is the Jesus story a creation of the Gospel writers and based largely on earlier Messianic figures?

And if you don't believe in a literal historical Jesus Christ, how do you reconcile that lack of belief with a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ?
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
This forum is clearly lacking in the church-going types. Heh, get it? Types!
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Church is cool as long as you remember that you should be getting in touch with God, not church.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'll post later.

But we've got some, Tes.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Church is cool as long as you remember that you should be getting in touch with God, not church.

Dude, I don't know about that. I feel a particularly deep connection with the pews, alter, hymn books, and old ladies garbed in their frilly little sun-hats. Does that make me a sinner?
 

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
15,908
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Dude, I don't know about that. I feel a particularly deep connection with the pews, alter, hymn books, and old ladies garbed in their frilly little sun-hats. Does that make me a sinner?

No. In fact I went to a Catholic funeral service with my 85 year old grandmother a couple weeks ago. Having not been to mass for some time, I actually found I missed that scent of the wood pews. How smooth the tops are from a million people running their hands over them for years. The church itself is very comforting to me. The rest of it, not so much. I especially liked the little laminated card on each pew, basially saying...don't even THINK about taking communion if you haven't met a few criteria. While I understand the reasoning behind the note, I found it giggle inducing.
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
Alright, so you probably don't take the Old Testament literally. But where do you stand on Jesus and the New Testament?

Did Jesus perform miracles? Did he die for our sins? Did the resurrection happen? Or is the Jesus story a creation of the Gospel writers and based largely on earlier Messianic figures?

And if you don't believe in a literal historical Jesus Christ, how do you reconcile that lack of belief with a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ?

Not exactly a christian as such... but it's probably the closest to any religion currently. I try to look at things from multiple perspectives though and take the one that makes the most sense. For alot of the stuff regarding christ, I find alot of it to be... on shaky ground at best.

There's a few issues though; most of the miracles Jesus reportedly performed were just as easily meant to be interpreted as metaphorical. For example, the whole fish and bread thing, it probably meant more that it took jesus to give the little food they had around, before anyone else was willing to share the food they had and were keeping to themselves. One act of kindness shows that people really WEREN'T starving but were just too greedy/worried about themselves to share. Turned out they had tons of food in the first place and just didn't use it. Which's a perfectly acceptable message going with most of the scriptures, so I'd consider it a valid interpretation, though not a miracle.

Ressurection after 3 days? Pretty common actually, especially back then. These days it's not so commonplace due to more advanced medical knowledge and the fact that embalming replaces yeur blood with poison, which kills yeu if yeu weren't dead before. Even as little as 100 years ago, the term 'dead ringer' still applied, because they'd bury someone, and have a string in the coffin that went up to the surface so if they woke up and really weren't dead, they could pull the rope to ring the bell and let a guy sitting next to it for 3 days to hear if they were alive and needed unburied. This was an actual profession. The fact that jesus died by BLOOD LOSS also highly elevates the chances of his having merely gone unconscious, as it's noted that everything that signaled his 'death' occured at the instant of his going unconscious. Someone being bled to death like that usually passes out significantly before they die, and if they just took him down immediately, chances are he wasn't dead at all. Of course, there's also the minor technicality that the romans at the time were rather extensive in their record keeping of criminals, and that there were very few cases of crucifixions to begin with, and that such a high profile case would have warranted a large amount of notations in their records, of which there have never been any found. Unfortunately, this, the carbon dating of the shroud of turin, and several other pieces of evidence, suggest that Christ was either only a mortal with very strong charisma, with great PR, or didn't exist in the first place.

Now... that being said, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here as well.

Jesus himself, according to the new testament, specifically stated several times that he was NOT there to replace the old testament, and that it was required to be followed still.

There's also the matter that most of the old testament was just written records of the cultures at the time and alot of the "yeu must follow these laws of god!" are actually just the laws of a city or country at the time and have no basis in god's word at all, and are just mis-attributed to such.

Also Leviticus is total crap, just pretend that part doesn't even exist.

As for the historical ramifications? Let's say that Christ DIDN'T exist, or if he did, he was *NOT* the son of god. Then whot? Do the christians, every single one of them, burn in hell for worshiping a false god? Whot of the message itself?

Honestly, I think the whole "peace, love, and understanding" thing goes a long way, though there are admittedly some discrepancies there as well, such as the 'turn the other cheek' thing not actually meaning whot most people think (there were strict laws about which hands were used to hit people; turning yeur other cheek meant they'd have to hit yeu with their other hand, which would mean they are calling yeu their equal, it's pretty weird tradition/law/taboo related stuff that's not included in the story itself), the destroying of a temple, and withering of a plant. I wouldn't exactly call Jesus to be 'perfect' either, despite being supposedly a 'perfect' being.

Regardless, the message of this Jesus, regardless of whether he lived or not, or was the son of god or not, still holds true for the most part. Don't be an asshat towards others, and try to get along with people even if yeu really hate their guts. He didn't need to be the son of god to have the right idea on being nice to each other. He didn't even need to be real; how many bedtime stories do we tell our children about fictional characters in order to present concepts of morality?

As such, the validity of existence, though in question, is irrelevant to the message presented.
 

wank

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
131
MBTI Type
free
Enneagram
nope
A question for Christians who aren't bible fundamentalists.

So, just to clarify: not being a Christian(bible) fundamentalist, would be being a Christian having some form of the anti-supernaturalism presupposition, as/and/or a belief that the bible is not the (inerrant )word of god?
 

wren

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
384
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
4
i call myself a christian. whenever i watch wizard of oz i remember the scene when the wizard says he was a wizard, just a very bad one, or something like that. that's how i feel as a christian. i feel i only became one through reading the bible and i felt this understanding of the new testament, most notably book of john, and felt such a surge of belief. so after that i felt born again or at the very least enlightened in a way of the monk or oh fush cant recall the expression! word finding probs. anyway now im using a lot more fact based determination of my faith and it just plain doesnt make sense to me! so how do i reconcile the clear statement if you dont think jesus is the only way then you go to hell versus my own belief that that is pretty much a hogwash statement? well i don't know! is my answer. especially for someone like me who totally believed with all my heart in the idea that jesus is gods son, to take that back is akin to blasphemy, a hellish state awaits anyone who would do so.

but with that said, i believe i am strong enough to take whatever god dishes out to me in the afterlife. its only this life i'm frequently concerned about my thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, separation from love that i truly worry about.
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
well i don't know! is my answer. especially for someone like me who totally believed with all my heart in the idea that jesus is gods son, to take that back is akin to blasphemy, a hellish state awaits anyone who would do so.

May I state that if yeu 'believed with all yeur heart' then it wouldn't be a problem. If yeu recieve new information that yeu find makes yeu question such, THEN QUESTION IT.

I'm pretty sure god would rather have someone who yearns to believe with true understanding and faith, over someone who blindly follows because they were told to =3

"taking it back" isn't a blasphemy, pretending to believe when yeu really don't, however, would be. If god really is god, then he'd know yeu don't really believe it; yeu need to do a bit of soul searching, or some research into more information, or discuss with some people who know their stuff, and see if yeu can't get answers to yeur problems. How yeu go about doing it doesn't matter, so much as yeu learn.

Whether yeu learn for or against probably isn't that big of an importance either as long as yeu tried.

But then again that's my personal view... I just can't see god sending someone to hell for trying their best to do whot's right on a religious sense, and then send someone to heaven for doing something they didn't even believe in.
 

wren

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
384
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
4
May I state that if yeu 'believed with all yeur heart' then it wouldn't be a problem. If yeu recieve new information that yeu find makes yeu question such, THEN QUESTION IT.

I'm pretty sure god would rather have someone who yearns to believe with true understanding and faith, over someone who blindly follows because they were told to =3

"taking it back" isn't a blasphemy, pretending to believe when yeu really don't, however, would be. If god really is god, then he'd know yeu don't really believe it; yeu need to do a bit of soul searching, or some research into more information, or discuss with some people who know their stuff, and see if yeu can't get answers to yeur problems. How yeu go about doing it doesn't matter, so much as yeu learn.

Whether yeu learn for or against probably isn't that big of an importance either as long as yeu tried.

But then again that's my personal view... I just can't see god sending someone to hell for trying their best to do whot's right on a religious sense, and then send someone to heaven for doing something they didn't even believe in.

i really believed it! so its hard to take back something i felt deeply within my being. there may be lots of christians who went to church their whole lives and professed the faith but never ever believed a single thing and this would be a different case. then according to the bible they wouldn't be held accountable for their faith in the doctrine of christianity according to the scriptures but i'm not one of those cases.

i don't need help in the form of a religious person telling me i'm ok in believing that jesus isn't the only way. heck i could just ask you or any person who isn't a christian and i would be told that my logic was nonsense. but it doesn't have to do with asking a person about this, it's a matter between me and what i believed to begin with. imo
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I always wanted to believe in an evangelical-style Christian faith and tried very hard.
It carried me through many many years of doubts and conflicting emotions and thoughts.

In the end, I had to embrace who I was -- I am a questioner by nature, and have to call a spade a spade, whereas the religious culture I was part of for so long insisted I had to 'believe and be 100% sure' in order to be a true believer. i had to accept that my intellect is agnostic, but so much of who I am is colored and defined by my Jesus-reflective values. All my life, I have found something of resonance within Jesus's words and the main relational concepts of Christianity. Even if I would wish to abandon it, I cannot; it mirrors how I have chosen to live my life.

I don't think that level of "knowing" is possible for any religious belief. You choose to believe or you choose to not believe, but this "assurance" is not real. It is assumption, not assurance, if one wants to be accurate. You choose to believe; you cannot be forced to believe. Kierkegaard called it 'fear and trembling,' to make that final leap across the abyss of uncertainty and lay claim to something you cannot prove to yourself or others, even if you can make a case for it.

I think proof is overrated in terms of spirituality. If people could just accept that their faith is based on faith (rather than "proof"), then there would not be much issue at all.

I think a more literalist interpretation of Scripture misses the point, it fights a foolish battle in having to insist the scripture is specifically aligned with a particular interpretation in order to be valuable. Why, foolish? Because (1) it can never be realistically sure its historical beliefs are actually true, and it puts so much at stake that if the historicity is false then the values are false, and (2) it's not about following particular rules but having the right internal spiritual attitude towards the Divine, oneself, and others.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Alright, so you probably don't take the Old Testament literally. But where do you stand on Jesus and the New Testament?

Did Jesus perform miracles? Did he die for our sins? Did the resurrection happen? Or is the Jesus story a creation of the Gospel writers and based largely on earlier Messianic figures?

And if you don't believe in a literal historical Jesus Christ, how do you reconcile that lack of belief with a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ?

I think what one has to do is realize the Gospels were written for particular audiences, for particular purposes, in particular contexts. How we interpret a quick glance at biblical literature is often very different from its original intent.

My guess is that the NT is not completely literally true. In the ancient world the discipline of history as an objective study didn't exist. Plus, the gospels were based on oral traditions and weren't written until something like 70 years after the Christ.

What does all this mean? Nothing really. As far as I can tell, there is no way of absolutely knowing what did and didn't happen. But my belief of Jesus is that he was both human and divine, so the Christ of Christians isn't limited to the stories of the Gospel--he's much bigger than that. Incidentally, I do believe Jesus really did exist, granted the miracles and events likely happened differently. It just doesn't matter to me.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I'm not a biblical or scriptural literalist (I reguard that as all kinds of heretical), the records of the life and ministry of Jesus are not metaphorical like, for instance the creation myths, or the parables and teaching tales which Jesus used himself, such as the story of the sower who casts seeds, the meaning of which Jesus explains further to the disciples and which is then recorded in the scriptural text.

I do believe that Jesus was ressurected from the dead, I believe in the trinity therefore Jesus was both man and an incarnation of God, therefore it wouldnt have been a challenge.

I believe he could perform miracles however it could be the Gospel of John in which the author provides a holy "disclaimer" in which he admits there are many stories, that these are just a sample and choose to make belief possible. I dont believe its a story constructed from old testament references either, those are utilised as the original audience for conversion it was hoped would be Jewish and therefore the Jewish scriptures were important to reference.

Why do I believe those things and that it wasnt all a clever literary tool or that a historical "unmagical" Jesus ministered but his ministry was embellished and exaggerated because of all the miracles and martyrdom since. If you read either scriptural or historical sources Christianity should not have survived or grown as a faith, it should have been impossible and it should have perished like the Essenes (spelling) or Zealots or other splinter groups within Judahic or Abrahamic faith communities.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I always wanted to believe in an evangelical-style Christian faith and tried very hard.
It carried me through many many years of doubts and conflicting emotions and thoughts.

In the end, I had to embrace who I was -- I am a questioner by nature, and have to call a spade a spade, whereas the religious culture I was part of for so long insisted I had to 'believe and be 100% sure' in order to be a true believer. i had to accept that my intellect is agnostic, but so much of who I am is colored and defined by my Jesus-reflective values. All my life, I have found something of resonance within Jesus's words and the main relational concepts of Christianity. Even if I would wish to abandon it, I cannot; it mirrors how I have chosen to live my life.

I don't think that level of "knowing" is possible for any religious belief. You choose to believe or you choose to not believe, but this "assurance" is not real. It is assumption, not assurance, if one wants to be accurate. You choose to believe; you cannot be forced to believe. Kierkegaard called it 'fear and trembling,' to make that final leap across the abyss of uncertainty and lay claim to something you cannot prove to yourself or others, even if you can make a case for it.

I think proof is overrated in terms of spirituality. If people could just accept that their faith is based on faith (rather than "proof"), then there would not be much issue at all.

I think a more literalist interpretation of Scripture misses the point, it fights a foolish battle in having to insist the scripture is specifically aligned with a particular interpretation in order to be valuable. Why, foolish? Because (1) it can never be realistically sure its historical beliefs are actually true, and it puts so much at stake that if the historicity is false then the values are false, and (2) it's not about following particular rules but having the right internal spiritual attitude towards the Divine, oneself, and others.

I think scriptural literalism, in any faith (and I would argue that it is a far, far greater aspect of Islam than any other faith today), is a sign of "bad faith" in the believer, secret doubts are masked by the letter of the law, and I also think, in fundamentalist interpretations, that it is a sign of emotional and psychological immaturity or neurotic trends.

A living faith is on the road to becoming a dead religion by the time scriptural litealism creeps in, in fact it is well and truly progressed, for while scripture existed in the time of Jesus, he and his followers lived a faith rather than exclusively studied and extolled scripture.

Someone told me once it was a little like walking blind folded with the assurance that you will not fall from the path you are on, if you trust that you wont fall you'll not give it any more thought, if you dont trust then you may begin to scrutinise the blind fold itself, looking for flaws or holes or ways to peak out or around it.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Alright, so you probably don't take the Old Testament literally. But where do you stand on Jesus and the New Testament?

Did Jesus perform miracles? Did he die for our sins? Did the resurrection happen? Or is the Jesus story a creation of the Gospel writers and based largely on earlier Messianic figures?

And if you don't believe in a literal historical Jesus Christ, how do you reconcile that lack of belief with a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ?

One issue of whether or not to believe in miracles has to do with the practical effects of religion. A person who believes in the miraculous power of God will believe that such power can change their life. Therefore they can change behavior that they could never change without faith, and their life will improve. A person who does not believe in the miraculous power of God will not be able to dramatically change their behavior and therefore their religion has to practical purpose.

Of course the other side to this is that once you accept miracles are possible then their is no reason to disbelieve any of the stories of the New or Old Testament. So this creates something of a dilemma for each Christian about what exactly to believe is true. Each person ends up drawing the line in a different place.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
Alright, so you probably don't take the Old Testament literally. But where do you stand on Jesus and the New Testament?

Did Jesus perform miracles? Did he die for our sins? Did the resurrection happen? Or is the Jesus story a creation of the Gospel writers and based largely on earlier Messianic figures?

And if you don't believe in a literal historical Jesus Christ, how do you reconcile that lack of belief with a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ?


  • faith, by definition, is faith--this is so paramount, and yet both religious people and atheists can forget this
  • I perceive the Bible to be a book written by and about a bunch of flawed humans seeking (or, as per some of the stories, not seeking) after something they don't understand, and I believe this thing that is impossible to understand is God

Ultimately I think what's key here is the difference between Truth and truths. I don't know that I believe in Truth unless that is synonymous with God. Humans can't find Truth, only truths. So with this postmodern perspective it's pretty easy to not care so much about sweating the details because ultimately there's no such thing as a perfectly accurate story IRL anyways--but that doesn't mean they lack value

  • Criminal investigators get highly suspicious when witness accounts line up closely: we humans are constantly making meaning and construcing reality in various ways
  • ultimately for me it's about the seeking and the attempting to live out, through my actions, my belief system; I used to really care about perfectly figuring out what was literal and what was not so literally trustworthy, but I've grown to believe it doesn't much matter so long as I'm implementing love, patience, kindness, gentleness, etc. Like any human I neglect to behave perfectly but again it's about the seeking

I take the resurrection literally for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons are logical and intellectual (N.T. Wright wrote a lot on the resurrection). Some of these reasons are purely emotional/spiritual/not anything I could or would want to defend with logic.

I do believe in miracles. I don't believe there's much point in fingerpointing out what is or what isn't a miracle as I don't think believing that they exist necessitates me understanding how to differentiate.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284

  • I'm implementing love, patience, kindness, gentleness, etc. Like any human I neglect to behave perfectly but again it's about the seeking

But if you were to believe the christian doctrine of Original Sin, going all the way back to Augustine, you would know you are rotten at the core. And far from neglecting to behave perfectly, you delude yourself that you implement love, patience, kindness, gentleness, etc when in fact you are damaged and damaging.
 

wren

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
384
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
4
doesn't original sin mean humankind had eaten from the tree that gave us knowledge of good and evil and as a consequence we became separated from god the almighty? original sin meant we are by nature separated from god. jesus died on the cross for this original sin thus we humans are saved if we so believe in him, or the doctrines of the developed christian faith as so stated.

fundamentalism is definitely problematic no matter which fundamental we talk about. islam, christianity, judaism, even some smaller spiritual paths can become tainted by virtue of people who vow to hold the law of their 'faith'. i am mostly irritated with christians who do this because i grew up in a culture of christianity. but now i'm getting a whif of islam fundamentalists and they stir my bs meter as well.

i rather like the writings of karen armstrong. will delve into these more in the future as i sort out my feelings on the subject.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
But if you were to believe the christian doctrine of Original Sin, going all the way back to Augustine, you would know you are rotten at the core. And far from neglecting to behave perfectly, you delude yourself that you implement love, patience, kindness, gentleness, etc when in fact you are damaged and damaging.

No I don't--those things go hand in hand. I'm just focussing on the positive side of it. :) If you would prefer me to rhapsodize about the ways in which I have failed to be perfect I could go on for years and years...
 
Top