A question for Christians who aren't bible fundamentalists.

[Tiltyred]

I think we are, as human beings, rotten at the core. We have to work to be peaceful, tolerant, and loving.

I think any scripture from any culture has fantastical myths, and that there are levels of understanding, and we achieve the level we are able to achieve and get what truths we are able to assimilate, and each of us is different from the other in that respect, which is exactly how it should be. I think we should respect each other's understanding. Getting wrapped up in the literalness and the details is a sort of devil's trap to create argument and dissent. I'm definitely an ecumenist.

I do believe in miracles because I've experienced at least two events that I consider miraculous and direct answers to prayer, and if it could happen to me, it could surely happen to anybody.

I also do believe in baptism and church, but in the sense that if you decide to be baptized, you are making a spiritual alignment that cannot be undone, and in the sense that church is the community of believers, not a building.

 

[Kristiana]

Did Jesus perform miracles? Did he die for our sins? Did the resurrection happen?

Yes, yes, and yes.

There is quite a bit of historical validity for Jesus' existence, and quite a bit of evidence to logically argue that the resurrection happened.... check out The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel if you'd like a more detailed, comprehensive argument for it.

As for miracles (defined by God's intervention into an individual's life), it is quite easy for me to believe in them because I've experienced a few.

 

[Mole]

I think we are, as human beings, rotten at the core.

Thankfully I don't believe we are rotten at the core because I don't believe in the christian doctrine of Original Sin.

And I don't believe in Original Sin because I know for a fact from the Origin of Species and the genome that there was no Adam and Eve. And there being no Adam and Eve there can be no Original Sin.

 

[Mole]

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...

I am sure you are quite perfect if not in your eyes at least in mine. And if in mine, just think of all the others who see you in the same way.

Frankly I don't think you will be able to hold out. So I think you should take a deep breath and see yourself as we see you.

 

[proximo]

I've put most of my more expressable thoughts about it here...

Though I admit, your particular questions aren't explicitly addressed there. I'll have a think and come back to it... if I remember

In short, no I don't believe in miracles, but I do believe Jesus did things other people perceived to be miracles. No I don't believe he died "for our sins" in the way that traditional Christianity means it, though I do believe he died and that it was to demonstrate something important to us. As for whether the resurrection happened, it's not relevant for my belief system in many ways... IOW it doesn't rely on that being the case.

 

[Take Five]

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.

Your portrayal of original sin makes it look as though original sin dictates humans are all evil, only able to put up a facade of goodness. I don't know that that's an accurate understanding. The way I understand it, regardless what Augustine may say, is that humans are not totally good--they are imperfect and unable to be the total Good. That's different from saying that humans are basically evil.

Augustine was an especially pessmistic Christian and I don't know what he'd say about this; however, in the Catholic Church there have been advancements in understanding since his time.

Whether there were an Adam and Eve or not does not really diminish the idea of original sin either, especially for non-literalist Christians.

 

[Mole]

Your portrayal of original sin makes it look as though original sin dictates humans are all evil, only able to put up a facade of goodness. I don't know that that's an accurate understanding. The way I understand it, regardless what Augustine may say, is that humans are not totally good--they are imperfect and unable to be the total Good. That's different from saying that humans are basically evil.

Augustine was an especially pessmistic Christian and I don't know what he'd say about this; however, in the Catholic Church there have been advancements in understanding since his time.

Whether there were an Adam and Eve or not does not really diminish the idea of original sin either, especially for non-literalist Christians.

The doctrine of Original Sin says that babies are born in sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

And the doctrine says we are all predisposed to sin from the moment of our birth.

Essentially it says children are bad. And the doctrine of Original Sin has been used to justify child abuse for at least a thousand years or more - "punish the body and save the soul".

Read the Ryan Report from the Irish Government at 1,600 pages and find out how the abuse was carried out. And if that is not enough read the Dublin Report just out. And find the Ryan Report confirmed.

Augustine taught that heretics should be tortured. So the Church ran the Inquisition under the Dominicans for 600 years. And Thomas Aquinas said he looked forward to heaven so he could enjoy seeing the suffering of the souls in hell.

Aquinas was an obese sadist. And Augustine provided the theology of torture. And both are Fathers of the Church.

We are just now awakening from the nightmare of child abuse based on the christian doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[Take Five]

The doctrine of Original Sin says that babies are born in sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

And the doctrine says we are all predisposed to sin from the moment of our birth.

Essentially it says children are bad. And the doctrine of Original Sin has been used to justify child abuse for at least a thousand years or more - "punish the body and save the soul".

Read the Ryan Report from the Irish Government at 1,600 pages and find out how the abuse was carried out. And if that is not enough read the Dublin Report just out. And find the Ryan Report confirmed.

Augustine taught that heretics should be tortured. So the Church ran the Inquisition under the Dominicans for 600 years. And Thomas Aquinas said he looked forward to heaven so he could enjoy seeing the suffering of the souls in hell.

Aquinas was an obese sadist. And Augustine provided the theology of torture. And both are Fathers of the Church.

We are just now awakening from the nightmare of child abuse based on the christian doctrine of Original Sin.

Being born with a sinful nature does not make one evil. You put that spin on there yourself, though you would not be alone in making it. It doesn't mean children, or anyone, is inherently evil--it means they aren't perfect or infallible. Predisposition is not predestination.

Also I am aware of torturing heretics, inquisitions, blah blah blah. That was obviously wrong. The Church is made of imperfect people. Get over it everyone. So what if people used original sin to advocate something bad? Does that mean original sin is automatically a bad idea? Absolutely not.

Unfortunate though it is, people use essentially good ideas to argue in favor of bad policies. For instance, one does not have to search very long to come across instances in which democracy, widely considered a good thing, has been used as a justification for bad policies. Should we likewise decide, "Democracy generates such people. Democracy must be bad?" A logical mind will not think that.

About the remarks on Aquinas and Augustine: Yes the two had their shortcomings as all humans do. We have nobody perfect to live up to, except for Jesus and (for some Christians) Mary. Does that mean every idea and argument made by all other people is inherently bad? I don't think so. Do Aquinas' and Augustine's shortcomings mean they have nothing worthwhile to consider? Likewise, no.

It's easy to get mad at Christianity, but after all this, it's the people who are flawed. So it should be no surprise to see good organizations make mistakes, even severe ones, as they progress.

 

[Lark]

I think we are, as human beings, rotten at the core. We have to work to be peaceful, tolerant, and loving.

I think any scripture from any culture has fantastical myths, and that there are levels of understanding, and we achieve the level we are able to achieve and get what truths we are able to assimilate, and each of us is different from the other in that respect, which is exactly how it should be. I think we should respect each other's understanding. Getting wrapped up in the literalness and the details is a sort of devil's trap to create argument and dissent. I'm definitely an ecumenist.

I do believe in miracles because I've experienced at least two events that I consider miraculous and direct answers to prayer, and if it could happen to me, it could surely happen to anybody.

I also do believe in baptism and church, but in the sense that if you decide to be baptized, you are making a spiritual alignment that cannot be undone, and in the sense that church is the community of believers, not a building.

I've got to say that I'm pretty misanthropic, or at least I consider myself that way but I cant say that the idea that we're rotten to the core has been borne out by experience.

Most of the people I've known who are rotten are either cognitively challenged or are trapped in some sort of maturational crisis, ie they've got a real developmental deficit that results in them playing games, repeating internal scripts they arent even conscious of etc.

I dont know if goodness is its own reward but badness is its own punishment a lot of the time that's for damned sure. Whether anyone who's rotten gets their just desserts, ie a right rollocking punishment, or not they'll still be miserable.

 

[Mole]

Being born with a sinful nature does not make one evil. You put that spin on there yourself, though you would not be alone in making it. It doesn't mean children, or anyone, is inherently evil--it means they aren't perfect or infallible. Predisposition is not predestination.

Also I am aware of torturing heretics, inquisitions, blah blah blah. That was obviously wrong. The Church is made of imperfect people. Get over it everyone. So what if people used original sin to advocate something bad? Does that mean original sin is automatically a bad idea? Absolutely not.

Unfortunate though it is, people use essentially good ideas to argue in favor of bad policies. For instance, one does not have to search very long to come across instances in which democracy, widely considered a good thing, has been used as a justification for bad policies. Should we likewise decide, "Democracy generates such people. Democracy must be bad?" A logical mind will not think that.

About the remarks on Aquinas and Augustine: Yes the two had their shortcomings as all humans do. We have nobody perfect to live up to, except for Jesus and (for some Christians) Mary. Does that mean every idea and argument made by all other people is inherently bad? I don't think so. Do Aquinas' and Augustine's shortcomings mean they have nothing worthwhile to consider? Likewise, no.

It's easy to get mad at Christianity, but after all this, it's the people who are flawed. So it should be no surprise to see good organizations make mistakes, even severe ones, as they progress.

Good heavens, it is not just christians who are flawed, it is God Himself. For He ordered Abraham to murder his son - the very epitome of child abuse.

And it is no accident that the three great faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are called Abrahamic faiths.

And it is the nightmare of Abrahamic child abuse that we are slowly waking up from.

 

[Lark]

Good heavens, it is not just christians who are flawed, it is God Himself. For He ordered Abraham to murder his son - the very epitome of child abuse.

And it is no accident that the three great faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are called Abrahamic faiths.

And it is nightmare of Abrahamic child abuse that we are slowly waking up from.

Yeah and have you ever considered as Jung has that humanity is the medium by which God experiences directly creation, this being so its not inconceivable that with every generation of humankind a change is effected in both God and man, therefore you have the explicable, apparently immature, jealous God of the old testament and the mature, God incarnate man Jesus of the new testament.

 

[Lark]

Being born with a sinful nature does not make one evil. You put that spin on there yourself, though you would not be alone in making it. It doesn't mean children, or anyone, is inherently evil--it means they aren't perfect or infallible. Predisposition is not predestination.

Also I am aware of torturing heretics, inquisitions, blah blah blah. That was obviously wrong. The Church is made of imperfect people. Get over it everyone. So what if people used original sin to advocate something bad? Does that mean original sin is automatically a bad idea? Absolutely not.

Unfortunate though it is, people use essentially good ideas to argue in favor of bad policies. For instance, one does not have to search very long to come across instances in which democracy, widely considered a good thing, has been used as a justification for bad policies. Should we likewise decide, "Democracy generates such people. Democracy must be bad?" A logical mind will not think that.

About the remarks on Aquinas and Augustine: Yes the two had their shortcomings as all humans do. We have nobody perfect to live up to, except for Jesus and (for some Christians) Mary. Does that mean every idea and argument made by all other people is inherently bad? I don't think so. Do Aquinas' and Augustine's shortcomings mean they have nothing worthwhile to consider? Likewise, no.

It's easy to get mad at Christianity, but after all this, it's the people who are flawed. So it should be no surprise to see good organizations make mistakes, even severe ones, as they progress.

Just on a point of order, our reckoning of inquisitorial horrors etc. is a consequence of filters which are hostile to Christianity, ie rennaisance, enlightenment, liberal revolution, cultural secularism, cultural hedonism and they have ALL engaged in historical revisionism in the process.

There is nothing at all like the sort of honest recognition of the Christian heritage that there should be, the detractors of Christianity call to mind inquisitions but they dont at once question the origin of modern day hospitals or medicine as emerging from the holy order of hospitallers during the Crusades and Pilgrimages of Christendom.

 

[Take Five]

Good heavens, it is not just christians who are flawed, it is God Himself. For He ordered Abraham to murder his son - the very epitome of child abuse.

And it is no accident that the three great faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are called Abrahamic faiths.

And it is nightmare of Abrahamic child abuse that we are slowly waking up from.

You will challenge the idea that creation was done in a week. But you base your own arguments on literal interpretation.

That episode was written at a certain time, by certain people, with a certain purpose. Our understandings have changed since then. The Bible is a big and complicated book. It's best not to pick out certain verses to fit into your position.

This is part of the reason why I am not a biblical literalist, but still am a Christian. Look at the math of Archimedes. It's good math, but if we took a math textbook from his time, we would quickly realize the book would not include advancements made since its publication.

 

[Take Five]

Just on a point of order, our reckoning of inquisitorial horrors etc. is a consequence of filters which are hostile to Christianity, ie rennaisance, enlightenment, liberal revolution, cultural secularism, cultural hedonism and they have ALL engaged in historical revisionism in the process.

There is nothing at all like the sort of honest recognition of the Christian heritage that there should be, the detractors of Christianity call to mind inquisitions but they dont at once question the origin of modern day hospitals or medicine as emerging from the holy order of hospitallers during the Crusades and Pilgrimages of Christendom.

Yeah I totally agree. People hardly ever cite all the good Christianity has done.

 

[Mole]

Yeah and have you ever considered as Jung has that humanity is the medium by which God experiences directly creation, this being so its not inconceivable that with every generation of humankind a change is effected in both God and man, therefore you have the explicable, apparently immature, jealous God of the old testament and the mature, God incarnate man Jesus of the new testament.

God is the unchanging First Cause. If God changes it is not God.

In fact you have no wriggle room - if you accept God, you accept child abuse.

For instance, God was offended by us and to forgive us He tortured his Son to death.

So God was not content to order Abraham to murder his son, God went on to torture His own Son to death.

We are slowly waking up from this nightmare of child abuse.

 

[Mole]

Yeah I totally agree. People hardly ever cite all the good Christianity has done.

Gosh, do you really think we should cite all the good the child abuses do? Or do you think we should wake up from the nightmare of child abuse?

 

[Take Five]

God is the unchanging First Cause. If God changes it is not God.

In fact you have no wriggle room - if you accept God, you accept child abuse.

For instance, God was offended by us and to forgive us He tortured his Son to death.

So God was not content to order Abraham to murder his son, God went on to torture His own Son to death.

We are slowly waking up from this nightmare of child abuse.

You're jumping to conclusions too quickly. It has been argued that God is the unchanging First Cause. I happen to agree with this. This, however, does not mean our perception of God does not change to some extent. It is our understandings and portrayals of God that change, not God himself.

That child abuse and belief in God go hand in hand is...well...seriously? That's so out there.

God tortured his son? That's news to me. I could have sworn that he was executed and tortured by ancient Romans, goaded by a number of ancient Jews.

Again I think you're twisting events to conform to your own misconceptions.

 

[Lark]

God is the unchanging First Cause. If God changes it is not God.

In fact you have no wriggle room - if you accept God, you accept child abuse.

For instance, God was offended by us and to forgive us He tortured his Son to death.

So God was not content to order Abraham to murder his son, God went on to torture His own Son to death.

We are slowly waking up from this nightmare of child abuse.

Er, no, that's a bizarre leap to make, the link you've made.

Besides this is testament to the fact that God does not want or require human sacrifice, a great difference from many of the false Gods and graven images of other pagan religions like Baal.

God is the first and original principle but why would God not change? He has created evolving beings, including humankind, and we are reliably informed that we are all made in his image.

 

[Take Five]

Gosh, do you really think we should cite all the good the child abuses do? Or do you think we should wake up from the nightmare of child abuse?

Well first I think we should get a grasp of reality. The fact is that the good from Christianity far outweighs the bad done from Christians. And not just spiritually. Clearly, child abuse is not the only thing that happened the last 2000 years. You are just upset by it today, allowing it to influence yout perceptions and judgments. Of course child abuse should stop, but that's no reason to get rid of Christianity.

 

[Lark]

Yeah I totally agree. People hardly ever cite all the good Christianity has done.

Christianity is a little like feminism or similar creedos, most of the time their greatest critics and detractors are utilising the very analytical or conceptual tools which they fashioned in the first place.

If any humanist or humanitarian cares to criticise Christianity for failing to meet with Christian ideals or standards the stock reply should be that they are Christian standards, Christianity fails because it expects so much of itself in the first place. If they criticise Christianity for failing to meet with humanist or humanitarian standards, well, they are failing to acknowledge the extent to which those very things are products of Christian thinking and culture.

Christianity reorientated the human race's thinking about man, giving him a special status in creation which no faith before or since has done, not only is man the most valued by God, an inverse of previous thinking (man valuing God not vice versa), but God choose to become man, to be man, to experience all the pain, suffering, doubt and dilemma of being a man. No other faith, not even Judahism has such a tenant.

Without it none of the modern humanocentric thinking would have come to pass, for better or worse.