Personal Spiritual Problems

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Regarding the Bible, you should read the scholarship of Elaine Pagels (prof of Religious Studies at Princeton) and of Bart Ehrmann (prof of Religious Studies at U of North Carolina - Chapel Hill). Both have demonstrated convincingly that the Bible is the product of sectarian struggle, in which one branch of Christianity sought to label different brances as heretical. Second-century Christianity was more diverse -- and had more Gospels -- than contemporary Christianity. Whatever your beliefs, its an interesting story that all Christians should know. (Ehrmann's latest book, Misquoting Jesus, is currently on the NY Times besteller list.)

Umm, everyone knows there were issues with different oppinions of Christ. Even from the time He lived on this earth. Even in the Paulian gospels you can see evidences of argments about what Christianity should be.

If you look at the Gnostic literature, for example, you can see why Christianity went the way it did. (gnostics are definitely way out, compared to Paul who is the founder of what we call christianity).

As far as other things go, muslims count Christ as a prophet. And a lot of theologians write horse**** that is based on nothing really (I have read a decent ammount of theology books.. whenever they start going abuot claiming what was really said, they are just making stuff up to go along with their own wishes).

Jon Miller

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Umm, everyone knows there were issues with different oppinions of Christ. Even from the time He lived on this earth. Even in the Paulian gospels you can see evidences of argments about what Christianity should be.

If you look at the Gnostic literature, for example, you can see why Christianity went the way it did. (gnostics are definitely way out, compared to Paul who is the founder of what we call christianity).

I doubt everyone knows there were controversies, though most educated people do, and I assume Pekka does. But not everybody knows what the controversies were, and they should.

As for being out there -- have you read any gnostic gospels? I just read the Gospel of Thomas the other night, and its no further out that than John (to say nothing of Revelations).

You're point about Paul is key here (though I think you actually have the wrong guy; I would argue that the real founder of what you are calling Christianity was not Paul but Iraneas, who more than anyone else codified the New Testament). Regardless, though, the problem you fail to see is that there are people who want to follow Jesus, and who don't feel as if they need the guidance of Paul, or Iraneas, or Constantine, or Anathasius, or anyone else who sought to supressed Jesus's original rich, vibrant, diverse following.

There's the 3 synoptic Gospels; everything else is intepretation and commentary -- including John's Gospel, all of Paul, and everything else in the NT adds up to. I see no reason why Pekka's take on Jesus wouldn't be as valid as theirs. If he wants to follow Jesus but you want to deny him the label of "Christian" -- well, that's certainly what Iraneas would do. Jesus himself, though, probably not.

[laurentius]

My advice is go to the church and find the truth in the eord itsewlf. sa Kirkegaard in his great wisdom said: the only way is to believe the unbelievable, to have some faith. You cant bet for sure in this game, but yoiu better gamble or you cnt win at all.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I doubt everyone knows there were controversies, though most educated people do, and I assume Pekka does. But not everybody knows what the controversies were, and they should.

As for being out there -- have you read any gnostic gospels? I just read the Gospel of Thomas the other night, and its no further out that than John (to say nothing of Revelations).

You're point about Paul is key here (though I think you actually have the wrong guy; I would argue that the real founder of what you are calling Christianity was not Paul but Iraneas, who more than anyone else codified the New Testament). Regardless, though, the problem you fail to see is that there are people who want to follow Jesus, and who don't feel as if they need the guidance of Paul, or Iraneas, or Constantine, or Anathasius, or anyone else who sought to supressed Jesus's original rich, vibrant, diverse following.

There's the 3 synoptic Gospels; everything else is intepretation and commentary -- including John's Gospel, all of Paul, and everything else in the NT adds up to. I see no reason why Pekka's take on Jesus wouldn't be as valid as theirs. If he wants to follow Jesus but you want to deny him the label of "Christian" -- well, that's certainly what Iraneas would do. Jesus himself, though, probably not.

It's a matter of definition. Sure, I agree that others follow Christ. But to be Christian, you have to share some things in common with the others who call themselves Christians...

And it isn't just following Christ, otherwise all muslims would be christians.

By this definition of Christianity, Gnosticism isn't Christianity. It is another Christ following group, like muslims. And I agree that it is interesting. But it isn't Christianity.

And from my readings of the gnostic scriptures, they seemed obviously, and heavily, influenced by some of the surround ideas. Now this is true of the book of John as well.

Most of Paul is held by even the liberalist of theologians as being written by the same person (There are some letters they feel were written by someone else, based upon certain writing differences), and there is much evidence that Paul's letter's were written shortly after the time of Christ (fragments are found pre 100AD, most liberal theogians agree that he existed shortly after Christ's death).

So while Iranease may have had a huge part it deciding what is in our Bible. That was highly determined by the theology of the time, which was founded by Paul.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Basically there is not a whole lot of actual quotes of Christ (if we could find Q or something that would help). As such we have to look at what other people beleived at the time, to better understand what Christ preached.

Now the gnostics were a group than, not as favored, and as I said obviously and heavily influenced by outside thought.

That is why Paul is important to Christianity, he started the theology (Salvation, Grace, etc). One came to be Christianity was markedly different than the ideas of the time, which suggests that at it's heart are the revolutionary ideas of Jesus Christ.

JM

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It's a matter of definition. Sure, I agree that others follow Christ. But to be Christian, you have to share some things in common with the others who call themselves Christians...

That's the Orthodox view of course. However that view was pretty much layed down by the church long, long time ago.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
And it isn't just following Christ, otherwise all muslims would be christians.

Not really. Muslims and Jews reject the notion of Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah, for example.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
By this definition of Christianity, Gnosticism isn't Christianity. It is another Christ following group, like muslims. And I agree that it is interesting. But it isn't Christianity.

That's more politics for you, Jon. The thing is if the Gnostics had won you'd be following what they had said instead.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Yes, God is a personal God in Christianity. Important difference from Buddhism.

At least for most of the christian denominations.
Of all the christian denominations,
the faith of the Unitarians seems to resemble my beliefs
(maybe the unitarians could be interesting for pekka, too)

Good point. Consider this. Suppose you build yourself a nice big shed. Then after you finish, decide to demolish the shed and rebuild. It wasn't what you liked.

Now, compare that to someone who goes over to his neighbour and sees his shed. The shed is ugly, it really bothers him, so he takes a sledgehammer and totally demolishes the shed.

The two are quite different. You are allowed to destroy that which you own and made yourself, because without you, it would not have been made. The same is with God. God has privileges we do not possess, we do not have the right to kill another person any more then we have the right to destroy a neighbour's shed.

I agree with you that, according to the faith that "he" created us (and we are therefore his possession) he could do whatever he wishes to us.
Of course (taking your example of the shed) if someone has the power to disassemble it plank by plank and nail by nail, it would still be nicer to do it this way instead of just demolishing it (after all much of the material [which would be lost if you just demolish the shed] could still be used for a new shed or other things)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Not really. Muslims and Jews reject the notion of Jesus of Nazareth being the Messiah, for example.

yes

but muslims consider Him a prophet

which is the level that some of the earlier Christ following branches consider him as...

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's more politics for you, Jon. The thing is if the Gnostics had won you'd be following what they had said instead.

yes, if things were different 1800 years ago, things would be different now

I don't see your point, really

JM

[Pekka]

Ok let's shine the idea behind this thread more, it's getting kind of lost.

It's not 'I don't have faith anymore', it's not 'I hate Jesus' it's none of thsoe things. It's not 'All Christians are bad'.

One of the bigger issues I think Nomsky sometimes brings out is that in order for you to make change, it can be frustration for the system, terrorism, what ever.. is to stop participating in it.

I'm frustrated in the Christian movement, organized religion as a whole. I don't even think it might be realistic to see those positive change as long as it stays organized. THat's just the way I feel about it, it doesn't mean that I think they are evil or bad idea all the time. Most folks are just fine.

But as this super entity, there's no way you can jump behind the wheel and start driving it and turn it around. There's just no way.

So I'm thinking if I should just stop participating in it. Get out. Make it as my statement against organized religion when it comes to me. It doesnt' mean I'm against peo ple who are in it and if they so assume, they assume wrong. It's not right for me, that's what I feel.

[Jon Miller]

Sorry for getting off topic in your thread Pekka, I just sometimes feel like I should respawn.

And once more.. I feel you. I didn't go to church for a whole year once, and am rarely involved anymore. I still hope to find a good one though.

And there might have been a good one or so, that I didn't give enough of a chance.

Jon Miller

[Pekka]

It's not like I'm depressed about this or anything personally I just see like.. well... let's make an example.

We are like all lutheran nation. Old school, pain suffer death burn. Around the world, there are lots of sections that are different, they focus on different things etc.
I guess these different sections have had the same idea as I have, we've seen some things we need to focus on differently so we establish our own.

I see that as double edged knife. On the other hand, it's good that you would do something about it and do what you think is right.

Then again, this only creates million subsets, and then we all think these other guys are kind of in the same route but inherently wrong. What's the point?

I don't think it as you are right, I am wrong, your beliefs are more correct or that my beliefs are supported by more academics. I think we are all right and we are all wrong.

The example.. I could create my own segment of Jesus's left leg. Every wednesday, in the middle of the week, we stand on our right legs for 5 minutes because we know Jesus had to walk a lot and his left leg was half an inch taller so he had pain in his left leg, so we relief the pain in Jesus' leg by standing on our right, getting the pressure out.

Sounds ridiculous. But it doesn't differ too much from many other groups and their 'real truth'.

You knwo I think it's counter productive when we are about the real truths. It inevitably makes us go into different groups etc that are at least in some ways against the others. There would be no point of creating your own group in that sense. Even if it was 'ok we think everyone is right or wrong'.

We should look more into what we have in common and use that, not the other way, which is the case.

When is the last time we thought 'hmm, we need to bring some positive changes here, what should we do, we need some new strategies'? THere's no real push for that, there's no push for new stuff. The only new stuff is the list of banned things and condemning if we have new phenomenons or what ever. When is the last time we looked in the mirror and asked ourselves, is this really wrong, why, couldn't we kind of work this out?

We see the problem in others too often. For any change to happen, we should find the problem in ourselves too. Now, the only thing close to what I think was what Jesus would approve was some parts of the hippie movement. I see that as action that was closer to it than any organized religion. Not as a whole, but some parts.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ok let's shine the idea behind this thread more, it's getting kind of lost.

It's not 'I don't have faith anymore', it's not 'I hate Jesus' it's none of thsoe things. It's not 'All Christians are bad'.

One of the bigger issues I think Nomsky sometimes brings out is that in order for you to make change, it can be frustration for the system, terrorism, what ever.. is to stop participating in it.

I'm frustrated in the Christian movement, organized religion as a whole. I don't even think it might be realistic to see those positive change as long as it stays organized. THat's just the way I feel about it, it doesn't mean that I think they are evil or bad idea all the time. Most folks are just fine.

But as this super entity, there's no way you can jump behind the wheel and start driving it and turn it around. There's just no way.

So I'm thinking if I should just stop participating in it. Get out. Make it as my statement against organized religion when it comes to me. It doesnt' mean I'm against peo ple who are in it and if they so assume, they assume wrong. It's not right for me, that's what I feel.

This is exactly how I felt when I left the Church, years ago. Leaving the Church, I've retained and even expanded my interest in the teachings of Jesus, and I continue to follow those teachings (though I'm not really interested in worshipping him as a Sky-God; he doesn't appear to have been interested in that, either). Judged by my actions, I'm no less Christian -- indeed, I'm more of one -- now than I was as a churchgoer. I do miss a spiritual community, and every few years think about dallying with either the Unitarians or some very, very liberal Episcopalians. But I haven't yet, and may never do so.

I'm just saying, for what it's worth, that you're not the first.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Pekka
It's not like I'm depressed about this or anything personally I just see like.. well... let's make an example.

We are like all lutheran nation. Old school, pain suffer death burn. Around the world, there are lots of sections that are different, they focus on different things etc.
I guess these different sections have had the same idea as I have, we've seen some things we need to focus on differently so we establish our own.

I see that as double edged knife. On the other hand, it's good that you would do something about it and do what you think is right.

Then again, this only creates million subsets, and then we all think these other guys are kind of in the same route but inherently wrong. What's the point?

I don't think it as you are right, I am wrong, your beliefs are more correct or that my beliefs are supported by more academics. I think we are all right and we are all wrong.

The example.. I could create my own segment of Jesus's left leg. Every wednesday, in the middle of the week, we stand on our right legs for 5 minutes because we know Jesus had to walk a lot and his left leg was half an inch taller so he had pain in his left leg, so we relief the pain in Jesus' leg by standing on our right, getting the pressure out.

Sounds ridiculous. But it doesn't differ too much from many other groups and their 'real truth'.

You knwo I think it's counter productive when we are about the real truths. It inevitably makes us go into different groups etc that are at least in some ways against the others. There would be no point of creating your own group in that sense. Even if it was 'ok we think everyone is right or wrong'.

We should look more into what we have in common and use that, not the other way, which is the case.

When is the last time we thought 'hmm, we need to bring some positive changes here, what should we do, we need some new strategies'? THere's no real push for that, there's no push for new stuff. The only new stuff is the list of banned things and condemning if we have new phenomenons or what ever. When is the last time we looked in the mirror and asked ourselves, is this really wrong, why, couldn't we kind of work this out?

We see the problem in others too often. For any change to happen, we should find the problem in ourselves too. Now, the only thing close to what I think was what Jesus would approve was some parts of the hippie movement. I see that as action that was closer to it than any organized religion. Not as a whole, but some parts.

As mentioned in my posting above,
maybe youir belief, too,
resembles the belief of the unitarian universalism
(which among other things includes the belief,
that there are many ways which lead to "god" (and that not scriptures are the most important things for belief, but your own conscience) and therefore doesn´t state that "my belief is the correct one and all other beliefs are wrong and lead to hell and/or eternal damnation")

[Pekka]

Rufus, right. I think what really is a sign of things going in the wrong way is if I would go there, state that I'm out and this is why, and that I hope you all think about it yourselves too, there wouldn't be any positive reactions. They'd be like 'oh he's getting out of the light.. he's gone insane... he's abandoning us all' what ever it is, but it would not be positive.

It would be difficult for many to understand, that this does not mean abandoning anything. Quite the contrary, it would be extending to action what I personally feel would be my duty AS a Christian at this moment.

And these people, how can they say to me that then you aren't a Christian anymore. Why do I need to belong into Jesus' left leg segment in order to belong? I don't need their acceptance. It's way too personal for me anyway. I'd be the 'guy who left the church' and not the one 'who saw wrong in the system and went on his own way as a statement and as something he saw as a must in order for him to stay Christian'.

In a way, myself and many fellow Finns are victims of Christianity. We come form deth pain suffer school. It's not that we feel so strongly the love of the lord, it's that we are afraid what happens if we get out. THat's fear right there, even if most admits it or not, that's the wrong premise for anything, unless God is Macchiavellian character, which I don't think he is. This fear is man made, unnaturally installed in order to keep organized religion alive and in numbers. This is a fact. So even in this thing, I do not wish to participate in this kind of scare tactics, I just simply don't believe things to be this way. I do not believe in this, not in any way, shape or form and I do think this is against what I think is being a good Christian is all about.