I find the concept of an eternal hell contradictory to the ideal of a loving God. My puny human brain doesn't know what Justice is... I also find it interesting how certain accounts of heaven in the Bible is laced with gold and riches. Human inspired exaggeration perhaps, but I would think it conveys the wrong overall message... Don't forget Goldman Sachs's Christ. "The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest," Goldman’s Griffiths said Oct. 20, his voice echoing around the gold-mosaic walls of St. Paul’s Cathedral, whose 365-feet-high dome towers over the City, London’s financial district. "We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all." I would think a believer is held to a higher standard, since he would presumably knows better, is one of the chosen, and doesn't sin under the cover of pure ignorance....
Have you read the bible? If so could you give a few examples of passage that led you to believe this? The article in the OP gives an accurate and well supported description of what Jesus said and did, imo, and I’m curious about which parts of the bible led you to believe differently.
I’ll take a stab at rimbaud’s post. It’s important to note first that there are major confrontations between groups that call themselves regularly, and almost continually, and these have existed since biblical times. W.r.t. the Third World church, I’m not sure that it’s a monolithic unit, and the First World church is very diverse as well, so I don’t really see an impending Third World vs. First World confrontation. Many of the issues in the First World church right now are essentially tribal as well. Too many people tend to see themselves as Catholic, Baptist, etc. rather than seeing themselves as Christians first. Many people give more authority to the leaders of their church than they give to Jesus and the Bible, and this gives those church leaders the power to lead people astray, which happens all too often. There are some “emergent churches” which are mega churches, like Rob Bell’s church in Michigan, but that aside it will be very interesting to see how this new revival movement progresses. Arguably throughout history there have been cycles of renewal and stagnation, but at the very least we seem to be in a renewal period now. I cut this out because I don’t understand the reference. I’m somewhat familiar with Osteen but not enough to catch what you’re getting at here. Christianity is fundamentally a personal thing, a personal understanding/belief/awareness. If all one is doing is conforming to an external set of rules and traditions then you’re not doing it right. Churches are inherently imperfect communities of people who believe similar things. You’ll never find one you’re completely happy with but you should find one that you are substantially happy with, and if you’re not you should find a different church, or band together with other like minded people and form a community of your own. I think I may have essentially answered these above, but if not then feel free to elaborate and I’ll answer whatever I missed.
Alternatively, you could just alter the bible to say whatever you want. You know, like what has been done (with varying impact) for about 2000 years or so.
Hold the phone. I've read through the synoptic Gospels, as you suggest, quite a bit. And I don't get anything that suggests that Jesus did NOT love everyone...and I don't get where you'd suggest that Claiborne (the author of the article) would suggest he didn't judge....he was extremely judgmental of the religious....of course, he calls us to judge with great great great caution recognizing that we've got our own crap that is equally crappy in God's eyes. He did "party along" with sinners and was condemned for it by the religious. He never patted sin on the back...he didn't tell the adulterer, "keep up the good work!!" -- but his judgment was for those willing to cast stones at her. To her, he simply said, "go and sin no more." Love and law exist with a necessary tension. But in service of a merciful God, I'm erring towards mercy and forgiveness if I'm trying to follow Him. Claiborne is a guy who I see doing that BIG TIME. I'm not sure if you're aware of the amazing things his group has done for folks, but you'd have a very difficult time convincing me that God hasn't used this man quite deliberately.
Ten things to do this Christmas season: 1. Contact a friend you haven't spoken to in years. 2. Visit someone who rarely sees visitors. 3. Tell your parents thank you... for everything. 4. Forgive someone, you need it. 5. Sing the old Christmas carols, to the Lord. 6. Take a child to see the lights. 7. Bake Christmas cookies and give them to a stranger. 8. Invite someone who has no one to do something fun. 9. Spend an evening visiting with the family at home. No TV. 10. Make a memory you will never forget. Life is short. Merry Christmas
You misunderstood a little, I think. No, there is no Third world church, I was just saying that on the whole they are all more conservative. If you take the catholic example - African, Asian, etc Catholic organizations are all a mix of pre-Vatican II old school and tribal in their spirituality/superstition. I am blank on his name now, but I know there is a big African bishop who is making a move for more power in the Vatican and he has hammered "Western" Catholocism for being too loose with the times and the like. So there is that foundational difference in doctrinal approach and then there is the difference in the added supernatural and superstitious (to Christians) elements that exist in Christianity in Africa, Latin America, the Phillipines, etc. I am not saying there will be a holy war, just that the "First World" has had a more flexible approach to Christianity and as the world gets smaller and the groups interact more, there will be pains. Is there a renewal period, really? I know the number of proclaimed atheists is on the rise. A lot of the big boom in Christianity also seems a bit to me like a superficial one. Which brings me to: I was saying that Osteen's "prosperity gospel" and religion as self-help (everyone is a good person, everyone should love themselves, everyone can be happy and successful...because God loves you) will always be more popular and successful than Max's preferred Christian message of "look to Christ, care for others, give your time and money to those who need it, don't rely on superficial slogans as religion, etc. because Max's church requires more work, more commitment, and actually interacting with and helping others. That is way less fun and sexy than thinking that I should go ask my boss for a raise because God loves me and I deserve it. My original statement was me trying to ascribe that belief to Max and the original author and those kinds of Christians. What you say is definitely what they seem to be doing. I just wonder how all of this will develop over the next decades and century. Christianity started splintered and confusing but then converged into one mega church that was fairly solidly controlled by rules and traditions that you described as the wrong practice. Now it is ever multiplying and changing.
Great read. There can never be enough Jesus threads, and I really liked that quote from ghandi. I had never heard it before.
Not to piss people off, but when I read this, I thought it seemed relevant to the back and forth about what Jesus 'really' believed. The Cliff Notes version is that people are really, really good at conflating personal beliefs with their opinion of God's "immutable truths" to such a degree that God always wants what they personally want. (And control techniques show that it is beliefs about God being derived from personal beliefs, not the other way around.) source [rquoter] The Ultimate Argument from Authority If you want to know the mind of God – look in the mirror. That is the conclusion of Nicholas Epley and his team who studied people’s beliefs about God’s beliefs. They asked subjects a series of questions about controversial moral issues, such as the death penalty and abortion, and also asked them about beliefs on those issues of famous people and of God. Not surprisingly, subjects’ own beliefs mirrored the beliefs they attributed to God. This, of course, can have multiple interpretations. It may indicate that people tend to attribute to God their own moral beliefs. But it may also result from people acquiring their moral belief from the teachings of their faith. Also, culture or other factors may influence both moral beliefs and beliefs attributed to God. So Epley added a control – he used an already established technique to alter the beliefs of the subjects. People are more malleable than we would like to think – our beliefs can be manipulated simply by asking leading questions. In fact, political campaigners have applied this to what is called “push polling” – conducting a poll or survey, the purpose of which is not to gather information but to plant thought in the minds of those polled. “Are you bothered by the accusations of a sex scandal with candidate X?” We are more susceptible to such suggestions when we are not aware that they are being made – when we think we’re just answering a survey, not the target of attempts to change our opinion. Epley used these techniques, for example having subjects write an essay espousing the opposite opinion to the one they expressed on initial questioning, on the subjects. On re-questioning about belief he found that subjects shifted the beliefs that they attribute to God, but not to other famous people. This means that beliefs about what God believes can be shifted by the same techniques used to shift our own beliefs. Epley’s team then did an fMRI study (I guess no psychological study today is complete without some fMRI correlate) and they found that when contemplating their own beliefs and the beliefs of God the same part of the brain became active, and that this was distinct from when they were contemplating the beliefs of the “average American.” These two lines of evidence both suggest that people tend to project onto God their own moral beliefs. This, of course, does not mean people of faith make up their moral beliefs without any influence from faith or culture – it’s likely a dynamic process. But it does imply that people can change their moral beliefs first, and then attribute those changing beliefs to God after the fact. People of faith synchronize their moral beliefs with those they attribute to God, and the influence is at least partly from the faithful to the imagined deity. This, of course, becomes the ultimate argument from authority for the faithful – you cannot argue with an omniscient deity. I suspect, however, that the same psychological processes are at work even in those without faith. It would be interested to repeat this study but substitute some other authority for God, like the scientific consensus, leading experts, or Einstein. The reason for my suspicion is other psychological experiments that show that we tend to arrive at conclusions for mysterious (to us) subconscious reasons and then rationalize those conclusions, mainly to convince ourselves that we are rational beings. This is why questioning our own motives, and our own process, is critical to a skeptical and scientific outlook. We must realize that the default mode of human psychology is to grab onto comforting beliefs for purely emotional reasons, and then justify those beliefs to ourselves with post-hoc rationalizations. It takes effort to rise above this tendency, to step back from our beliefs and our emotional connection to conclusions and focus on the process. The process (i.e science, logic, and intellectual rigor) has to be more important than the belief. [/rquoter]
doesn't piss me off at all, otto. but if there's one thing i think is made pretty clear in the Bible over and over and over again...a common theme throughout...is that God cares for the poor and asks people to be engaged in serving one another.
Max, first of all, I don't know anything about Claiborne or his works. If you say he is doing great things, more power to him. My comments have nothing to do with that issue. Who has done more sacrificial service that Mother Teresa? But she once said that there is more than one way to God. Do you agree with her statement? What I object to is the portrayal of Christians as politically incorrect dufuses who hate gays and just about everyone else. They are intolerant, mean spirited, moralistic, and thoroughly obnoxious, BUT Jesus is "cool." He loves everybody, embraces any and all modern practices, and is totally with the contemporary scene. NONSENSE! Of course "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world" as it says in the article, but what he neglects to add is "because the world is condemned already." It is a question of balance, for therein is the truth. Grace and Love are all the more beautiful, because a perfectly righteous and just God is a consuming fire. What is missing from the modern conversation is "holiness." Contemporary evangelicals want everyone to "accept" Jesus; what they should really be concerned about is Jesus accepting them. Finally, the fact that Jesus' critics accused him of being a "wine bibber and glutton" doesn't make it true. Nowhere does His supporters or disciples agree with such a characterization. The Jesus who is coming back is hardly the light hearted "contextualized" buddy of cultural Christianity, but a Holy Warrior ready to judge the quick and the dead.
Jesus most certainly did love everyone. I don't actually see anybody claiming that Jesus embraces all practices, but the method he used to try and change practices that weren't pleasing to God was seems to be very much in line with what the original post talked about. Have you read the story of the witnessing to the Ethiopian in the chariot? It's a great example of how to witness. There were no threats of do things this way or suffer. The driver asked questions and the witness listened and told why his life was the way it was. The bible teaches us that we can have different beliefs in Jesus, and it's not for us to judge each other on those beliefs, but to fully believe our own, and not to get in the way of another's belief. According to the bible what may be a sin for one person isn't a sin for another person.
Madmax, I am glad it was you who started this thread as I was a little miffed with the thread title thinking someone was jumping your case about something. You see I don't believe in God and if I did I couldn't care less his opinion of me but with that said I must say whenever I read anything you have said on his behalf I feel you always say it the right way. If the rest of the religious world and nonreligious world too for that matter went about things the way you do; well then this rock we all call home would be a better place. Carry on my man.
I'm not asking you to believe me, but to believe the bible. It's right there that each person may have different ideas of what's right and wrong, and that each person should be convinced to their ideas, and answer to only to God. Other people shouldn't tell them they are wrong, or make them stumble but instead: "... make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. It doesn't sound like what you are talking about now would lead to peace or mutual edification among believers. As the passage says your way may be right, if you believe so then follow it, but don't judge another person's way as wrong, because that's between them and God.
