Berserk2 wrote on Aug 11^th, 2007 at 10:03pm:

I've already been thinking outside the box.. That's why I left Christianity.. Christianity made me a close-minded judgemental person..  I don't want to be a part of a religion that preaches fear and condemnation..

Don

Just a quick one - OK, I made generalisations, but, as I said it the other thread, arguments like these can and do just go on and on depending on what bit of infomration you focus on. For example, when I said jews didn;t believe in Hell, I meant that in OT days this was not a focus for them. They were firstly more interested in this life and its rewards )often seen as coming from God, for good behaviour) and sufferrings, and when they thought about life after death, it was usually in relation to a sadowy, ill-defined palce called Sheol, which was not associated with punishment. I am sure you are right that the Christian idea of Hell did not emerge from a vaccum and was probably around in some jewish ideas at the start of the 1st Century - there were plenty of competing sects and opinions after all - for example the Sadducees, the leading upper class priestly sect, didn;t believe in any kind of afterlife at all as I recall (Josephus). I expect it was also influenced by Zoroastrianism. One thing I am pretty sure about is that the Jews, on the whole, were not awaiting the Messiah as someone who would save them from their sin (and hence hell), as they thought their temple sacrfices and so forth did this job (note how the author of the letter to the Hebrews crafts his arguments around his view that jesus has now replaced this system, to try to impress his fellow jews). Also I am pretty sure i am correct when I say they did not believe in "original" sin, which is explained by christians as the need for jesus' sacrifice. I mean, for goodness sake, God killed the whole sinful generation of mankind descended from Adam in the flood, leaving only the "righteous"Noah and his family with whom he made a new covenant. Nowhere is it suggested that this comes with a proviso that "sorry Noah, did I mention you and eveyone else are still condemned to a pretty nasty place I call hell because of what Adam did. Shucks I guess in a few thousand years I will figure out what to do about that one". Also the Jews did not see the awaited Messiah as someone who would be God in the form of a man, but just God's "anointed" representative, who they thought would create a new kingdom on earth, bringing back the days of prosperity of David and Solomon, but better.

As for heretics, I am aware there was conflict between different versions of Christainity before the Council of Nicea, but that event had the effect - and intention - of cutting though this and pinning down official dogma. As the agreed dogma would henceforth have the backing of the emperor, that meant that pretty soon things became rather unpleasant for "heretics".

Anyway, I decided a while ago that historical and theological arguments don't get you far and I didn;t come to this board looking to rehash all this sort of thing. I dare say you are better read and more up-to-speed on it all than me anyway, for whatever good it may do you. The whole area is one where black and white certainty can never be found so it will furnish scholars with material for argumnets for centries to come no doubt, none of which gets us any further in finding out what the menaing of life or the reality of spiritual matters might be

Don

If you are developing a progressive and positive version of Christainity (which is also, you say, based at least in part on a reassessment/study of early sources) then that's fine. But what I refer to in other posts is not just a straw man I have invented, but aspects of history or conventional Christian doctrines as taught for the last two millennia and still taught in many mainstream churches. For you to claim your teachings are "christianity"is  at least as misleading IMO (perhaps more so as yours seem less representative and held by fewer people) than for Bruce to see his childhood Lutheranism as "christianity"(which you complained about).

orlando123 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2007 at 11:23am:

I agree, with you orlando123.. If, your Christianity is different than most fundimental Christian churches I applaud you Don.. But you need to realize the fundies been around a long time and still hold down the USA.. There are a very select few of liberal Christians like yourself.. I don't mind liberal Christians or Christian mystics, Universalists and Christian spiritualists.. So, I don't know why you and I arguing Don?? You are defending someone else's beliefs..  You are very misleading too..

peace

I'd just like to reiterate/clarify/ in relation to Jesus, that I have no problem with many of the teachings attributed to him or with people taking inspiration from him in one way or another, however I do have problems with anyone saying holding certain beliefs about him is in some way essential to our eternal happiness or pain. It is just this - which has been claimed by a large proportion of Chistians throughout history - which I find misguided and deeply unhelpful to human progress. It is for this reason I have pointed out some of the difficulties, for example, in being sure of exactly who he was and what he taught and did  and what he "means" etc (because historical evidence is scanty and all sorts of opinions, some logically bizzarre, have been put forward over the years). A good example of this problem is the Jesus Seminar, a group of 200 eminent Jesus scholars (of mostly fairly Liberal views ) who studied sayings and actions  of Jesus in the gospels, meeting up twice a year for a decade or so,  where they voted as to whether they thought it was definitely said or done by him, probably, possibly, or defintely not. Only about 18% of the sayings and 16% of actions were eventually agreed on as being definitely or probably true by most of the scholars. IMO this is not good enough if we are going to claim  that the ruler of the universe insists on us holding a specific set of beliefs about Jesus in order to have eternal heaven or hell.

If you personally feel you have insights and contact with him that help you, I say that's fine and positive, but no more so, IMO, than, for example someone saying they get  insights and confort from praying to Krishna, for example, which I would also be cool with if it helps them.

Also, if you personally aim to copy jesus and do the kind of things he recommended, that's also fine by me, even if sometimes if you took him literally it would be a bit impractical - giving all your goods to the poor and so on.

It is my personal belief that he existed and told people to pay less attention to finickety religious rules and more to loving each other, and that he was crucified, perhaps because he became unpopular with the religious elite (especially if the account of overturning the money-changers' tables is true). It is my view that he was an inspiring but not perfect person, and that, for example his belief was that the end of the world was coming soon and we should prepare for it. This turned out not to be true. I personally doubt he planned to die as part of his scheme and am doubtful about whether or not he claimed he would return from the dead, and/or actually did so (unless in a purely spiritual form). I also doubt he claimed to be in any form "God incarnate" (which would be extraordinary in orthodox Judaism and was not expected of the Messiah) but feel he wanted people to develop a more trusting relationship with the being /power he called his "father" (in the sense that God is father to us all). I think he was an observant Jew who did not want to start a new religion, but wanted a kind of version of what the Protestants were trying to do at the Reformation (i.e. to get back to what he saw as the essentials). I suspect the early church elaborated their beliefs about him after his death (including, for example, dredging the OT for anything that could possibly be made to seem a prophecy of him etc), then they continued for a long time to hope for his return from Heaven as they had believed him to be the awaited Messiah who was expected to transform the world. We know what happened next (Constantine, the Roman catholic Church etc). This is just my opnion and I don't particularly want to argue about it as it is unproveable.

Thank you. However the post is now about twice as long as I just edited it