I believe what's important is "can a person think freely?" If a person can, will he or she find it necessary to be overly involved with any particular approach that has been defined by others?  It seems to me that every Religion has its shortcomings.

If a person wants to be involved with a particular religion that is his choice, but I don't feel the need to be overly protective of any thought system that has limitations and inaccuracies.

If Jesus lived today and was asked what religion or denomination to follow ("or denomination" since Christians often disagree with each other), he would probably answer, "follow your heart."

I once had a dream where I was in a classroom and people were talking about how can we change the World for the better. I sugggested that some Christian Fundamentalists be included in this meeting. Suddenly an angry Jesus said, "Impossible!" Perhaps this means that they don't represent what he was and is about.

Don (Berserk):

Since you're a part of a church that does a lot of good and know of other Churches that do the same, it must be annoying when people speak of Christiantiy in a blanket-statement-negative way.

When it comes to some people, I don't believe they do so because they are awful people.  Rather they are turned off by the negative things that "some,"  "not all" Christians do. 

I don't like it when "some" Christians make Jesus seem like a dictator that people can't be happy about when they hear his name.  I don't believe that a person can fully put his heart into his spiritual practice if he feels as if he better or else.  It's important to know what negative choices will lead to, but positive inspiration needs to be the main thing.

This being the case, people are bound to feel resistive and defensive, if they feel as if somebody is trying to force them to believe in a particular way, by saying "you better or else."

Perhaps John 3:16 and the verses that follow are more about what happens when people call out for Jesus' help after they die. They receive it! Examples we know about are NDEs such as Howard Storm's NDE.  I read and listened to the accounts of other NDEs where a person started out in a hell like realm, called for Jesus' help, and received it.

John 3:16 might've played a role in their thinking to ask for Jesus' help.  Perhaps it simply means that if you believe that Jesus will help you after you die, he will in some way do so.

It could be that I am being too liberal with what John 3:16 etc say. Nevertheless, I think Jesus is too reasonable for what Evangelicals say about John 3:16 to be true.

Berserk2 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:


What Don states here gets to the crux of the matter.  All interpretation is subjectively based on our own personal ego, fears, beliefs that have accumilated in our personal consciousness throughout our life.  Holding onto these helps no one. 

Only by letting go of fear and belief and searching with an open, yet skeptical heart and mind can we improve our consciousness and therefore improve ourselves and how we relate to others.  It's only by being fearless that we can discover evidence for truth.

Bardo-

Over the years I have repeatedly said that the Golden Rule and helping others is the bottom line we should all seek for.  And if we are true to that, to me it doesn't matter what organized religion or denomination to which we belong.

I just happen to be inspired by many of the things Jesus said.  One of my favorites is "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."

"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

R

Yes, and Pauli, to see how unfair your generalization really is, get the DVD of the movie that the British Film Academy rates as the greatest movie on a spiritual theme ever produced--Robert DeNiro in "The Mission."  I agree with that lofty assessment and would only add that it depicts the most moving spiritual conversion ever seen on the screen.  It didn't get such high rave reviews in the USA--too slow paced for shorter American attention spans.  But even the Hollywood Screen Actors Guild rated the musical score the 17th best ever--and it's not even a musical.  Based on a true story, the movie depicts the Jesuit efforts to convert Amazon Indians during the era of Spanish and Portuguese slave traders.  These Catholics give their lives to protect these Indians from slavery!  The movie also features Liam Neeson and Jerermy Irons. 

Don

Pauli,

You are confusing matters of religion with matters of politics and man.  There is nothing in the gospels that mentions the right to enslave others.  Yet people who are members of any organization (religious or political) can find reasons to justify any earthly misdeeds that they want to rationalize.

What is more important is what is actually in the NT (gospels).  All the teachings of Jesus seem to point to being loving, non-judgmental, and not injuring another.  Paul, who founded the church, was living during the Roman empire, when slavery was a fact of life.  Slavery was never specifically supported, but if one was a slave, there was a way, according to the early church founders, to worship God and be a good person.

Man and societies have used whatever suited their interests over the years to justify ego-driven self satisfying actions.  So to talk about the church itself, the Inquisition, etc. speaks more to what did a group of self-appointed men do with the NT, not what do the gospels teach us. 

Just saying.

Matthew

Another point Pauli-

You focus on slave trade.  I wonder, however, if you are aware that the countries who were trading in slaves had slaves of their own even before sending any of them overseas?  It wasn't Catholics who initiated slavery.

Slavery is an ancient practice.  There is even evidence that Egyptians used slave labor to build the pyramids.  That was, I think you'll agree, before the time of the Catholic Church.

R

Do Americans living today bear the blood of the slaves some Americans held in the past? Does the sin of the institution devolve to its descendents, even if they are pure themselves (as individuals)? If the institution today still carries the policies or prejudices that marked the ancestral entity, then those who willingly associate themselves with it bear the mark, I think.  However, if the current organization has changed, recognized the sin of their past behavior and is now "in the light", then should the current adherants be tarred with the same brush?