Prediction: How Progressive Christians Will Save Jesus

[sojourner]

You claimed that unconditional love is a Christian tradition. I don't understand how one makes sense of Salvation if there's no Hell to be saved from; and if Hell exists, how can God's love be unconditional?

So, I can't accept your claim but a sound, reasoned argument would change my mind if you have one.

For sure, the Fundigelical traditions have made the “heaven/Hell Gambit” the crux of theological reasoning. But progressive Xy isn’t so much concerned with “what comes next” as it is with “what’s happening right now.” That’s the beauty of progressive Xy. It seeks to create little islands of decency in a sea of chaos right here, right now — just as Jesus did in healing, in blessing, in teaching. We aren’t to be saved “from Hell.” We are to be saved “for Christ” — that is, set free to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly, as Micah says.

 

[sojourner]

I am only able to understand love in human terms. I understand unconditional love because I love my children unconditionally. I don't understand the absolute love you write about or how not to love absolutely on God's part would deny existence. I'm not sure how human theologians came up with that as being in God's nature.

I can understand how punishing someone as instruction would be an act of love. But having someone suffer eternal punishment for not accepting a religious doctrine would be criminally unjust. I don't believe a Loving Creator would be so unjust. I think it is far more likely that humans created Hell to act as the punishment in the reward and punishment manipulation of naive minds.

I think you’re more on the right path than you may imagine. I think you “get” progressive Xy far more than you think you do.

 

[joe1776]

The great irony is that reward and punishment is made an eternal condition in the teachings of many Christians for those who should need it the least if they truly know and have accepted Christ..

A young woman with the ambition to become a minister says she wants to reflect the unconditional love of Jesus and show love to atheists. She's doing it, she says, because she doesn't want to go to Hell.

She didn't see the contradiction -- and I didn't explain it to her. She sees herself as capable of unconditional love, but the god she worships, in her eyes, is not.

 

[joe1776]

I think you’re more on the right path than you may imagine. I think you “get” progressive Xy far more than you think you do.

I think I'm on the right path and I have no doubt that progressive Christianity is on the right path also. In the OP, I'm offering my opinion on what direction that path might take.

 

[sealchan]

1): Brainwashed Christians cannot read any level except they are brainwashed with "You are a sinner AND go to Hell UNLESS you follow Jesus"

A person I see as 3: a)the one others think they are + b)the one they think they are + c)the one they really are
a)Priest tells you "you are a sinner" --> b)You think "I am a sinner" --> c)Forget about ever knowing who you really are ("sinner/Hell" tactic is Black Magic at it's worst)

People get paralized when telling them "you are a sinner AND go to Hell UNLESS you believe in Jesus".
This is the perfect recipe to make sure they will never think for themselves again.

Psychology know this !!!
Why does the government allow + promotes this???
Why does the Church preach this???
Why do priests teach this???

Solve these first

Then step 2):

Yes, the self perpetuating cycle of emotional and psychological abuse used to maintain a power structure for religion and potentially then also for government. Jesus was tempted with this and warned against it. Ironic is it not?

There is one cognitive science researcher that sees that much of conservative morality is based on a strict father metaphor. The strict father knows what is best, should be obeyed and trusted to take care of your needs, etc.

My own view is that at, perhaps, the deepest layer of our psychology we develop a sense of ourselves using two basic modes of ego development: separative and cooperative. The separative mode creates an ego that seeks to have control over all of one's psychology. The ego becomes like a "strict father" in the sense of its dominating all other inner voices of the psyche. The cooperative mode creates an ego that acts in coordination with others. Its shares out its power in a tacit understanding that if we all work together we can all benefit each other. This mode has a more "caring mother" attitude.

Now patriarchal societies and many men themselves find themselves favoring a separatist form of ego development and as such they come to respect that kind of thinking. This is what allows the extremism of God the Father's eternal punishment of his "bad" children and still it "feels" right to people. That is because, on a deep psychological level, it is the same pattern as what is right to that person in their experience of reality.

However, we all have both modes of development and absolutely rely on them. The lie of eternal punishment is not seen in one mode, perhaps, but it is anathema to the other. This is, IMO, the psychological basis for the deep split in our country between the liberals and conservatives...a split we must all unearth in ourselves so that we can transcend it and work out a better future.

 

[sealchan]

A young woman with the ambition to become a minister says she wants to reflect the unconditional love of Jesus and show love to atheists. She's doing it, she says, because she doesn't want to go to Hell.

She didn't see the contradiction -- and I didn't explain it to her. She sees herself as capable of unconditional love, but the god she worships, in her eyes, is not.

I think I agree to the extent that that is how He has been portrayed...hence my desire to restore the Goddess.

 

[sojourner]

A young woman with the ambition to become a minister says she wants to reflect the unconditional love of Jesus and show love to atheists. She's doing it, she says, because she doesn't want to go to Hell.

She didn't see the contradiction -- and I didn't explain it to her. She sees herself as capable of unconditional love, but the god she worships, in her eyes, is not.

Yeah, there’s some theological disconnect there. Her obsession with her own eternal condition places that as a higher priority than the well-being of atheists. IOW, she appears to use the atheists’ “plight” as as ladder for her own “preservation.” That’s just not good theology. Good theology is the self-sacrifice of one’s creature comforts for another. Her “generosity” is a masquerade.

 

[sojourner]

I think I'm on the right path and I have no doubt that progressive Christianity is on the right path also. In the OP, I'm offering my opinion on what direction that path might take.

With the exception of that one statement I mentioned earlier, I think you’re spot on.

 

[sojourner]

I think I'm on the right path and I have no doubt that progressive Christianity is on the right path also. In the OP, I'm offering my opinion on what direction that path might take.

See post #30 for my only exception to your understanding.

 

[sealchan]

I do not fully understand what you try to say here. "disparaging the Church's spiritual children". You must be saying that the spiritual children in this context are the priests who share the "untruth". Because "How we allow the Word to work for those in the way that they need" is simple. Just tell them the truth "You are not a sinner and Hell does not exist". Telling them "you are a sinner" and "Hell unless Jesus", is disparaging these innocent children in need.

Unfortunately, this way of teaching the Word is deep set in many individuals and their families and their larger communities. One cannot just uproot a tree and plant is somewhere else. Trying to do so would do far more evil than it would overcome.

We can all learn from the effort of educating our Christians and our selves (especially if we are Christian) as to how to make this transition from "believing in Santa Claus" to "making real the reality Santa Claus is meant to represent" which is a much harder thing to accomplish. They need to take personal responsibility for their thoughts and moral values and not delegate that to their pastor or Bible. They need to understand that truth faith welcomes that which is different and not turn to fear and mistrust. They need to acknowledge the pain and suffering that such beliefs cause and yet not loose faith in themselves or their faith.

This is a massive undertaking and it requires patience and compassion. In many ways we are dealing with a cycle of abuse that will take further generations to heal. I think the Pope is feeling that right about now...

 

[stvdv]

Unfortunately, this way of teaching the Word is deep set in many individuals and their families and their larger communities. One cannot just uproot a tree and plant is somewhere else. Trying to do so would do far more evil than it would overcome.

That seems true. Sai Baba in His Discourses never spoke negative about other religions. He made them enthusiastic to implement good things, like "do not judge other religions". And gave people all the time they need to learn. So probably that is the way to go. Very slowly. I also don't see big changes happening overnight, what others talk about. Evolution goes very slow. Giving up such deep rooted beliefs is almost impossible in 1 lifetime. Once I heard a Master say "It takes a Master many years to reprogram the brainwashed mind". And most humans don't have a Master, so it will take decades, generations.

I hope I am wrong. Would be nice to see 1 united world in peace before I die.

 

[joe1776]

I hope I am wrong. Would be nice to see 1 united world in peace before I die.

I won't live to see it, but knowing it's coming is comforting.

Global Harmony is Inevitable

 

[InChrist]

The founders of Christianity didn't understand that the caring kind of love is always unconditional. They created a God who's love is conditioned on my acceptance of the Christian doctrine. If I don't accept it, I'll burn in Hell for eternity.

The God you worship is one mean dude. Even the Mafia Godfather has a sweeter disposition; he'll only bust my knees if I don't comply with his wishes.

There are no founders of Christianity. Jesus Christ is Christianity and He has followers who love and trust Him for stepping into history and giving His life to save humanity.

The god you you talk about is a god of your own imagination.

 

[joe1776]

There are no founders of Christianity. Jesus Christ is Christianity and He has followers who love and trust Him for stepping into history and giving His life to save humanity.

No founders?
So...there was Jesus...and then the rest of it just happened without human intervention? Like a miracle?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Jesus can't be presented as a pacifist. Consider this rabid dog analogy: We see a rabid dog in the street and recognize it as a danger both to human and animal life, so we have to kill it. We regret that the killing was necessary. The only thing we hate is our ignorance in not knowing how to cure rabies. The killing was an act of love for humanity and for other animals. Jesus would see the necessary killing of dangerous human beings in self-defense as ultimately an act of love for humanity.

p

Jesus is pacifism. You see the dog and autoimaticaly think to kill it but Jesus sees that it will die on its own (which is more ethical), or he will love it and because the animal was inoscent he will now save it. No need to kill at all, especially for God and Heaven... It makes you sadistic. With absolute violence we would all die off, but with total pacifism you find God, no one dies, and the non-believers and the hopeless still go to naught.

Only Sith deal in absolutes, I will do what I must.

 

[pearl]

I can understand how punishing someone as instruction would be an act of love. But having someone suffer eternal punishment for not accepting a religious doctrine would be criminally unjust. I don't believe a Loving Creator would be so unjust. I think it is far more likely that humans created Hell to act as the punishment in the reward and punishment manipulation of naive minds.

I think you have given the example of progression in theological thought.
3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’" (n. 1033).

 

[paarsurrey]

Traditional Christianity is dying. But there's a progressive movement within it that I think has a good chance to salvage something worthwhile from the traditional version.

With some careful tweaking, Jesus can be presented as an exemplar, what the human character ought to be, useful for Christians and non-Christians, whether he was fictional or not.

Jesus will have to love unconditionally because conditional love (I will love you if you please me) is a lesser kind of love that arrogant people offer as a manipulative device to coerce compliance with their wishes.

Jesus won't be presented as a front man for an unjust, vengeful god that loves conditionally (accept the Christian doctrine or you will go to Hell). Instead, Jesus will offer an example for people who strive to become better human beings as their only form of worship.

Jesus can't be presented as a pacifist. Consider this rabid dog analogy: We see a rabid dog in the street and recognize it as a danger both to human and animal life, so we have to kill it. We regret that the killing was necessary. The only thing we hate is our ignorance in not knowing how to cure rabies. The killing was an act of love for humanity and for other animals. Jesus would see the necessary killing of dangerous human beings in self-defense as ultimately an act of love for humanity.

Jesus would hate the sin but love the sinner. Consequently, he would see the wrongdoer as sick not evil. Thus, progressive Christians will advocate quarantine and not punishment for offenders. For example, child molesters might be sent to an adult-only town for life or until cured, even on a mild first offense. There, they could live and work normally but without access to children. The result would be a safer world for children.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

So, now Jesus is not the Savior, it is the other-way round.
Yet another denomination of Pauline Christianity is in the offing which will save Jesus.
With the advent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah in Second Coming, there is no need of any Progressive Christianity, to me.
Regards

 

[MonkeyFire]

I have thought much the same way as you Joe.

Christianity is very entrenched in western tradition and in people's thinking about God and the purpose of life. The problem is that some of the thinking that may have worked in the past does not work today. Jesus as a core character can still and always work but that trappings among old-school beliefs and teachings do not fit the modern world with our increased education, knowledge and exposure.

Yes, Christianity needs a modern makeover. The core character (Jesus) can still work.

In "my religion" it's understood faith and nirvana are the purpose for life.

 

[joe1776]

p

Jesus is pacifism. You see the dog and autoimaticaly think to kill it but Jesus sees that it will die on its own (which is more ethical), or he will love it and because the animal was inoscent he will now save it. No need to kill at all, especially for God and Heaven... It makes you sadistic. With absolute violence we would all die off, but with total pacifism you find God.

Only Sith deal in absolutes, I will do what I must.

--- The dog will suffer greatly and then die on its own. Before that happens, though, it is dangerous to humans and other animals.

--- If Jesus is pacifism as you say, why are only a small minority of Christians pacifists? God didn't make His instructions clear when he inspired the Bible? The majority was misled?

--- The human conscience is a remarkable, intuitive function which renders immediate judgments in specific moral cases which happen in an infinite variety. It finds no fault when a killing is in self-defense or when it's necessary to protect innocent others from being killed.

-- If all good people were pacifists, bully tyrants like Adolf Hitler would have no resistance. They would rule over us all.

 

[joe1776]

I think you have given the example of progression in theological thought.
3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’" (n. 1033).

I'm 83 years old. As a boy of seven (1942), a Catholic priest described Hell to me as a place of terrible suffering where I'd spend eternity if I did not believe as a Catholic. Protestants were headed for Hell he told me with some pleasure.

You say that the sacred scripture must be correctly interpreted. But, I can't help feeling that the correct interpretation of scripture will depend on which way the winds of public opinion happen to be blowing at the time.