Questions for Liberal Christians

[Penumbra]

I'm a Mormon, we believe in a pre-mortal life. I believe that the word create (bara) in the Bible is incorrectly translated - it should be transform.

see Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

"shape, form, fashon, transformations" - to mold what eternally exists (not create out of nothingness)
here is an article that I wrote if you are interested:
Did God create out of nothing?
"the origins debate is pointless, there is no origin."




Great question!
I am going to mix together some Mormon teachings, with some personal ideas -

Life before us? Mormons believe that God has created "worlds without number". I believe that life existed before Eden. We are given an account of our world, and no others. (keep in mind "world" can refer to a planet, or a creative period.

(New Testament | Revelation21:1)
1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Rev 21:1 - new world built on the ruins of older ones. I think Eden was placed on the ruins of /in the midst of / an older world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If God created out of nothingness, then He is responsible for all the sin/mess we see on Earth. "I'm like this because this is how I was created" would be true, if God created us out of nothing.

instead, God is cleaning up a mess He did not make. We can gain eternal life because we are eternal beings, and eternal = no beginning, and no end.

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

it would be impossible for us to gain eternal life, if we had a beginning because eternal life = life without beginning, and without end. The same word used to describe God describes us. Our spirits are as old as God. We call Him "Heavenly Father" because He adopted us in heaven. He happened across us, adopted us, and sent us here to earth to gain bodies, learn, and be tested.

Thank you for your posts, idea.

 

[Penumbra]

You say that animals suffer a combination of 'both physical and emotional pain'.
I agree and would add that they may also suffer on a moral level.
　
I recall an article (from New Scientist, a good enuf ref at this level of discussion) that summarised a series of experiments showing that dogs have a sense of equity.
They have, to some degree, a sense of right and wrong which is the basis of human moral understanding.
　
The point about suffering is that it appears to be an aspect of life, all creatures suffer, to this or that degree. It goes with the territory of being a living creature.
　
Scriptural suffering is said to have positive effects on the sufferer, or to have the purpose of affecting the sufferer in a positive way.
I trust God that positive things have resulted, or positive opportunities have been presented, in the suffering of the world.
I can see that it has been the case in the things that I have suffered in my life; and I can't really be sure that it has not been so in every case, so I am left to trust.
The Bible often figures suffering in the birth pains that bring forth a new life.
The babe is born, the suffering forgotten; it has all been worth the while when the babe is born.
　
In Eden it was thought that if they ate of the tree and acquired the knowledge of good and evil then they would be like God; because God knows both good and evil.
The idea was not entirely incorrect.
　
The Edenic pair were created, brought forth from the Earth, formed of the clay (called out from the herd, if you like) to live by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.
The thoughts in their heads were to begin with the word of God, their reasoning processes were to be applied to the word of God, and their actions were to reflect the thoughts in their heads.
Then the serpent intruded itself and put in their heads a chain of specious reasoning about God and their position and relationship with Him.
　
In evolutionary terms this could indicate a misfunction, or unwarranted dominance, or intrusion into the higher brain functions by the reptilian brain.
　
It was not possible for Sin to operate prior to Eden.
Paul says 'I had not known sin, but by the law .... for without law sin was dead'
The law of Eden 'thou shalt not eat of it' was necessary before Sin could enter.
Prior to Eden there was no law, so Sin was dead.
　
Ironic, if Sin had not entered, and sent us rushing headlong down the path of agriculturalism, urbanisation etc you, and those in simlar case, would not exist; would have died as a spontaneous abortion, perhaps killing your mother in the process.
　
I have no desire to live in those pre-Edenic days; I live now, and look forward in time to Christ's return; I am aware of the blessings of living in this time and am thankful for them.
　
I'm heartened to hear you acknowledge that there is substance to early Genesis.
The more that I look at and think about the chapters the more astounded I become at just how much substance there is.

Thanks for the post. I agree that some of the most intelligent animals likely can suffer on a moral level. You've mentioned circus animals in an earlier post. I remember being involved in a discussion on another forum about animal cruelty, and one point was brought up that the suffering of elephants in a circus might be particularly bad because not only can elephants obviously suffer physically and emotionally, they may also have the mental capacity to realize that they are suffering and to understand that it's bad and that they are being mistreated. They are particularly intelligent creatures.

You mention that suffering has a positive effect on the sufferer. Do you suggest that this is true of non-human animals as well? Have all of the animals that have suffered during and before the inclusion of humanity positively gained from it? I don't think I'd agree that's the case, but I'm interested in your opinion on it.

Also, would you say that the fall was a good thing if suffering has positive effects? Most orthodox or fundamentalist Christians I've talked to do not seem to think the fall was a good thing, but as people interpret it in more complex ways, it seems to me they are more likely to look at the fall as something positive that occurred. Something intended, even. Yay or nay?

Lastly, you mention that suffering seems to be an aspect of being a living creature, and also mention that you look forward to Christ's return. Would you say that after that point, there is no suffering, or does suffering continue? If there is no suffering, does that imply that beings can no longer grow from it, or can they grow using other methods? If there is suffering, then what sort of suffering would there be and is it desirable?

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

Suffering is a psychological experience of the loss of one's attachments. Suffering occurs because there is separation between a person's sense of self and everything else, causing them to cling to impermanent things in hopes of creating a comforting feeling of immortality and ease the feelings of existential angst that come with "being" and the corresponding awareness of death and impermanence. In poorly-applied doctrinal terms, this gets rendered "suffering is caused by sin, and sin is separation from God," but because of all the cultural and psychological baggage involved, in many instances, the idea of "sin" actually gets used to reinforce feelings of separation and isolation and increases suffering for many unwitting "Christians" and their social leaders.

Just goes to show that one who is not a master, should not use a master's tools.



Jesus is a character in several metaphorical stories meant to illustrate profound philosophical and psychological truths about love. The separation between the individual ego and "God" is psychological and grammatical. Each individual is both separate from "God" through their thoughts, but inextricably intertwined with everything else in the universe, regardless of the apparent separation one sees and comes accustomed to relying on. Jesus, being both man and "God," illustrates the notion that sacrificing one's need to cling to one's self and the attendant attachments that go along with that are the reason we cannot experience an at-one-ment with "God." The point of the "sacrifice" is that love breaks through the arbitrary barriers between things and people that the ego projects to protect itself and by sacrificing the ego in compassion and understanding, you become one even with your enemies.


The Old Testament is a hodge-podge of various Hebrew writings that have been pulled from their cultural and historical context and arranged, both together and with "New Testament" writings, for the purpose of making them seem like something they are not. There are many beautiful philosophical writings in the "Old Testament" (Ecclesiastes, Job, the first chapter of Genesis . . . to name a few). There are also lists of social rules that reflect the values and pragmatic needs of the time and place when they were written.

I think prayers of petition in which one asks "God" to do magical things for one's self are not only silly, but ultimately reinforce separation and lead to an unhealthy form of passive nihilism. For myself, I regularly engage in quiet times of mental release and regular practices of introspective meditation.

It doesn't explain my religious/spiritual viewpoint any more accurately than any other tradition. The only place where there's a rule that says you can only find meaning in one religion at a time is in people's imaginations and psychological hangups. I find a great deal of beauty in many of the early Christian writings, and a profound psychological truth in the foundational stories. I find this with most any "wisdom tradition" that inspires people though. One just has to look.

Thank you for your answers, doppelganger.

-Lyn

 

[dmgdnooc]

Thanks for the post. I agree that some of the most intelligent animals likely can suffer on a moral level. You've mentioned circus animals in an earlier post. I remember being involved in a discussion on another forum about animal cruelty, and one point was brought up that the suffering of elephants in a circus might be particularly bad because not only can elephants obviously suffer physically and emotionally, they may also have the mental capacity to realize that they are suffering and to understand that it's bad and that they are being mistreated. They are particularly intelligent creatures.

You mention that suffering has a positive effect on the sufferer. Do you suggest that this is true of non-human animals as well? Have all of the animals that have suffered during and before the inclusion of humanity positively gained from it? I don't think I'd agree that's the case, but I'm interested in your opinion on it.

Also, would you say that the fall was a good thing if suffering has positive effects? Most orthodox or fundamentalist Christians I've talked to do not seem to think the fall was a good thing, but as people interpret it in more complex ways, it seems to me they are more likely to look at the fall as something positive that occurred. Something intended, even. Yay or nay?

Lastly, you mention that suffering seems to be an aspect of being a living creature, and also mention that you look forward to Christ's return. Would you say that after that point, there is no suffering, or does suffering continue? If there is no suffering, does that imply that beings can no longer grow from it, or can they grow using other methods? If there is suffering, then what sort of suffering would there be and is it desirable?

-Lyn

I would agree with what you say about elephants.
I have a friend, an elephant keeper in a zoo, and the things that he has said, and the high regard he has for them, would strongly support your summation.
　
I think that human standards of intelligence are false.
We measure intelligence in a way that is biased towards human beings. As a function of language and numeracy skills.
I recognise that their is a scale of emotional intelligence, social intelligence and moral intelligence that humanity, in the main, seems to ignore.
My dogs are able to read my mood, or emotional state, far more accurately than most humans I have regular contact with. They appear to have a sensitivity to my shifting emotional states that, at times, dwarfs the human capacity.
The elephants you cite are able to discern the mistreatment being afforded them while the human poulation, gawking at them through the bars, remains unaware of the injustice of their plight.
　
I suppose that the other aspects of intelligence are ignored as being inconvenient truths, barriers to commerce and wet blankets on fun.
　
I recognise a difference between 'scriptural suffering' which applies to humans and the general suffering that is the common lot of all the living.
I don't think that the gazelle, brought down by a lion, rails at the lion for being hungry.
Animals appear to me to be quite accepting of their circumstances and not inclined to complain over much, if at all.
The Bible says that sparrows (the least of birds) have value to God, that a human should have regard for, or give thought to, the life (all aspects of the life) of the beasts in their charge.
The Bible says that we have dominion over the natural world, it gives us no right to abuse that dominion.
　
In the long run the 'fall' will be a good thing, both for man and the Earth and her creatures.
It is not that the 'fall' was a good thing but God is using it to bring about a new good state that will obtain throughout all the Earth.
I don't think that the 'fall' was intentional.
Man was intended to eat of the trees, but by invitation not theft.
The 'fall' was an available option for acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, not the best option, as it happened it was the option that was chosen.
　
IMO, there will be suffering after Christ's return.
It is the principal mechanism by which human beings grow in character and stature; and I don't have the wit to imagine what might replace its absence.
It is said that Jesus grew to be perfect (mature) by the things that he suffered. People will still have to grow to maturity, even in (especially in) the kingdom.
But in the kingdom there will not be needless suffering to animals or humans caused by insensitivity, maliciousness, the requirements of commerce, the desire for fun etc.
　
My concerns on suffering centre on the needless aspects, as mentioned above.
The gazelle may suffer to satisfy the appetite of the lion but this does not register, significantly, on my sensibilities. The gazelle must die, as all creatures do, and the lion, for a while longer, must live; there appears to me a fitting balance to the relationship.
What are your thoughts on this?

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

I have a few questions for liberal Christians. By "liberal Christian", I am referring not to a political position, but instead to a type of Christian that basically accepts all or most of biological evolution (such as theistic evolution and so forth), or isn't as incessant about the belief that their religion is the only path to god, or that doesn't take the Bible too literally. I included "ors" between those statements because for the discussion, you don't need to be all of those things, just one or some will suffice.

My questions are,

1. If you do accept some form of evolution, and therefore believe that humans were not among the first creatures in this universe, then what is your view as to why suffering exists? Christian doctrine generally attempts to explain the apparent mismatch between a perfect and benevolent god and this universe by claiming that the universe was originally made "good" and that mankind corrupted it with sin. But if creatures have been living and dying and mass extinctions have been occurring long before humans came around, and in general suffering can occur by means outside of human control, then this seems to contradict this explanation. What, then, do you use as a different explanation? Or do you modify the first explanation somehow, and if so, in what way? Why does suffering exist?

2. Christian doctrine generally claims that mankind is sinful and that Jesus, who is god and also the son of god, died for the sins of mankind so that god can forgive humans that believe this story and that put their faith in Jesus and accept his sacrifice and so forth. If you are a Christian that doesn't necessarily believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc. or some subset of that list will be denied what Christians might call salvation in the afterlife, then how do you interpret this whole sacrifice thing involving Jesus? What did the sacrifice involve? And for what reason? And for whom? And why was it necessary? And what are the obligations of humanity to it? Or do you abandon the concept of the sacrifice altogether as some later idea from St. Paul and others and suppose that Jesus was not involved in a sacrifice? Expanding upon this, what are your general views about Jesus? If you were to briefly and concisely explain his purpose and who he was, and why he is central to your beliefs, what would you say?

3. What are your views as to the content of the Old Testament? Things that include stoning homosexuals, killing every man, woman, and child in a village, wrathful vengeance, killing people for approaching his alter or doing work on the Sabbath, and so forth. Do you feel that your god was like this once but is not like this anymore? Or that this is still an aspect of your god's personality? Or that the authors of those portions of the Bible were mistaken about god? Or something else?

4. What is your view towards prayer? What forms of prayer are acceptable or useful, and what is their desired result? In what ways do Jesus or Yahweh respond to them?

5. In what way do you feel that Christianity most accurately explains your religious/spiritual viewpoint compared to other religions? What is it specifically about Christianity that makes you refer to yourself as a Christian and not, say, a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.

Of course, if one or more questions do not apply to you but some do, or this is just entirely too long, please feel free to only answer part of my post.

Thanks,
-Lyn

Hi there, I dont qualify to answer your questions as they are directed to "liberal Christians"

If I may though, Id like to pass comment on the use of the plethora of prefixes and suffixes that are want to accompany the word Christian.

A Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian etc etc etc.

A liberal Christian is not a Christian.

That's probably the best way I can make my point.

May I ask why you addressed your questions to a "Liberal Christian" and not a Christian?

Perhaps it is because you are wary of receiving dogmatic response? I understand that but there are 100s of threads for discussing Christian beliefs with people who are not Christian, and that's cool. Where I am sligthly confused is why you would address your question about the bible and the Christian faith to Liberal Christians (IE not Christian) thereby precluding Christians the opportunity to be involved in the Christian Threads of all places, seems kind of, well, off.

Christianity is based 100% on what is written in the bible and the bible, at no time, lends credence to the concept of theistic evolution. Evolution is an intriely non Christian topic, and for that matter it is also an intriely non scientic topic, in essense it is a religion in its own right a religion that requires more faith than any other religion on Gods green earth.

It's not that I resent the use of the word christian out of context. A Christian Satanist may well be a new religion that's being formulated as we speak, who knows? I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in - hope you don't mind, and hope you are not offended.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Where I am sligthly confused is why you would address your question about the bible and the Christian faith to Liberal Christians (IE not Christian) . . . .

Why do "Liberal Christians" fall within a catagory you have designated "not Christian"?

thereby precluding Christians the opportunity to be involved in the Christian Threads of all places, seems kind of, well, off.

I obviously cannot speak for the OP, not having wrote it. But it seems to me they are general tools for narrowing the discussion and/or debate, not for exclusion. Correct me if I am wrong, but it doesn't sound as if you would define yourself as a liberal christian. Yet, you have not been excluded from responding. You may feel that the OP's focus, due to its scope, seems to preclude your most truthful replies, but so did I . . . I went with it anyway.

Christianity is based 100% on what is written in the bible and the bible, at no time, lends credence to the concept of theistic evolution. Evolution is an intriely non Christian topic, and for that matter it is also an intriely non scientic topic, in essense it is a religion in its own right a religion that requires more faith than any other religion on Gods green earth.

I personally believe that Christianity as a model of thought, is based also on critical reasoning and perhaps even empirical evidence. I find it to be testable and practical, on certain levels. For example, I believe it is possible to empirically demonstrate that treating everyone the way I'd want to be treated lends practical results.

 

[Penumbra]

I would agree with what you say about elephants.
I have a friend, an elephant keeper in a zoo, and the things that he has said, and the high regard he has for them, would strongly support your summation.
　
I think that human standards of intelligence are false.
We measure intelligence in a way that is biased towards human beings. As a function of language and numeracy skills.
I recognise that their is a scale of emotional intelligence, social intelligence and moral intelligence that humanity, in the main, seems to ignore.
My dogs are able to read my mood, or emotional state, far more accurately than most humans I have regular contact with. They appear to have a sensitivity to my shifting emotional states that, at times, dwarfs the human capacity.
The elephants you cite are able to discern the mistreatment being afforded them while the human poulation, gawking at them through the bars, remains unaware of the injustice of their plight.
　
I suppose that the other aspects of intelligence are ignored as being inconvenient truths, barriers to commerce and wet blankets on fun.
　
I recognise a difference between 'scriptural suffering' which applies to humans and the general suffering that is the common lot of all the living.
I don't think that the gazelle, brought down by a lion, rails at the lion for being hungry.
Animals appear to me to be quite accepting of their circumstances and not inclined to complain over much, if at all.
The Bible says that sparrows (the least of birds) have value to God, that a human should have regard for, or give thought to, the life (all aspects of the life) of the beasts in their charge.
The Bible says that we have dominion over the natural world, it gives us no right to abuse that dominion.
　
In the long run the 'fall' will be a good thing, both for man and the Earth and her creatures.
It is not that the 'fall' was a good thing but God is using it to bring about a new good state that will obtain throughout all the Earth.
I don't think that the 'fall' was intentional.
Man was intended to eat of the trees, but by invitation not theft.
The 'fall' was an available option for acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, not the best option, as it happened it was the option that was chosen.
　
IMO, there will be suffering after Christ's return.
It is the principal mechanism by which human beings grow in character and stature; and I don't have the wit to imagine what might replace its absence.
It is said that Jesus grew to be perfect (mature) by the things that he suffered. People will still have to grow to maturity, even in (especially in) the kingdom.
But in the kingdom there will not be needless suffering to animals or humans caused by insensitivity, maliciousness, the requirements of commerce, the desire for fun etc.
　
My concerns on suffering centre on the needless aspects, as mentioned above.
The gazelle may suffer to satisfy the appetite of the lion but this does not register, significantly, on my sensibilities. The gazelle must die, as all creatures do, and the lion, for a while longer, must live; there appears to me a fitting balance to the relationship.
What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you for your reply. My responding questions/comments, in no particular order, are:

-I don't particularly agree that animals are accepting of their circumstances. The gazelle, for instance, is on constant guard against predators and when attacked, it runs for its life until it is taken down and suffocated by the jaws of the lion (or until it gets away). Inversely, when the lion is having trouble getting food for herself and her cubs due to a drought or something, she becomes reckless and begins taking on more risk on the hunt because it's starving. Most cubs don't even reach adulthood. I mean, I'm not saying they all get together and complain about their lot in life, because they don't know any different, but it does seem to me there is a lot of suffering in nature.

-You made a distinction between what you refer to as scriptural suffering, and general suffering. Would you say that the general suffering that occurred in nature before humans ever came along was needless suffering? If so, why was there needless suffering before human original sin? If not, then what was the purpose of the suffering?

-You mention that you believe there will be suffering after Christ's return. What sort of suffering do you think there will be?

Thanks,
-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

Hi there, I dont qualify to answer your questions as they are directed to "liberal Christians"

If I may though, Id like to pass comment on the use of the plethora of prefixes and suffixes that are want to accompany the word Christian.

A Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian etc etc etc.

A liberal Christian is not a Christian.

That's probably the best way I can make my point.

May I ask why you addressed your questions to a "Liberal Christian" and not a Christian?

Perhaps it is because you are wary of receiving dogmatic response? I understand that but there are 100s of threads for discussing Christian beliefs with people who are not Christian, and that's cool. Where I am sligthly confused is why you would address your question about the bible and the Christian faith to Liberal Christians (IE not Christian) thereby precluding Christians the opportunity to be involved in the Christian Threads of all places, seems kind of, well, off.

Christianity is based 100% on what is written in the bible and the bible, at no time, lends credence to the concept of theistic evolution. Evolution is an intriely non Christian topic, and for that matter it is also an intriely non scientic topic, in essense it is a religion in its own right a religion that requires more faith than any other religion on Gods green earth.

It's not that I resent the use of the word christian out of context. A Christian Satanist may well be a new religion that's being formulated as we speak, who knows? I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in - hope you don't mind, and hope you are not offended.

It was aimed at liberal Christians because in this thread I'm interested in learning about their beliefs. I would like to learn about people and how they reconcile concepts like evolution and the OT material with their current views.

If you feel that any of the questions are applicable to you, then you are invited to answer.

-Lyn

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

It was aimed at liberal Christians because in this thread I'm interested in learning about their beliefs. I would like to learn about people and how they reconcile concepts like evolution and the OT material with their current views.

If you feel that any of the questions are applicable to you, then you are invited to answer.

-Lyn

Thanks Lyn, all the best to you. And thanks for the invitation.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hi there, I dont qualify to answer your questions as they are directed to "liberal Christians"

If I may though, Id like to pass comment on the use of the plethora of prefixes and suffixes that are want to accompany the word Christian.

A Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian is a Christian etc etc etc.

A liberal Christian is not a Christian.

That's probably the best way I can make my point.

May I ask why you addressed your questions to a "Liberal Christian" and not a Christian?

Perhaps it is because you are wary of receiving dogmatic response? I understand that but there are 100s of threads for discussing Christian beliefs with people who are not Christian, and that's cool. Where I am sligthly confused is why you would address your question about the bible and the Christian faith to Liberal Christians (IE not Christian) thereby precluding Christians the opportunity to be involved in the Christian Threads of all places, seems kind of, well, off.

Christianity is based 100% on what is written in the bible and the bible, at no time, lends credence to the concept of theistic evolution. Evolution is an intriely non Christian topic, and for that matter it is also an intriely non scientic topic, in essense it is a religion in its own right a religion that requires more faith than any other religion on Gods green earth.

It's not that I resent the use of the word christian out of context. A Christian Satanist may well be a new religion that's being formulated as we speak, who knows? I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in - hope you don't mind, and hope you are not offended.

I'm sure it has been mentioned by now, but you definitely live up to your moniker.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

Why do "Liberal Christians" fall within a catagory you have designated "not Christian"?



I obviously cannot speak for the OP, not having wrote it. But it seems to me they are general tools for narrowing the discussion and/or debate, not for exclusion. Correct me if I am wrong, but it doesn't sound as if you would define yourself as a liberal christian. Yet, you have not been excluded from responding. You may feel that the OP's focus, due to its scope, seems to preclude your most truthful replies, but so did I . . . I went with it anyway.




I personally believe that Christianity as a model of thought, is based also on critical reasoning and perhaps even empirical evidence. I find it to be testable and practical, on certain levels. For example, I believe it is possible to empirically demonstrate that treating everyone the way I'd want to be treated lends practical results.

I hear what you are saying, no I wouldn't refer to myself as liberal Christian hence my feeling that I am precluded from sharing with the questions directly. I am happy enough with that conclusion.

At the risk of offending you (not my intention) I feel you do qualify as someone with a liberal view of Christianity, so I'm not sure why you would have felt that you precluded from contributing. That Christianity is a "Model" is a classic liberal view.

One can build a model of a boat, but it's only the real thing that will take you accross the ocean safely.

I treat people the way I like to be treated, however in my experience I am not afforded the same courtesy in return. So your experience and my experience of the golden rule are quite different.

I am sure Christ would say the same thing given that he was beaten so badly it was a miracle he was still alive by the time He was nailed to a cross by people he had done absolutely nothing to harm, apart from to say, you are wrong and I dont agree with your point of view.

The sermon on the mount is the antihesis of the Golden rule.

Mathew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

At the end of the day, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a luxury aforded to Christians by our master, if it was we would treat people the way they treat us - because evidently that's the way they want to be treated - isnt it?.

If you re-read what I wrote -my point about what I think "Liberal Christianity" is quite clear. IE it isn't Christianity. There is nothing liberal about Christianity. Christainity is as dogmatic as it get's and so is God. Christianty is not a political spectrum of left right and centrist Christianity. Christianity is stauch adherence to sound solid as a rock Doctrine.

That said the true Christian has al ot to live up to, and if he doesnt live up to it, by trusting in the supernatual grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, then he is no use to Christ and or mankind, the salt has lost it;s savor and he is worthy to be tambled under the feet of men.

I put it to you that it is those men who have been trampled under the feet of men that decided to invent liberal Christianity - in other words men needed to create a form of Christianity that they could some how live up to and some how measure up to. But again, that is not Christianity, Christianity is supernatural from the beginning to the end, and unless one is supernaturally transformed, then one is not going to understand it, because it is spiritually descerned and to the natural unregenerated man this is foolishness to him.

Hopefully I have made some sense.

God Bless you.

PS: I want to make it clear that I am never offended by anyone else's views or opinions on what they think Christianity is or isn't. I'm just pointing out there is a difference between what it actually is and isn't.

I dare say if you asked 1000 different people walking up the street "What is Christianity?" you would most probablly get close to a 1000 different answers. There are ceratinly close to 1000 different sects in the world, if not more, which is highly bizzar given that there is only one bible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are ceratinly close to 1000 different sects in the world, if not more, which is highly bizzar given that there is only one bible.

It's odd when you think this considering:

1) There are several different ancient canons

2) The Catholic church and the Protestant Church have a different Bible

3) There are hundreds of translations of the Protestant Bible, each more or less reflecting the theological, cultural, political, and economic bias of the denomenational body that produces it

 

[Father Heathen]

Also, the billion different ways to interpret this and that - what's literal, what's parable, what laws to follow, and what laws to ignore. If it were obvious what proper way to interpret the bible, there wouldn't be a billion different sects and denominations. Of course people are going to think that their way is the "true" way, yet none of them have anything at all to substantiate such claims. It's also kind of wacky how some feel that the KJV is somehow more accurate than the original greek texts.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

It's odd when you think this considering:

1) There are several different ancient canons

2) The Catholic church and the Protestant Church have a different Bible

3) There are hundreds of translations of the Protestant Bible, each more or less reflecting the theological, cultural, political, and economic bias of the denomenational body that produces it

God gave us the word originally in the greek and hebrew tongue, He promised to preserve His word, as far the English goes in my opinion he has perserved it in the KJV, The Geneva version is probably quite sound as well. I dont trust any other version. So for the purposes of my faith, there is only one bible that I trust as Gods words

Its quite strange that you are having a crack at everything I say, and I am very new here, is there a problem? Or am I being bullied and antagonised by you on purpose for some reason?

You stae that your a Christian and yet your giving the heathen fodder to fire, whats the modus oprandi?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

God gave us the word originally in the greek and hebrew tongue, He promised to preserve His word, as far the English goes in my opinion he has perserved it in the KJV, The Geneva version is probably quite sound as well. I dont trust any other version. So for the purposes of my faith, there is only one bible that I trust as Gods words

Its quite strange that you are having a crack at everything I say, and I am very new here, is there a problem? Or am I being bullied and antagonised by you on purpose for some reason?

You stae that your a Christian and yet your giving the heathen fodder to fire, whats the modus oprandi?

Then you should have been clear:

"There are ceratinly close to 1000 different sects in the world, if not more, which is highly bizzar given that there is only one KJV bible.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Thank you for your reply. My responding questions/comments, in no particular order, are:

-I don't particularly agree that animals are accepting of their circumstances. The gazelle, for instance, is on constant guard against predators and when attacked, it runs for its life until it is taken down and suffocated by the jaws of the lion (or until it gets away). Inversely, when the lion is having trouble getting food for herself and her cubs due to a drought or something, she becomes reckless and begins taking on more risk on the hunt because it's starving. Most cubs don't even reach adulthood. I mean, I'm not saying they all get together and complain about their lot in life, because they don't know any different, but it does seem to me there is a lot of suffering in nature.

-You made a distinction between what you refer to as scriptural suffering, and general suffering. Would you say that the general suffering that occurred in nature before humans ever came along was needless suffering? If so, why was there needless suffering before human original sin? If not, then what was the purpose of the suffering?

-You mention that you believe there will be suffering after Christ's return. What sort of suffering do you think there will be?

Thanks,
-Lyn

The straight answer to your question is that I do not know.
However, I do suppose that a certain amount of suffering goes with the territory of being alive.
That it can't be avoided and indeed should not be.
The competition for survival is endless; there is a genetic imperative to manifest a shifting variety of form, function and order in defiance of the entropy that would otherwise dissipate the energy of the universe and distribute it evenly throughout.
The living are, for the time of their lives and to me, contradictions to the law of thermodynamics that requires the decay of all complex things to their simpler components. The living are examples of the simple achieving ordered complexity despite the odds stacked against them.
So, I am not surprised to find that all the living suffer; life is in constant opposition with entropy, the living in constant competition one with another.
I suppose that the general suffering of the natural world is a necessary aspect of being alive in this universe.
　
The suffering caused by pre-Edenic humans would have included needless suffering.
Human beings were every bit as malicious, self-centred, thoughtless, greedy etc then as they are today, and maybe more so.
I say maybe more so because there was no law then (that I am aware of) to show them the way in which they should walk, so each man did according to his own desires.
I say maybe more so because I do think that there have been positive effects from the laws and philosophies of the past 6000 years or so, but cannot prove it.
　
Scripturally the general sufferings of the natural world are likened to the travail of birth pains that will bring forth the manifestation of the children of God as immortal sons and daughters.
Soon forgotten in the joy of a new life.
　
In the kingdom a child will still stub a toe, a parent will still suffer with the child through the pain.
The child will suffer through their parent's illness and death; all will suffer the realisation of their own inadequacies.
Suffering, for the human poulation, will be in the anguish of mind that we all feel now and then and for this or that reason when we forget or remember love.
I don't know how else to frame the ideas more exactly.
　
Can you envisage an inhabited Earth in which there is no suffering?
Please do tell me of your vision, I long to hear it.

David

 

[Eliot Wild]

At the risk of offending you (not my intention) I feel you do qualify as someone with a liberal view of Christianity, so I'm not sure why you would have felt that you precluded from contributing. That Christianity is a "Model" is a classic liberal view.

One can build a model of a boat, but it's only the real thing that will take you accross the ocean safely.

Well, to be honest, I am not sure I even qualify as a "Christian", at least not in some people's estimation. And since my perspectives are somewhat unique, especially in that I don't believe man needs spiritual salvation, at least not in the way that most Christians define the concept, I thought my point of view would not be exactly what the OP was looking for.

I have yet to find conclusive proof that God exists, and consider myself in that regard to be agnostic. However, I do find valuable truth in Jesus' teachings. I like Jesus' point of view. I find a lot of truth in those items he placed value in, such as love, compassion, mercy, peace and tolerance. I consider myself to be Christian, not in that I agree with the conventional, popularized religious versions of Christianity that I have been exposed to, but I am Christian in that I look to Jesus as a model of behavior.

That brings me to my last point: I think we are employing different definitions of the word "model". Yes, a model can be an imitation or replica of something else, as you have asserted. However, a "model" can also be the perfect representation or ideal upon which all others are based. I think Christ's teachings represent "model" or ideal behavior/conduct.

Actually, in re-reading your post, I do have one other thing. This might be a matter of semantics, or perhaps you were just making a joke, but I completely disagree with your assertion that the Sermon on the Mount is the antithesis of the Golden Rule. Though I would never presume to tell a Christian how they should interpret the Bible and I certainly don't hold myself up as an expert on Jesus, it seems to me Christ instructed that we should treat people the way we'd want to be treated, not the way we expect to be treated. There are people I know are not going to treat me fairly, regardless of how I treat them. But Jesus really didn't leave me any wiggle room on this one. He didn't make his instruction conditional, he stated pretty clearly that I was to treat people in a manner that I would want them to treat me.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

Well, to be honest, I am not sure I even qualify as a "Christian", at least not in some people's estimation. And since my perspectives are somewhat unique, especially in that I don't believe man needs spiritual salvation, at least not in the way that most Christians define the concept, I thought my point of view would not be exactly what the OP was looking for.

I have yet to find conclusive proof that God exists, and consider myself in that regard to be agnostic. However, I do find valuable truth in Jesus' teachings. I like Jesus' point of view. I find a lot of truth in those items he placed value in, such as love, compassion, mercy, peace and tolerance. I consider myself to be Christian, not in that I agree with the conventional, popularized religious versions of Christianity that I have been exposed to, but I am Christian in that I look to Jesus as a model of behavior.

That brings me to my last point: I think we are employing different definitions of the word "model". Yes, a model can be an imitation or replica of something else, as you have asserted. However, a "model" can also be the perfect representation or ideal upon which all others are based. I think Christ's teachings represent "model" or ideal behavior/conduct.

Actually, in re-reading your post, I do have one other thing. This might be a matter of semantics, or perhaps you were just making a joke, but I completely disagree with your assertion that the Sermon on the Mount is the antithesis of the Golden Rule. Though I would never presume to tell a Christian how they should interpret the Bible and I certainly don't hold myself up as an expert on Jesus, it seems to me Christ instructed that we should treat people the way we'd want to be treated, not the way we expect to be treated. There are people I know are not going to treat me fairly, regardless of how I treat them. But Jesus really didn't leave me any wiggle room on this one. He didn't make his instruction conditional, he stated pretty clearly that I was to treat people in a manner that I would want them to treat me.

Thanks well said. I think we can agree that there is perhaps no greater "role model" than Jesus Christ, however if we are looking at him as just a role model we are missing the point. It is the Christian view that He is not a man that we can asprire to be like - which would be the liberal/worldy view. The Christian view of course is that He was and is God, the Christian's promise is that we can and will be transformed into the likeness of Christ-superrnaturally through obedience to the laws and will of God.

However I acknowldege that even the non Christian person is very impressed with what Jesus Christ has to say and how he behaved, which one would expect from God in human form.

At the risk of alienating myself from the whole forum, IMHO a man can live a very moral upstanding life, even doing his best to emulate Jesus Christ, however if he is doing this in and of himself this is in essence satanic. One doesn't have to be a baby sacrificing necromancer to be satanic in what is essentially a satanically controlled state owned enterprise, AKA the global world system. The christian knows and believes that satan is the prince of this world, in otherwords he rules the roost, not because God gave him that authority but because man gave him that authority through rejecting God/the Lord Jesus Christ - can you see where Im coming form??

The dividing line is, of course, who we say Christ is - either he is an all round great bloke who I would like to emmulates of He is God and I am doomed to eternity in Hell If I reject him as my only saviour. The latter is a bitter pill to swallow by a self righteous person who believes he can somehow emulate God and model his life on God. Not to mention the fact that God has already told us that there is none righteous - not even one.

I agree, and I know what you mean about the Golden rule, we are to treat others as we would like to be treated regardless as to how they treat us. However I believe it is humanly impossible to do what Christ expects of us IE love your enemies etc with out supernatural intervention. I believe it is impossible for a human being to excercise forgiveness in any capacity wth out help from God. Forgiveness is a God concept, not a human concept. Grace is a God concept not a human concept, Im glad God gave us a chance to enjoy this. People ask why didnt God make us robbots? Well, if He did we would never experience or know grace.

 

[Penumbra]

The straight answer to your question is that I do not know.
However, I do suppose that a certain amount of suffering goes with the territory of being alive.
That it can't be avoided and indeed should not be.
The competition for survival is endless; there is a genetic imperative to manifest a shifting variety of form, function and order in defiance of the entropy that would otherwise dissipate the energy of the universe and distribute it evenly throughout.
The living are, for the time of their lives and to me, contradictions to the law of thermodynamics that requires the decay of all complex things to their simpler components. The living are examples of the simple achieving ordered complexity despite the odds stacked against them.
So, I am not surprised to find that all the living suffer; life is in constant opposition with entropy, the living in constant competition one with another.
I suppose that the general suffering of the natural world is a necessary aspect of being alive in this universe.

The suffering caused by pre-Edenic humans would have included needless suffering.
Human beings were every bit as malicious, self-centred, thoughtless, greedy etc then as they are today, and maybe more so.
I say maybe more so because there was no law then (that I am aware of) to show them the way in which they should walk, so each man did according to his own desires. I say maybe more so because I do think that there have been positive effects from the laws and philosophies of the past 6000 years or so, but cannot prove it.

Thank you for your honesty in saying that you do not know. In response to this, I agree that these are reasons why creatures suffer. But, if this universe was created by a benevolent deity with the intention of creating life, why would life be a struggle against entropy? Why not create it another way? I'm not interested in debating the existence or non-existence of any deities, and so for discussion I'm assuming any deity that the person discussing with me believes to exist does exist. I am interested in understanding the viewpoint of those that believe in a deity that can do anything and yet acknowledge that needless suffering has existed before humans ever came on the scene. If their view is that they don't know, then that's okay too.
　

Scripturally the general sufferings of the natural world are likened to the travail of birth pains that will bring forth the manifestation of the children of God as immortal sons and daughters.
Soon forgotten in the joy of a new life.
　
In the kingdom a child will still stub a toe, a parent will still suffer with the child through the pain.
The child will suffer through their parent's illness and death; all will suffer the realisation of their own inadequacies.
Suffering, for the human poulation, will be in the anguish of mind that we all feel now and then and for this or that reason when we forget or remember love.
I don't know how else to frame the ideas more exactly.

I don't think I understand what you are saying here. You mentioned joyful immortal sons and daughters, but also mentioned that people will experience physical pain, emotional pain, illness and death in the kingdom. I'm not sure what I missed.

Can you envisage an inhabited Earth in which there is no suffering?
Please do tell me of your vision, I long to hear it.

David

No, I can't imagine that suffering can be avoided while still bound by the laws of physics of this universe. I agree with what you've said about entropy and about suffering being an aspect of being alive. I'm not the best person to ask, though, as I do not particularly view existence as something that was planned out with a purpose by a higher being.

-Lyn

 

[dmgdnooc]

Thank you for your honesty in saying that you do not know. In response to this, I agree that these are reasons why creatures suffer. But, if this universe was created by a benevolent deity with the intention of creating life, why would life be a struggle against entropy? Why not create it another way? I'm not interested in debating the existence or non-existence of any deities, and so for discussion I'm assuming any deity that the person discussing with me believes to exist does exist. I am interested in understanding the viewpoint of those that believe in a deity that can do anything and yet acknowledge that needless suffering has existed before humans ever came on the scene. If their view is that they don't know, then that's okay too.
　
I don't think I understand what you are saying here. You mentioned joyful immortal sons and daughters, but also mentioned that people will experience physical pain, emotional pain, illness and death in the kingdom. I'm not sure what I missed.

No, I can't imagine that suffering can be avoided while still bound by the laws of physics of this universe. I agree with what you've said about entropy and about suffering being an aspect of being alive. I'm not the best person to ask, though, as I do not particularly view existence as something that was planned out with a purpose by a higher being.

-Lyn

The little that I do understand of the physical world leads me to believe that life could not have emerged unless the laws of physics were just exactly as they are.
That, in fact, even a minor change to the least of the laws of physics, as they are, has the potential to snuff out, in its entirety, the universe as we know it.
And not necessarily replace it with anything at all.
It may be that the delicate balance in the universe that we can observe, right down to the interactions of sub-atomic particles and the forces exerted by and on them, are exactly how it must be for life to emerge at all.
　
It seems to me that none of the living, God included, can escape suffering.
It should be noted that the God of the Bible is not aloof from the sufferings of His creation. He suffers an agony of mind, an anguish of spirit, with his children and for His children, as does any parent worthy of the title.
　
The God of the Bible has chosen to suffer in order that He might procreate; that is, to raise a family
Any parent, or anyone contemplating a family, should be aware that a family will not be developed in an instant.
A family requires long years of work, hardship and self-denial; most of that suffering, the children of that family will remain unaware of until they begin to establish families of their own.
I consider myself in the position of a child in that family, one who has begun to catch glimpses of how my Father has suffered, thus far, in my upbringing.
Babes and my younger brothers and sisters may still be unaware of how God suffers to bring up His family, that does not alter the fact of His suffering; it merely highlights their innocence and the lengths to which the Father has gone to protect that innocence.
　
So the scenario that you paint, a snap of the fingers aloof and disconnected God, finds no place in my understanding of things.
The God of the Bible has chosen to suffer with His children in all the dark places in which they walk.
　
Sorry for the confusion.
In the kingdom the resurrected immortals will mix with, teach, guide and comfort the surviving mortal poulation of the Earth (the survivors of Armageddon).
It will be a time of great blessings to the mortal population and a 1000 year labour for the resurrected saints.
　
Subsequently there will be a time when God wipes away all tears and death is no more, a time when there is no more pain and the Earth is renewed.
Of this subsequent time little is said and clearly a different paradigm will operate.
I have avoided speaking of this subsequent time because of the paucity of my understanding. You may recognise themes that address your fundamental question, I can recognise the themes but not how they should be applied.
　
I have wrestled with the god or chance scenario.
I see it as there being no problem with rolling a hard 6 every now and then.
My problem is with rolling the hard 6, 6 hundred thousand million billion trillion times in a row.
I recognise that it is a possibility and that if it has been done then the probability is 1 in 1, but I only recognise that in my head, intellectually.
When it came to God/noGod I went with my heart; and I think that is all one can do.
　
David