What's at stake?

[Elijah John]

Assuming that Jesus is not God, there seems to be a clear violation of the first commandment, that we are to have "no other gods before me (YHVH)".

What is at stake here, how serious an infraction of God's primary law is worshiping Jesus?

Does the gravity of this situation make those who worship Jesus more biased in favor of keeping Jesus as their God and the object of their worship, rather than opening themselves to evidence of the contrary?

Two or three things occur to me, that I will share after some replies.

I think that most Evangelicals swear that those who DO NOT worship Jesus spend eternity in hell...pretty high stakes.

But what if they are wrong, what if the reverse is true, what if there is punishment FOR worshiping Jesus, if he is NOT God? What then are the stakes, if worshiping Jesus is indeed a form of idolatry?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 27 by Danmark]

There is a difference. A Christian nontheist is simply saying that the theist understanding of God is incorrect and presumptuous. The Biblical understanding of God represents a more primitive point of view. But we are not atheists. We are simply saying that the human mind cannot grasp who or what God is beyond our personal experience of God (which tells us very little). Christianity is my chosen spiritual path. Because of its transformative power in my life, I would continue to practice Christianity whether "what" I am experiencing turns out to be God or just the way human beings are wired. I would simply be happy that I have found a way to tap into that human potential.

I appreciate that. And I chose my term 'non theist' with care. Tho' it may be difficult to distinguish from atheism. I agree that if there is a God it is beyond human ability to describe. That is why literal Christian or Muslim fundamentalism strikes me as the antithesis of truth and true religion. That kind of religion is nothing more than man glorifying himself; putting God in a box and claiming to speak for him.

[kayky]

Except with that last part you added speaking of "The Cosmic Christ to which we all belong" Why call God "Christ"?

I'm not referring to God. I'm referring to humanity. If the Gospels are read with a mystical understanding, I think we find a Jesus that recognized his true identity in God--a part of the unity of God (the universe as an incarnation of God, so to speak). I think his message is that we are too.

This same sentiment can be said of Buddha, and many other spiritual sages. In fact, when you get into the actual essence of what Jesus basically taught it's no different from what Buddha taught. Therefore Buddha and Jesus were pointing at the same thing.

I agree completely. Buddha taught that all could achieve Buddhahood. I believe the same thing about Christhood. Note that Buddhism makes no mention of God--but does speak of the ground of all being. That is my view of God--not a being--but being itself.

In fact, I have been arguing for this interpretation for many years, and I point to the following verses as "Gospel Proof":

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

I totally accept this. It is unimportant to believe in Jesus or his words. But when I point to the verse the Christians are quick to point to the very next verse thinking that his will be my demise:

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

I have no problem with John 12:48. On the contrary, John 12:48 is where I find my salvation.

I'll me more than happy to be judged by the word the Jesus had spoken. This is where the Christians simply don't understand. They think it's all about the ego of Jesus, when in fact it has nothing at all to do with Jesus.

God has already "judged" all of creation and has found it to be good. It is not "fallen."

You also say:

In other words we judge ourselves--we condemn ourselves.

I absolutely agree. We do judge ourselves. But that judgement does not need to be a condemnation. In fact, why did you only offer that option?

Why didn't you say, "In other words we judge ourselves--we are our own salvation?

Why dwell on condemnation?

Unfortunately that seems to be the way we are wired. We spend our entire lives trying to fix our flaws and heal past hurts. Fortunately I think we are also wired to seek and find the source of that healing and repair. The Buddha referred to it as enlightenment. Jesus called it salvation.

What did Jesus preach? Well according to Luke he preached the following:

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

According to Jesus these are the words he has spoken by which I will be judged in the last day.

I Judge no one in terms of morality. Therefore I will not be judged according to the words of Jesus.

I condemn no one on moral grounds. Therefore I will not be condemned according to the words of Jesus.

I forgive everyone who has trespassed against me. Therefore I will be forgiven for any trespasses I may have done to others.

These are the words of Jesus by which I shall be judged according to these Gospels.

As far as actual "sins" are concerned, I'm not the least bit concerned about that. I personally don't believe I have any sins that are worthy of consideration. Any "sins" I may be guilty of are so petty as to not even be worth mentioning.

~~~~~

And that is exactly what we realize in the spiritual experience. It is only we who have judged and condemned--not God. Once we learn this, we can let it go.

So I have no problem with the Gospel as you appear to be viewing it. However, I wouldn't call your view of the Gospels "Christianity". It's not the standard view of that religion. So why even bother trying to keep that label alive?

Because, contrary to popular belief, religions do not have to be imprisoned by dogma. They can and should change.

You say:

Our main premise is that our views of God, Jesus, and the Bible must evolve if Christianity is to remain relevant. I believe we represent the future of the religion.

I think a hardcore Christian has already chimed on that one. The orthodox biblical scripture do not allow for "religious evolution". They demand that nothing be added or taken away. The original dogma was not intended to "evolve" with modern societies.

And why should Christianity be held hostage by the "hardcore"--especially if the original understanding of the Gospels and Christianity has been distorted and abused? Doesn't it deserve to be rescued?

So while I can embrace a view of Jesus that shares your ideals, that view also applies to Buddha equally well. And it actually doesn't apply to the Old Testament very well at all.

So I would personally say that while you are viewing this as "Progressive Christianity", many people including myself, basically see it as a rejection of orthodox Christianity and instead it's a view of Jesus that truly doesn't match up with the whole virgin-born demigod being raised from grave scenario.

There would actually be no need for any of that in a religion where Jesus was just teaching in metaphors.

~~~~

I am in fact rejecting orthodox Christianity--but not Christianity itself.

In fact, let me ask you this:

Do you believe that Jesus was an actual real person?

And more importantly, do you believe that he was indeed crucified?

And if so, how does any of that fit in with the metaphorical view of Jesus?

Why would a brutal crucifixion be required to teach these metaphorical lessons?

I do believe that Jesus was a real person and that he was indeed crucified. But I do not think it was "required." What we have in the New Testament is an attempt to make sense of that death in light of Jesus' teachings.

[Zzyzx]

.

Paul had direct knowledge of/from Jesus Christ. That's all he needed.

More accurately, Paul/Saul is CLAIMED to have had a "vision" (or hallucination, or psychological episode, or whatever) and did NOT know Jesus in real life.

He could well have made up the whole tale (and actually wrote very little about it himself. Or he may have been telling the truth -- which is difficult to determine in many or most cases of religious testimonials

[Danmark]

Paul had direct knowledge of/from Jesus Christ. That's all he needed.

How do you know? If I claim to have direct knowledge from Jesus Christ that contradicts Paul's claims, how will you know if I am wrong or Paul is wrong? How will you decide? Peter disagreed with Paul. So do others who claim to have experienced divine revelation. What makes John's 'revelation' divine? Why are any of these claims of divine visions or inspirations more valid than Joseph Smith's, or my own for that matter?
I've had my own visions that have told me Paul got it all wrong. Why are mine less valid than the ancient claims attributed to Paul?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 40 by YahDough]

It was supposed to be lighthearted, that is why I added "Seriously" I think you took it too hard.

And the question as to your difference with Fundamentalism is sincere, as is the request that you (if you wish) provide a more suitable tag, which I will try to respect.

That is UNLESS you just call yourself "Christian" in a possesive, exclusivist way that implies in any way that others are not. Like religous exclusivists who say "I used to be Catholic, but now I'm Christian". I will not respect that kind of Spiritual discrimination.

And I repeat the question which you did not answer, where do you get your standard of judging who is a true Christian, (apparently you consider yourself one) vs who is a false one, (supposedly progressive Christians are false, according to yourself, your Church or some other religous authority.

Where, exactly are you coming from to make such judgements?

[Divine Insight]

I'm not referring to God. I'm referring to humanity. If the Gospels are read with a mystical understanding, I think we find a Jesus that recognized his true identity in God--a part of the unity of God (the universe as an incarnation of God, so to speak). I think his message is that we are too.

That may well be true, but that's clearly not the message of the Gospels in general. The Gospels in general proclaim that Jesus was the promised messiah. He was prophesied to come. He was supposedly born of a virgin who was magically impregnated by God. He rose from the dead. Not to mention supposedly raising others from the dead as well.

This whole "Christian Religion" is founded on these myths. Trying to view Jesus as just another Buddha may have some merit, but it's certainly not "Christianity".

Speaking of Jesus as being the "Christ" like as if that is something divinely special is a mistake, IMHO. Especially if you're not agreeing with that dogma.

I agree completely. Buddha taught that all could achieve Buddhahood. I believe the same thing about Christhood. Note that Buddhism makes no mention of God--but does speak of the ground of all being. That is my view of God--not a being--but being itself.

Well, like I say, I too can see that potential in a possible "Jesus", but not in the "Jesus" that is described by the Christian gospels specifically. In other words, if Jesus was basicaly teaching the same things as Buddha, then much of what is in the Christian Gospels is exaggerated superstitions that attempt to make Jesus out to be the "Only Begotten Son of God". In fact, they make that claim very specifically.

I do believe that Jesus was a real person and that he was indeed crucified. But I do not think it was "required." What we have in the New Testament is an attempt to make sense of that death in light of Jesus' teachings.

I'll go with that too, but I think the only rational conclusion at that point it that Jesus was indeed crucified for blaspheme just as the Gospels claim. And it was not part of any "God's Plan".

To try to hold your views up as "Christianity" seems absurd to me. What you appear to be suggesting is an interpretation that is dramatically different from orthodox Christianity anyway, but then I see you have already agreed to that.

~~~~~

The only thing I ask is why not just support Buddhism directly as being basically the same thing that Jesus mean to teach but Buddhism isn't contaminated with all these other absurd concepts from the Old Testament and a judgmental Godhead.

The problem Jesus is the fact that he was not only crucified on the cross (which has become that Christian symbol of salvation), but he has also been nailed to the Old Testament as the "Only begotten Son" of the God of the Old Testament. And so Jesus is laden with all this unnecessary and erroneous baggage that comes with Christianity via the Old Testament.

It's not only just what's in the Old Testament, but people like Paul dredged all the Old Testament stuff up and preached it in Jesus name in the New Testament as well.

It's impossible to free Jesus from the baggage of the Old Testament. For most Christians Jesus is nothing on his own. The only thing that gives him any clout at all is the idea that he is the virgin born son of the God of the Old Testament.

So Jesus comes with that inseparable baggage. There's no way to free Jesus from that baggage. Matthew made sure of this by proclaiming that Jesus did not come to change the law and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass. Those jot's and tittles necessarily refer to the Old Testament. Nothing else had been written down when Jesus was teaching.

So it really makes no sense to try to turn Jesus into a Buddha when he's already been nailed to the Old Testament God. That cannot be undone it's too deeply ingrained in the dogma.

[YahDough]

.

Paul had direct knowledge of/from Jesus Christ. That's all he needed.

More accurately, Paul/Saul is CLAIMED to have had a "vision" (or hallucination, or psychological episode, or whatever) and did NOT know Jesus in real life.

He could well have made up the whole tale (and actually wrote very little about it himself. Or he may have been telling the truth -- which is difficult to determine in many or most cases of religious testimonials

And the people of the world maintained the world was flat until they knew better. The bottom line is you don't believe Paul's testimony and I do. Paul "knew" Jesus all right, regardless of whether he met Him before his Damascus encounter. Paul met the glorified risen Lord and Savior. Oh ya.

[YahDough]

Paul had direct knowledge of/from Jesus Christ. That's all he needed.

How do you know? If I claim to have direct knowledge from Jesus Christ that contradicts Paul's claims, how will you know if I am wrong or Paul is wrong?

The Holy Ghost Teacher of truth; The Comforter; the Spirit of Truth. Jn:14:26: and Jn:15:26:

How will you decide?

I will reason with the LORD until I have confidence about the answer. Isa:1:18:

Peter disagreed with Paul.

Paul won that argument when he confronted Peter. The Holy Ghost settled the dispute.

So do others who claim to have experienced divine revelation. What makes John's 'revelation' divine?

I don't think that Revelation was fully "divine", as in Holy canon truth. But that's for another thread.

Why are any of these claims of divine visions or inspirations more valid than Joseph Smith's, or my own for that matter?

False prophets are/were predicted to come.
Mt:7:15:, Mt:24:11:, Mt:24:24:, Mk:13:22:, Lk:6:26:, 2Pt:2:1:, 1Jn:4:1:

I've had my own visions that have told me Paul got it all wrong. Why are mine less valid than the ancient claims attributed to Paul?

Where are your "visions" coming from? 1Jn:4:1-3:

Thank you for the very relevant questions.

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

And the people of the world could have maintained the world was flat until they knew better. The bottom line is you don't believe Paul's testimony and I do. Paul "knew" Jesus all right, regardless of whether he met Him before his Damascus encounter. Paul met the glorified risen Lord and Savior. Oh ya.

What does this have to do with the original believe that the earth was flat?
Do you think we don't believe that anymore, just because somebody wrote in a book, that somebody ELSE claimed to have had a personal revalation from a deity, that told him that the earth wasn't flat?
That's not really how that worked, you know.

Now, I don't believe that Paul "knew" Jesus, as a matter of fact there is no real evidence for that at all, except his claim. You do believe it, and I wonder why.

[Zzyzx]

.

Paul "knew" Jesus all right, regardless of whether he met Him before his Damascus encounter. Paul met the glorified risen Lord and Savior. Oh ya.

HOW, exactly, do you KNOW that Paul/Saul "knew Jesus?"

Did you read it in religion-promotion literature (that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate) or hear it from others quoting the literature?

Not everything that is written or said is truthful. When a claim can not be verified HOW can one determine if it is true?