It all comes down to the Bible....

[technomage]

...Or does it?

Christians view the Bible as spiritually authoritative, and 2 Tim 3:16 is, if not the only text that is cited for that purpose, certainly the most famous. Further, many Christians (especially Fundamentalists) state that the Scriptures are scientifically and historically accurate, as well as spiritually authoritative.

Of course, as a Wiccan, you can expect that I don't accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative. There was a time in my life where I did ... but then, there was a time in my life when I wasn't Wiccan. I used to be Christian--Fundamentalist Christian, as a matter of fact. I was saved at the age of thirteen, baptized, and was well on my way to becoming a Christian minister.

Well, some things happened along the way, and now I sit here as a Wiccan who has a profound respect for Christians, but who cannot accept their beliefs as being correct. I cannot accept the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: more fundamentally, I do not accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative.

Yet Christians continue to try to persuade me to return to the Christian path. That’s not a bad thing: indeed, within a Christian worldview, such an act shows a tremendous amount of love, and even as a non-Christian, I can understand and appreciate the love that motivates proselytization. Yet from the evidence that I have seen, their source text is a flawed assemblage of human writings.

The life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, does not persuade me: there are far too many questions regarding the events described there, and far too many parallels between Christianity and the Greco-Asiatic Mystery Religions. “Fulfilled prophecies” do not persuade me: there are many “holy books” with prophecies that have been fulfilled, depending on the interpretation of the book or the prophecy, and I doubt that Christians would care for a comparison of their Bible with Nostradamus. The willingness of Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs does not persuade me, else I would be forced into a rather horrid comparison between the early Church and such groups as the Branch Dravidians.

And in truth, part of me wants to be persuaded. I cannot express to you just how much easier my life would be if I were to become Christian. Yet if I were to go to a church on Sunday and profess my faith in Christ, it would be a lie on my part. For all my wishes to the contrary, I do not believe.

I don’t necessarily disbelieve in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth: yet, despite the evidence as presented by apologists from Justin Martyr to JP Holding, I don’t necessarily believe that He existed, either. I do feel, based on the evidence that I have seen, that whether or not there was such a person, he became “mythologized” to the point where I feel he’d probably be one of the last people to recognize what has been written about him.

This is the crux of my post: How am I to become Christian if the Bible is not true? And I invite the efforts of apologists, proselytizers, scholars of history, or even Joe Schmoe Christian who may not know much, but does know what he beliefs, to persuade otherwise.

However, I’m not looking for a “debate,” per se: in the formal debates as presented here, it’s far too easy for each party to attack the arguments of their opponent rather than listen to the issues. Debates are a zero-sum game, and while they can be useful and fun, on an issue as serious as this one, the confrontational atmosphere of a formal debate can cloud the message.

The one thing I do ask is this: if you want me to listen to your evidence, I ask you to also listen to mine. If you want me to be persuaded to accept your point of view, I ask the same courtesy.

I could also say “If you want to discuss things with me, well and good, but don’t try to brow-beat me,” but I’ve seen very little of that kind of behavior here … thankfully. :)

Justin

[Trout]

...Or does it?

Christians view the Bible as spiritually authoritative, and 2 Tim 3:16 is, if not the only text that is cited for that purpose, certainly the most famous. Further, many Christians (especially Fundamentalists) state that the Scriptures are scientifically and historically accurate, as well as spiritually authoritative.

:greetings: Welcome to Tweb.


Of course, as a Wiccan, you can expect that I don't accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative. There was a time in my life where I did ... but then, there was a time in my life when I wasn't Wiccan. I used to be Christian--Fundamentalist Christian, as a matter of fact. I was saved at the age of thirteen, baptized, and was well on my way to becoming a Christian minister.

Well, some things happened along the way, and now I sit here as a Wiccan who has a profound respect for Christians, but who cannot accept their beliefs as being correct. I cannot accept the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: more fundamentally, I do not accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative.

Good to know.


Yet Christians continue to try to persuade me to return to the Christian path. That’s not a bad thing: indeed, within a Christian worldview, such an act shows a tremendous amount of love, and even as a non-Christian, I can understand and appreciate the love that motivates proselytization. Yet from the evidence that I have seen, their source text is a flawed assemblage of human writings.

It's that "assemblage" of writings that commands us to share.


The life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, does not persuade me: there are far too many questions regarding the events described there, and far too many parallels between Christianity and the Greco-Asiatic Mystery Religions. “Fulfilled prophecies” do not persuade me: there are many “holy books” with prophecies that have been fulfilled, depending on the interpretation of the book or the prophecy, and I doubt that Christians would care for a comparison of their Bible with Nostradamus. The willingness of Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs does not persuade me, else I would be forced into a rather horrid comparison between the early Church and such groups as the Branch Dravidians.

And in truth, part of me wants to be persuaded. I cannot express to you just how much easier my life would be if I were to become Christian. Yet if I were to go to a church on Sunday and profess my faith in Christ, it would be a lie on my part. For all my wishes to the contrary, I do not believe.

I don’t necessarily disbelieve in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth: yet, despite the evidence as presented by apologists from Justin Martyr to JP Holding, I don’t necessarily believe that He existed, either. I do feel, based on the evidence that I have seen, that whether or not there was such a person, he became “mythologized” to the point where I feel he’d probably be one of the last people to recognize what has been written about him.

This is the crux of my post: How am I to become Christian if the Bible is not true? And I invite the efforts of apologists, proselytizers, scholars of history, or even Joe Schmoe Christian who may not know much, but does know what he beliefs, to persuade otherwise.

However, I’m not looking for a “debate,” per se: in the formal debates as presented here, it’s far too easy for each party to attack the arguments of their opponent rather than listen to the issues. Debates are a zero-sum game, and while they can be useful and fun, on an issue as serious as this one, the confrontational atmosphere of a formal debate can cloud the message.

The one thing I do ask is this: if you want me to listen to your evidence, I ask you to also listen to mine. If you want me to be persuaded to accept your point of view, I ask the same courtesy.

I could also say “If you want to discuss things with me, well and good, but don’t try to brow-beat me,” but I’ve seen very little of that kind of behavior here … thankfully. :)

Justin

What scientific evidence has persuaded you to become a Wiccan, Justin?

[technomage]

:greetings: Welcome to Tweb.
Thank you. :)

What scientific evidence has persuaded you to become a Wiccan, Justin?
Absolutely none! :teeth:

Seriously, I'm not Wiccan because it's more "scientifically accurate" than Christianity ... mainly, I guess I'm Wiccan because it's not (to my understanding) incompatable with science. (It helps that my definition of magic is "a ritualized method of changing my perception or views of situations I face in my life," and that I don't necessarily argue that it works outside of science.) Wicca matches my personal esthetic.

And I will gladly and openly stipulate that all of the objections I have to Christianity being a human-invented method of trying to understand the Divine also apply to Wicca. Thus, I do not say that Christianity is wrong--or, if it is, it's no more "wrong" than Wicca, or Buddhism, or Islam, or any of the rest of them out there.

Justin

[Trout]

Thank you. :)


Absolutely none! :teeth:

Seriously, I'm not Wiccan because it's more "scientifically accurate" than Christianity ... mainly, I guess I'm Wiccan because it's not (to my understanding) incompatable with science. (It helps that my definition of magic is "a ritualized method of changing my perception or views of situations I face in my life," and that I don't necessarily argue that it works outside of science.) Wicca matches my personal esthetic.

And I will gladly and openly stipulate that all of the objections I have to Christianity being a human-invented method of trying to understand the Divine also apply to Wicca. Thus, I do not say that Christianity is wrong--or, if it is, it's no more "wrong" than Wicca, or Buddhism, or Islam, or any of the rest of them out there.

Justin

Thanks for the clarification.

In your first post you made this statement:


How am I to become Christian if the Bible is not true?

What do you find inherently true about Wicca?

[technomage]

What do you find inherently true about Wicca?
The existence of a Creator Who (TTBOMU) loves us. I guess everything else is pretty much negotiable.

Justin

[Trout]

The existence of a Creator Who (TTBOMU) loves us. I guess everything else is pretty much negotiable.

Justin

So ultimately your rejection of Christianity was due to errors in the Bible, in the areas of history and science?


I cannot accept the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate

I guess my ultimate question is: Do you find that Wicca satisfies these two criteria?

You also mentioned that as far as you know, Wicca doesn't conflict with science; if you were to find Wicca out of step with science, would you then abandon Wicca also?

[technomage]

So ultimately your rejection of Christianity was due to errors in the Bible, in the areas of history and science?



I guess my ultimate question is: Do you find that Wicca satisfies these two criteria?

You also mentioned that as far as you know, Wicca doesn't conflict with science; if you were to find Wicca out of step with science, would you then abandon Wicca also?
So ultimately your rejection of Christianity was due to errors in the Bible, in the areas of history and science?
Well, not exactly--my rejection of Christianity was actually a separate issue with my rejection of the Bible, and the rejection of Christianity occurred first. (Long story ... if I get some spare time, I'll put it on the web and post a link.)

I guess my ultimate question is: Do you find that Wicca satisfies these two criteria? [scientific and historical accuracy]
Unequal comparison there--I'd have to compare the Bible with my Book of Shadows, rather than compare the Bible with Wicca. As far as that goes, yes, my BoS is scientifically and historically accurate, mainly because I specifically disclaimed any scientific or historical accuracy in the Myths.

You also mentioned that as far as you know, Wicca doesn't conflict with science; if you were to find Wicca out of step with science, would you then abandon Wicca also?
To the best of my understanding, "faith" and "fact" cannot contradict each other. So if I have (pardon the metaphor) a "faith" in one hand, and a "fact" in another, and they contradict, one of the two is incorrect. Facts are easier to objectively verify, so that's usually the one I pick to test.

But under ideal circumstances, fact and faith never should contradict each other without it being fairly obvious that something's wrong. If my Book of Shadows told me that to perform a certain ritual I need to jump off the roof of my house, and also assured me that during this spell gravity would not affect me, I'd have some serious doubts. If I decided to do that specific ritual anyway, I'd probably put some padding on the ground, at the very least. At the same time, if my Book of Shadows tells me that the world was created by a sexual act between the God and Goddess, but also tells me that this is a mythic metaphor, then there is no conflict.

But for a short answer ... if there was something in my BoS that was proven to be false by either science or history, then yes -- it would get pitched out the door. And if for whatever reason I found out that science or history stood against Wicca as a whole, then yes, I would abandon Wicca.

Justin

[Trout]

Well, not exactly--my rejection of Christianity was actually a separate issue with my rejection of the Bible, and the rejection of Christianity occurred first. (Long story ... if I get some spare time, I'll put it on the web and post a link.)

Interesting chronology.



Unequal comparison there--I'd have to compare the Bible with my Book of Shadows, rather than compare the Bible with Wicca. As far as that goes, yes, my BoS is scientifically and historically accurate, mainly because I specifically disclaimed any scientific or historical accuracy in the Myths.

:huh: So the myths don't correspond with reality?


To the best of my understanding, "faith" and "fact" cannot contradict each other. So if I have (pardon the metaphor) a "faith" in one hand, and a "fact" in another, and they contradict, one of the two is incorrect. Facts are easier to objectively verify, so that's usually the one I pick to test.

But under ideal circumstances, fact and faith never should contradict each other without it being fairly obvious that something's wrong. If my Book of Shadows told me that to perform a certain ritual I need to jump off the roof of my house, and also assured me that during this spell gravity would not affect me, I'd have some serious doubts. If I decided to do that specific ritual anyway, I'd probably put some padding on the ground, at the very least. At the same time, if my Book of Shadows tells me that the world was created by a sexual act between the God and Goddess, but also tells me that this is a mythic metaphor, then there is no conflict.

But for a short answer ... if there was something in my BoS that was proven to be false by either science or history, then yes -- it would get pitched out the door. And if for whatever reason I found out that science or history stood against Wicca as a whole, then yes, I would abandon Wicca.

Justin

Sounds very consistant.

[Mercuryrules]

...Or does it?

Christians view the Bible as spiritually authoritative, and 2 Tim 3:16 is, if not the only text that is cited for that purpose, certainly the most famous. Further, many Christians (especially Fundamentalists) state that the Scriptures are scientifically and historically accurate, as well as spiritually authoritative.

Of course, as a Wiccan, you can expect that I don't accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative. There was a time in my life where I did ... but then, there was a time in my life when I wasn't Wiccan. I used to be Christian--Fundamentalist Christian, as a matter of fact. I was saved at the age of thirteen, baptized, and was well on my way to becoming a Christian minister.

Well, some things happened along the way, and now I sit here as a Wiccan who has a profound respect for Christians, but who cannot accept their beliefs as being correct. I cannot accept the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: more fundamentally, I do not accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative.

Yet Christians continue to try to persuade me to return to the Christian path. That’s not a bad thing: indeed, within a Christian worldview, such an act shows a tremendous amount of love, and even as a non-Christian, I can understand and appreciate the love that motivates proselytization. Yet from the evidence that I have seen, their source text is a flawed assemblage of human writings.

The life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, does not persuade me: there are far too many questions regarding the events described there, and far too many parallels between Christianity and the Greco-Asiatic Mystery Religions. “Fulfilled prophecies” do not persuade me: there are many “holy books” with prophecies that have been fulfilled, depending on the interpretation of the book or the prophecy, and I doubt that Christians would care for a comparison of their Bible with Nostradamus. The willingness of Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs does not persuade me, else I would be forced into a rather horrid comparison between the early Church and such groups as the Branch Dravidians.

And in truth, part of me wants to be persuaded. I cannot express to you just how much easier my life would be if I were to become Christian. Yet if I were to go to a church on Sunday and profess my faith in Christ, it would be a lie on my part. For all my wishes to the contrary, I do not believe.

I don’t necessarily disbelieve in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth: yet, despite the evidence as presented by apologists from Justin Martyr to JP Holding, I don’t necessarily believe that He existed, either. I do feel, based on the evidence that I have seen, that whether or not there was such a person, he became “mythologized” to the point where I feel he’d probably be one of the last people to recognize what has been written about him.

This is the crux of my post: How am I to become Christian if the Bible is not true? And I invite the efforts of apologists, proselytizers, scholars of history, or even Joe Schmoe Christian who may not know much, but does know what he beliefs, to persuade otherwise.

However, I’m not looking for a “debate,” per se: in the formal debates as presented here, it’s far too easy for each party to attack the arguments of their opponent rather than listen to the issues. Debates are a zero-sum game, and while they can be useful and fun, on an issue as serious as this one, the confrontational atmosphere of a formal debate can cloud the message.

The one thing I do ask is this: if you want me to listen to your evidence, I ask you to also listen to mine. If you want me to be persuaded to accept your point of view, I ask the same courtesy.

I could also say “If you want to discuss things with me, well and good, but don’t try to brow-beat me,” but I’ve seen very little of that kind of behavior here … thankfully. :)

Justin

Justin, if you are sincerely looking for something more, I suggest looking at the work of Rudolf Steiner. He has been described as "the best kept secret of the 20th century". He was a seer, a scientist and a Christian occultist. His work has been very fruitful, yielding a new art of education, namely the Waldorf school movement, a new impulse for medical science, Biodynamic agriculture, the Camphill movement (for special needs), new architecture, and more, so please check it out, it's all on the web.
I can recomend the book "Knowledge of the higher worlds", you can find it at the "Rudolf Steiner" library online.

[PantaRhea]

...Or does it?

Christians view the Bible as spiritually authoritative, and 2 Tim 3:16 is, if not the only text that is cited for that purpose, certainly the most famous. Further, many Christians (especially Fundamentalists) state that the Scriptures are scientifically and historically accurate, as well as spiritually authoritative.Just so ya know... I'm coming at you from a Process Theist perspective.

I don't view the problem as viewing the Bible as authoritative, but that it's authority is for some, an excuse for not thinking critically. We might understand authority as the legitimate power to influence. Critical thinking gives us the ability to test for legitamacy. For instance, if a person makes a demand of us, we can either mindlessly obey, or we might ask what is basis of their authority in making the demand. My wife has authority over me and I over her because we love each other and that love provides the legitimacy for authority. If we take any book and read it, we give the author some authority simply in the act of reading - because in the reading we are going to be influenced to some degree or another. I don't think, if you see it this way, that you would deny that the Bible has at least SOME authority. What you might be looking for though, if you WANTED to view the Bible authoritatively, is a theory of inspiration which would explain why the book is what it is. You apparently don't buy the "verbal, plenary theory of inspiration" and I don't blame you.

Of course, as a Wiccan, you can expect that I don't accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative. There was a time in my life where I did ... but then, there was a time in my life when I wasn't Wiccan. I used to be Christian--Fundamentalist Christian, as a matter of fact. I was saved at the age of thirteen, baptized, and was well on my way to becoming a Christian minister.OK, we probably have a similar background.


Well, some things happened along the way, and now I sit here as a Wiccan who has a profound respect for Christians, but who cannot accept their beliefs as being correct. I cannot accept the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: more fundamentally, I do not accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative.
But we ended up in different places.


Yet Christians continue to try to persuade me to return to the Christian path. That’s not a bad thing: indeed, within a Christian worldview, such an act shows a tremendous amount of love, and even as a non-Christian, I can understand and appreciate the love that motivates proselytization. Yet from the evidence that I have seen, their source text is a flawed assemblage of human writings.
It's not necessarily always love. Often times its a way of reinforcing their worldview. A Christian who leaves the flock is a threat to the security of those who know the TRUTH.

The life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, does not persuade me: there are far too many questions regarding the events described there, and far too many parallels between Christianity and the Greco-Asiatic Mystery Religions. “Fulfilled prophecies” do not persuade me: there are many “holy books” with prophecies that have been fulfilled, depending on the interpretation of the book or the prophecy, and I doubt that Christians would care for a comparison of their Bible with Nostradamus. The willingness of Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs does not persuade me, else I would be forced into a rather horrid comparison between the early Church and such groups as the Branch Dravidians.Too bad. It's a pity that the Fundamentalists often leave their victims with an "all or none" mindset. I don't know how you think the stories about Jesus SHOULD persuade you, but I'm persuaded by them and their historical accuracy is fairly irrelevant to me.


And in truth, part of me wants to be persuaded. I cannot express to you just how much easier my life would be if I were to become Christian. Yet if I were to go to a church on Sunday and profess my faith in Christ, it would be a lie on my part. For all my wishes to the contrary, I do not believe.
This interests me the most. Why would your life be easier? Does it have to do with the relationships of your family and friends? Is it the fellowship you miss? I can empathize. I've had to reconcile myself to the fact I live in a different world than the one I grew up in.

This is the crux of my post: How am I to become Christian if the Bible is not true? And I invite the efforts of apologists, proselytizers, scholars of history, or even Joe Schmoe Christian who may not know much, but does know what he beliefs, to persuade otherwise.I imagine that some will tell you that you simply need to believe, that because God is supernatural we can't expect to reach Him (I don't necessarily use masculine terms for God myself) using reason (and then they might try to show you how reasonable their faith is). My belief is that "faith without a brain is dead". One thing you could do... as many liberal Christians have done... you could change your definition of what a Christian is so that it matches what you are, and then you can confess to being a Christian! Just keep your mouth shut if you go to church - which ain't hard. The preacher usually does all the talking anyway.

[Cynic Sage]

Welcome to Tweb Justin. ;)

Shouldn't this thread be in the "Apologetics section"?

[Xavier]

I think it works well here... :smile:

[technomage]

Welcome to Tweb Justin. ;)

Shouldn't this thread be in the "Apologetics section"?
Thank you!

I thought about putting it into Apologetics, but from what I read, Apologetics seemed to primarily be Theist vs. Atheist conversations. This was the best "fit" for a thread that didn't really fit into the mission-statement of the forum, but that I felt was an important introduction to where I was spiritually.

However, I will warn you and the Mods and Admins ... I have been known to completely hijack, derail, or otherwise subvert threads when I go off on a tangent. It's bad habit of mine, so from time to time I expect to get gently thwapped by one of the Mod-Squad. ;-)

Justin

[technomage]

Justin, if you are sincerely looking for something more, I suggest looking at the work of Rudolf Steiner. He has been described as "the best kept secret of the 20th century". He was a seer, a scientist and a Christian occultist. His work has been very fruitful, yielding a new art of education, namely the Waldorf school movement, a new impulse for medical science, Biodynamic agriculture, the Camphill movement (for special needs), new architecture, and more, so please check it out, it's all on the web.
I can recomend the book "Knowledge of the higher worlds", you can find it at the "Rudolf Steiner" library online.
I've looked at Steiner, though not in the depth that you have, it would seem. He's on my reading list ... the big problem is, "spare time" does not seem to be in my inventory. (Isn't that always the case :P )

But it's not so much that I'm "looking for more" or "dissatisfied with what I have." One of the biggest things that drew me to being public about my religious beliefs is a definite "call" to serve. As I said, if I had stayed in Christianity, by now I'd probably be a minister, though truth to tell I shudder in fear for the parishioners of the type of person I used to be.

Justin

[technomage]

Just so ya know... I'm coming at you from a Process Theist perspective.
:snicker: Way ahead of you. I've been reading some of your posts and noting the similarity. :thumb:

I don't view the problem as viewing the Bible as authoritative, but that it's authority is for some, an excuse for not thinking critically. We might understand authority as the legitimate power to influence. Critical thinking gives us the ability to test for legitamacy. For instance, if a person makes a demand of us, we can either mindlessly obey, or we might ask what is basis of their authority in making the demand.
Well, that's part of the issue with Christianity. Many of the "demands" are based not on the Bible, but on tradition or interpretation--wearing a suit and tie to Church on Sundays only being one of the easier "man-made traditions" to cite, while the squabble between pre-trib, post-trib, and mid-trib proponents of the "Rapture" being an interpretational issue.

Some of those "traditional" demands are good and just to my understanding: I'm quite in favor of the many charitable organizations who take Jesus's command to "love thy neighbor" and put that command to work in a tangible way. Some of those demands are, to my understanding, ill-conceived: I happen to support same-sex marriages, and I am in favor of widening the term "family" to be any arrangement between consenting adults. And some demands may have had value at one time, but I question the value for today: a woman covering her hair was certainly modest in the Near-East cultures of the first century, but that style of dress does not have the same cultural significance today.

In that sense, I could re-join the Church, but my confession of Christ would be of a "Mythic Christ," which most churches would frown upon. That doesn't mean I don't think Jesus ever lived (though I will admit that I have my doubts)--the way I use the word, "myth" is not a lie or fable, but a teaching story.

And I fear I would have to also frown on such an interpretation: after all, 1 Cor. 15: 13-19 says the tale, and even though I am no longer a Christian, I am still rather "stuck" in that all-or-nothing dualism of my youth. I can appreciate the Bible as a piece of literature: I can definitely respect that the Bible is how some people get to know God; I can even understand that some people see no problem in a literal interpretation. But I can no longer place my faith in a book that is not what it claims to be.

You apparently don't buy the "verbal, plenary theory of inspiration" and I don't blame you.
I don't know, but I used to--and it could very well be that my Fundamentalist up-bringing has "poisoned" me from rejoining even a liberal branch of Christianity.

It's not necessarily always love. Often times its a way of reinforcing their worldview. A Christian who leaves the flock is a threat to the security of those who know the TRUTH.
That kind of "spreading the Gospel" is frequently fairly visible for what it is--not always, of course, or we might have a few less televangelists than we have today. (Oops! Did I say that? :innocent:)

This interests me the most. Why would your life be easier? Does it have to do with the relationships of your family and friends? Is it the fellowship you miss? I can empathize. I've had to reconcile myself to the fact I live in a different world than the one I grew up in.
The fellowship is one major factor. I don't mind having to find my own way among the pitfalls and pinnacles of ethics, but for crying out loud, it can get a little lonely sometimes. :sigh: (I know--I can have a "pity party" on my own time. :teeth:)

And the problem is, most of the Wiccans I know today are ... less than concerned with the deeper side of spirituality. At the best end of the spectrum, they're frequently concerned with running their little covens, or getting a street clean-up drive going in their neighborhood, or deciding the best politically correct way to decorate their altar. Hey, there's nothing wrong with any of that (well, maybe the last one .. PC is not my favorite category), but if there's nothing more to Wicca than that, then these folks need to join the Sierra club and be done with it. And at the worst end of the spectrum ... well, hang around Spencer's Gifts or Hot Topics long enough, and you'll see what I mean, not to mention the New Age section at your favorite bookstore.:argh:

One thing you could do... as many liberal Christians have done... you could change your definition of what a Christian is so that it matches what you are, and then you can confess to being a Christian! Just keep your mouth shut if you go to church - which ain't hard.
For me, that sounds dishonest. I don't really have any condemnation for those who choose to do things that way, but the standards of honesty that I demand for myself would forbid it. But I won't bother to deny that I've considered it....

Justin

[PantaRhea]

:snicker: Way ahead of you. I've been reading some of your posts and noting the similarity. :thumb:


Some of those "traditional" demands are good and just to my understanding: I'm quite in favor of the many charitable organizations who take Jesus's command to "love thy neighbor" and put that command to work in a tangible way. Some of those demands are, to my understanding, ill-conceived: [... ] And some demands may have had value at one time, but I question the value for today: a woman covering her hair was certainly modest in the Near-East cultures of the first century, but that style of dress does not have the same cultural significance today.
The above makes me curious as to just how similar our background is. I came out of the Brethren Assemblies which had a tradition requiring women to cover their heads to show their submission to the hierarchical authority of God (God-man-woman).


In that sense, I could re-join the Church, but my confession of Christ would be of a "Mythic Christ," which most churches would frown upon. That doesn't mean I don't think Jesus ever lived (though I will admit that I have my doubts)--the way I use the word, "myth" is not a lie or fable, but a teaching story.
You might be able to confess Christ in a more traditional way than simply a teaching story. I refer you to John Cobb's idea of Christ as the Logos.


And I fear I would have to also frown on such an interpretation: after all, 1 Cor. 15: 13-19 says the tale, and even though I am no longer a Christian, I am still rather "stuck" in that all-or-nothing dualism of my youth. I can appreciate the Bible as a piece of literature: I can definitely respect that the Bible is how some people get to know God; I can even understand that some people see no problem in a literal interpretation. But I can no longer place my faith in a book that is not what it claims to be.
I know that we both have more books recommended to us than we can possibly read - but let me add another author to your list anyway - Marcus J. Borg. He just may be able to deliver you from that all-or-nothing dogma. In any case, a "literal interpretation" is a straw man. Not even the most devout fundamentalist really interprets the Bible literally.



The fellowship is one major factor. I don't mind having to find my own way among the pitfalls and pinnacles of ethics, but for crying out loud, it can get a little lonely sometimes. :sigh: (I know--I can have a "pity party" on my own time. :teeth:)
Tell me about it! :sad: It's probably what has brought us both to this site.


And the problem is, most of the Wiccans I know today are ... less than concerned with the deeper side of spirituality. At the best end of the spectrum, they're frequently concerned with running their little covens, or getting a street clean-up drive going in their neighborhood, or deciding the best politically correct way to decorate their altar. Hey, there's nothing wrong with any of that (well, maybe the last one .. PC is not my favorite category), but if there's nothing more to Wicca than that, then these folks need to join the Sierra club and be done with it. And at the worst end of the spectrum ... well, hang around Spencer's Gifts or Hot Topics long enough, and you'll see what I mean, not to mention the New Age section at your favorite bookstore.:argh:
Yep. Know whut cha mean.:yes: I find it true, not only of the New Agers, but a general cultural phenomenon. Having once had a taste of real intimate community (in a "house church" environment) I fail to be satisfied with all the superficial and trivial stuff.:zzz:

For me, that sounds dishonest. I don't really have any condemnation for those who choose to do things that way, but the standards of honesty that I demand for myself would forbid it. But I won't bother to deny that I've considered it....Yeah. Didn't work for me either.:uneasy:

[technomage]

The above makes me curious as to just how similar our background is. I came out of the Brethren Assemblies which had a tradition requiring women to cover their heads to show their submission to the hierarchical authority of God (God-man-woman).
Well, while many of my ancestors were German Brethren, my family was Independant Baptist, and my educational background was Bob Jones University. I spent three semesters there, and they invited me to continue my education ... somewhere else. :smile:

You might be able to confess Christ in a more traditional way than simply a teaching story. I refer you to John Cobb's idea of Christ as the Logos.
Cobb's got some good ideas ... his writing was

I know that we both have more books recommended to us than we can possibly read - but let me add another author to your list anyway - Marcus J. Borg. He just may be able to deliver you from that all-or-nothing dogma.
Ehhh.... my first introduction to Borg was when he was working with the Jesus Seminar. The man has some wonderful ideas, and his writing is clear and cogent without getting overly simplistic, but it always seemed like he and the otehrs were trying to "bend" Jesus to fit twentieth-century ideals. However, one of the big plusses I found with Borg was his willingness--indeed, eagerness--to include religious experience as a valuable and necessary insight into scholarship, while also maintaining a necessary skepticism about the universal applicability of that experience and the resultant insight.

In any case, a "literal interpretation" is a straw man. Not even the most devout fundamentalist really interprets the Bible literally.
Ha! Don't bet on it! :wink: The churches I grew up with were full-fledged, "Verbal-Plenary Inspiration." Not only was every word in the originals the literal "God-breathed" word intended, but God had also watched over the process of assembling the Canon, translating the scriptures, even the printing. It bordered on the Bibliolatry of the KJV-Only crowd.

Justin

[PantaRhea]

Well, while many of my ancestors were German Brethren, my family was Independant Baptist, and my educational background was Bob Jones University. I spent three semesters there, and they invited me to continue my education ... somewhere else. :smile:
Bob Jones? What'd ya do to get invited out? Date someone from a different race?


Cobb's got some good ideas ... his writing was

was...?


Ehhh.... my first introduction to Borg was when he was working with the Jesus Seminar. The man has some wonderful ideas, and his writing is clear and cogent without getting overly simplistic, but it always seemed like he and the otehrs were trying to "bend" Jesus to fit twentieth-century ideals. However, one of the big plusses I found with Borg was his willingness--indeed, eagerness--to include religious experience as a valuable and necessary insight into scholarship, while also maintaining a necessary skepticism about the universal applicability of that experience and the resultant insight.
Of course. Even the fundamentalists "bend" Jesus to fit twentieth-century ideals. But if Borg didn't help you... hopeless!:whack:


Ha! Don't bet on it! :wink: The churches I grew up with were full-fledged, "Verbal-Plenary Inspiration." Not only was every word in the originals the literal "God-breathed" word intended, but God had also watched over the process of assembling the Canon, translating the scriptures, even the printing. It bordered on the Bibliolatry of the KJV-Only crowd.

bordered?

[Duder]

...Or does it?

Christians view the Bible as spiritually authoritative, and 2 Tim 3:16 is, if not the only text that is cited for that purpose, certainly the most famous. Further, many Christians (especially Fundamentalists) state that the Scriptures are scientifically and historically accurate, as well as spiritually authoritative.

Of course, as a Wiccan, you can expect that I don't accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative. There was a time in my life where I did ... but then, there was a time in my life when I wasn't Wiccan. I used to be Christian--Fundamentalist Christian, as a matter of fact. I was saved at the age of thirteen, baptized, and was well on my way to becoming a Christian minister.

Well, some things happened along the way, and now I sit here as a Wiccan who has a profound respect for Christians, but who cannot accept their beliefs as being correct. I cannot accept the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: more fundamentally, I do not accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative.

Yet Christians continue to try to persuade me to return to the Christian path. That’s not a bad thing: indeed, within a Christian worldview, such an act shows a tremendous amount of love, and even as a non-Christian, I can understand and appreciate the love that motivates proselytization. Yet from the evidence that I have seen, their source text is a flawed assemblage of human writings.

The life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, does not persuade me: there are far too many questions regarding the events described there, and far too many parallels between Christianity and the Greco-Asiatic Mystery Religions. “Fulfilled prophecies” do not persuade me: there are many “holy books” with prophecies that have been fulfilled, depending on the interpretation of the book or the prophecy, and I doubt that Christians would care for a comparison of their Bible with Nostradamus. The willingness of Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs does not persuade me, else I would be forced into a rather horrid comparison between the early Church and such groups as the Branch Dravidians.

And in truth, part of me wants to be persuaded. I cannot express to you just how much easier my life would be if I were to become Christian. Yet if I were to go to a church on Sunday and profess my faith in Christ, it would be a lie on my part. For all my wishes to the contrary, I do not believe.

I don’t necessarily disbelieve in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth: yet, despite the evidence as presented by apologists from Justin Martyr to JP Holding, I don’t necessarily believe that He existed, either. I do feel, based on the evidence that I have seen, that whether or not there was such a person, he became “mythologized” to the point where I feel he’d probably be one of the last people to recognize what has been written about him.

This is the crux of my post: How am I to become Christian if the Bible is not true? And I invite the efforts of apologists, proselytizers, scholars of history, or even Joe Schmoe Christian who may not know much, but does know what he beliefs, to persuade otherwise.

However, I’m not looking for a “debate,” per se: in the formal debates as presented here, it’s far too easy for each party to attack the arguments of their opponent rather than listen to the issues. Debates are a zero-sum game, and while they can be useful and fun, on an issue as serious as this one, the confrontational atmosphere of a formal debate can cloud the message.

The one thing I do ask is this: if you want me to listen to your evidence, I ask you to also listen to mine. If you want me to be persuaded to accept your point of view, I ask the same courtesy.

I could also say “If you want to discuss things with me, well and good, but don’t try to brow-beat me,” but I’ve seen very little of that kind of behavior here … thankfully. :)

Justin


(Howdy, Justin. Just for this week, I am writing only poems in TheologyWeb. Don't ask why, I just am. If I can't say it in verse, then I won't say it this week.)
__________________

'Twould be an act of love unparalelled
To save mankind by dying on a tree -
But lost to me, which in my youth I held,
My Mother-faith of Christianity

But God, in scripture, is so quickly peeved
In jealous rage he smites humanity -
And there are facts that have to be believed
Some propositions strain credulity

The world with luminoscity had gleamed
With Yahweh omnipresent at its core -
How personal the universe had seemed!
What grievous loss, believing it no more

How often I have yearned to find a way
To meet my old friend Jesus once again -
Without that daunting doctrinal array
Without a God who's jealous, mean or vain

I'd join the music, playing holy riffs
If rotten dogma could be safely heaved -
Imagine that the faith lives even if
the Bible isn't thoroughly believed

[technomage]

(Howdy, Justin. Just for this week, I am writing only poems in TheologyWeb. Don't ask why, I just am. If I can't say it in verse, then I won't say it this week.)
__________________


'Twould be an act of love unparalelled
To save mankind by dying on a tree -
But lost to me, which in my youth I held,
My Mother-faith of Christianity

But God, in scripture, is so quickly peeved
In jealous rage he smites humanity -
And there are facts that have to be believed
Some propositions strain credulity

The world with luminoscity had gleamed
With Yahweh omnipresent at its core -
How personal the universe had seemed!
What grievous loss, believing it no more

How often I have yearned to find a way
To meet my old friend Jesus once again -
Without that daunting doctrinal array
Without a God who's jealous, mean or vain

I'd join the music, playing holy riffs
If rotten dogma could be safely heaved -
Imagine that the faith lives even if
the Bible isn't thoroughly believed
I cannot find it in my heart to chide
A man who uses verse to state his case.
Indeed, then, if you will excuse my pride,
I'll strive to craft an answer with like grace.

Like you, I once held to a dogma straight
And narrow, like a blinkered, tethered horse.
I strove to enter in the narrow gate,
Yet stumbled, falling short upon the course.

Yet looking up, though blind with pain and shame
I thought that I saw Jesus standing there.
He said to me "You think you know My name?
Yet that is not the only name I bear."

I can't go on ... my words will not express
The things I learned while kneeling on the sod.
Yet this I tell you: we can only guess
As we try to supply a name for God.

Call on the name of Christ or Kernunos--
For both these names come from the lips of man--
God hears, and will not suffer any loss,
Nor suffer us to fall out of His hand.

For who are you, or who am I, to say
We know God better than our fellow man?
We cannot weigh our Names upon the scale,
And so we both just do the best we can.

And this is what I give my life to do--
One heart to love I have, to hands to bless,
One life to give for those who have a need.
For here I stand, and I can do no less.

Justin

[Duder]

I cannot find it in my heart to chide
A man who uses verse to state his case.
Indeed, then, if you will excuse my pride,
I'll strive to craft an answer with like grace.

Like you, I once held to a dogma straight
And narrow, like a blinkered, tethered horse.
I strove to enter in the narrow gate,
Yet stumbled, falling short upon the course.

Yet looking up, though blind with pain and shame
I thought that I saw Jesus standing there.
He said to me "You think you know My name?
Yet that is not the only name I bear."

I can't go on ... my words will not express
The things I learned while kneeling on the sod.
Yet this I tell you: we can only guess
As we try to supply a name for God.

Call on the name of Christ or Kernunos--
For both these names come from the lips of man--
God hears, and will not suffer any loss,
Nor suffer us to fall out of His hand.

For who are you, or who am I, to say
We know God better than our fellow man?
We cannot weigh our Names upon the scale,
And so we both just do the best we can.

And this is what I give my life to do--
One heart to love I have, to hands to bless,
One life to give for those who have a need.
For here I stand, and I can do no less.

Justin

Pentameter iambic nearly pure -
And with greater insights in your verse.
Your pregnant words have visual allure -
With grace surpassing mine do you converse!

From pretended certainty we fled -
From making "facts" of mythologic lore -
I think it was the Taoist sage who said,
No name we speak will stick on heaven's door.

I've called the sacred being Pan at times,
Or Wakan Tanka, Grampa to the Sioux.
I've sat with Buddhist friends and heard their chimes,
I think it's all the same to Him, don't you?

But Jesus isn't quite the same when I
Do understand He isn't really quite
The one and only Son who sits on high -
I rather miss that image, sure and bright.

Yet insight comes with cost, you know, and I
Am very, very glad to pay the fee -
I wish the better poet a good night,
And bid him from my heart to blessed be.

[LGM]

Such thoughtful verse,
hath me inspired.
Words like heat,
My brow perspires.

Men that share,
a truth so stark.
When we speak of god,
we miss the mark.

My heart embrace,
These two fine men,
Five pearls each,
Are given them.

LGM

There once was a man from George Lake
And only in verse did he spake
While his poems were quite lame
Never did he feel shame
At making his fellow man ache.

[technomage]

Pentameter iambic nearly pure -
And with greater insights in your verse.
Your pregnant words have visual allure -
With grace surpassing mine do you converse!

From pretended certainty we fled -
From making "facts" of mythologic lore -
I think it was the Taoist sage who said,
No name we speak will stick on heaven's door.

I've called the sacred being Pan at times,
Or Wakan Tanka, Grampa to the Sioux.
I've sat with Buddhist friends and heard their chimes,
I think it's all the same to Him, don't you?

But Jesus isn't quite the same when I
Do understand He isn't really quite
The one and only Son who sits on high -
I rather miss that image, sure and bright.

Yet insight comes with cost, you know, and I
Am very, very glad to pay the fee -
I wish the better poet a good night,
And bid him from my heart to blessed be.
:no: I cannot count my words as better verse,
Though you are kind to say it, just the same.
Yet even if my words may be the worse,
I think we both lack any cause for shame.

To speak in rhyme can be quite technical...
to make each accent match it's patterned part.
Yet perfect meter is no spectacle--
Your poem speaks because it's from your heart.

And so it is I doff my cap to you,
And think it alltogether none too hard
To call you by the honor that is due.
I greet you as my friend, and fellow Bard.

Justin

[technomage]

Such thoughtful verse,
hath me inspired.
Words like heat,
My brow perspires.

Men that share,
a truth so stark.
When we speak of god,
we miss the mark.

My heart embrace,
These two fine men,
Five pearls each,
Are given them.
The coin of foolishness I would despise,
And value little, were it given me.
Yet gifts from one whom I consider wise,
Is worth more than the honor due to me.

LGM, I do not have the words--in prose or verse--to tell you how touched I am. Thank you.

There once was a man from George Lake
And only in verse did he spake
While his poems were quite lame
Never did he feel shame
At making his fellow man ache.

A limerick from you may be rare,
I think you did it on a dare.
If sarcasm runs
To lim'ricks and puns,
It may be more than we could bear! :lmbo:

Justin

After all, one limerick deserves another. :snicker:

[LGM]

After all, one limerick deserves another. :snicker:

There was a wabbit named Justin
Whose rhymes were totally bustin’
With no fear in his heart
He thought it was quite smart
Better to burn than be rustin’

LGM
...you think its easy finding words to rhyme with Justin?...

[Duder]

There was an old geezer from Tustin,
Racked his brain to rhyme "Justin" -
It all came to naught,
Because he thought
Of absolutely nustin'!

He ate some pie, in Tustin,
Got a can to put the crust in -
Watched TV in bed
And the newsman said,
"This breaking story's just in . . ."

"Must find a rhyme", says Tustin.
I must! I must! I must, in
Time to be scanned
By LakeGeorgeMan!
My skills I need be trustin'."

Still trying to match up 'Justin',
Said "Man, my mind is rustin'!
But I won't get mad,
For this lovely pad
is a place to be non-plussed in."

[LGM]

How do I love lame poetry? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
my mouse can reach, when feeling out of sight.
For the ends of threads and ideal farce.
I love thee to the level of everyday's
most sarcastic need, by sun and glowing LCD.
I love thee freely, as men strive not to heave;
I love thee purely, as they return my pearls.
I love thee with a passion for killing time,
in my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
with my lost parodies, --- I love thee with the breath,
smiles, tears, of all my life! --- and, if God choose...

I shall but love thee better after poetry week ends.

[LGM]

:wink:

[Duder]

O man from yon Lake George,
Call you my verses lame?
Ye villian! Vermilion!
I am the very forge
Where burns the poets flame.

Fained flattery most rank
Malodorous and foul -
Sarcasm! You spasm!
From what dark den so dank
Doth come this mocking growl?

This Week of Poetry
Which thou didst rudely blast . . .
Mug you! Bug you!
I'll stretch it out, you'll see -
A month I'll make it last.
:teeth:

[LGM]

Your threats ring hollow here
Your rhymes go well with beer
A month of this is easy to take
Compared to eternity in fire lake

You make a boast quite bold,
But I doubt your strength will hold
Your last rhyme for sure hurt your brain,
I can tell ‘cause it wasn’t so lame!

You think my last verse rank?
Well this one surely will stank.
Its odor is meant to abuse,
much the same as your smelly shoes.

Be wise, don’t mess with me,
I’m a rhyming mercenary.
The son of Satan’s poet,
And I clearly plan to show it!

:b_evil:

[LGM]

BARD FIGHT!!!

:argue:

LGM
:wink:

[technomage]

Bard fight! To left and right
The words spew yon and hither!
And let the sense of lesser men
Take heed, or else they wither.

For bards do tread the Shadow Lands
Where puns and jest we scatter.
We fight our war with words, not hands,
And commonsense we shatter.

Take heed, all ye who meddle here!
Seriousness is berieved.
For bards, they are not subtle,
And your name scans to Greensleeves!

Justin

[technomage]

...you think its easy finding words to rhyme with Justin?...
Hey, I've lived with the name for almost forty years--I know just how hard it is to rhyme! :lol:

Justin

[Duder]

It's come to my attention
The bard fight has been moved
If following's your intention
Then join us "Rec Room"

[Zeluvia]

Justin, this is a smaller book...

Why Christianity must Change or Die by John Shelby Spong...

he is a bishop, with many of the intellectual problems you are having, but he still sees the spirituality under the dogma....

there is another one ...too...http://www.bahai.org/ that attempts to reconcile all the religions of the world to one...

you have a lifetime to read, learn, and feel, keep asking the question = )

[technomage]

Hi, Zeluvia, and welcome to TWeb!

Why Christianity must Change or Die by John Shelby Spong...
:nods: I'm familiar with Spong ... needless to say he's less than popular with my Fundamentalist friends. :teeth:

Bahai
:chuckles: Oddly enough, my first fiancee was Bahai. She's now Wiccan. :shrug:

The thing is, I'm currently at the point that I believe that all human religions are wrong, precisely because they are human attempts to reach out to a God who is beyond human understanding. So I believe that Wicca is just as factually incorrect as Christianity, and vice versa.

Hmmm. That brings up an odd thought ... how do Bahais feel about Wicca. I'll have to look at the website for that one....

Justin

[Alexander's Mom]

Alright, I've two cents. I'm spendin' 'em.
Justin, what's the prob? (Notice: I've decided to discuss your theological perspective with you here.) I don't see the reason to get all bent outta' shape over having scientific or historical basis for what is specifically designated to be accepted on faith and reason. I know you want empirical evidence, but sometimes ya' need to go with the a priori proofs. Sometimes, when you don't have access to the phenomenon, ya' need to roll with abstract ontology.
So, did Jesus say anything that was philosophically suspect? If not, then I can't imagine that men providing, supposedly, such perfect truths to the world would be embellishing about their leader. What cause would they have? They already believed that the Law was written on the heart of all men. They already believed that all men should follow their consciences. Why would they craft stories that would only make their otherwise easily accepted (considering the philosophic climate of the time) philosophic position subject to the vitriol of religiosity? Would it not have been better to have kept their mouths shut on this Jesus character's supposed miracles and crazy statements about God, and just proclaimed the relevant points of faith, hope, and love? Obviously, there was more to it than that. This Jesus character was a necessary component of salvation.
The philosophy is without fault and, IMO, Aristotelian. So, I love it. I have no trouble believing in Christ if these men speak the truth in the more internally important realm of ethics.

[Rowland]

Justin, it seems that you are not thirsty so there is no way any of us Christians are going to interest you in taking a drink of water. Thirst is the one requirment that you must meet. We cannot be thirsty for you. You are thirsty for something, but not apparently for anything that Jesus could offer you.

I wonder if societies that live on the brink of destruction have as many ex-Christians or atheists as the affluent societies in the West have. Anyway, I don't believe in the "Christian" doctrine of eternal damnation, but you might some day find yourself in a hell that will make you thirst for the Father of Jesus in a way that you have never thirsted before. I know that it has been the painful shocks in my life that have made me turn to Jesus and the Bible for answers, that got me to thirst for the truth of my faith.

Believing this or that is much different from having a felt need or thirst for this or that truth. Without the truth of the Bible I would die of thirst. It's not just a matter of switching to some other belief. It's funny how God keeps telling us how much we need Him and how humans keep claiming that they don't need anything from God. Belief is a matter of choice, not need, says the sophisticate. I find that most people go wrong, not because their needs are so strong that they grasp at anything, but just the opposite; people believe in the wrong stuff, like Mormonism or Islam, because their needs are not strong enough. They settle for half truths or lies. A very thirsty person is passionate about his search for water. He won't settle for anything less. He won't let anyone distract him from his search. The same with sin. People sin because they are not thirsty enough for happiness or joy. If a man divorces his wife because he feels that he cannot ever be happy married to her, his desire for happiness is not strong enough. If it were stronger, really powerful, he wouldn't settle for such an easy way to find so-so happiness. He would be willing to pay the price for the greater happiness of being loyal to his wife. He gets a divorce because his thirst or need for happiness is too weak. He settles for something less.

Maybe God brings suffering and even sin into our lives as a way of making us thirsty for Him. If we are not thirsty, free will or not, we are not going to get passionate about looking for water. Free will operates on the energy of desire. And desire is ignited by need or thirst. Without need desire doesn't catch fire. And without the fire of desire, our so called free will slumbers contentedly, never really getting passionate about anything. Adam and Eve sinned because they had no passion for God. They didn't hate God. They just didn't have any real desire or need to love Him and to be loved by Him in return. Eve had a passion for the forbidden fruit. Adam had a passion for pleasing his wife. The question, then, is not, Justin, were you once a fundamentalist Christian? The question is, Justin were you ever passionately in love with God and His Son, Jesus? I pray all the time for God to set me on fire with love for Him. I think that I'll get God some barbecue starter fluid for Christmas. The coals are just not getting hot.

Maybe, like me, you're afraid to love God too much. Love is painful, as anyone who has children can attest to. Why is it that love and pain go together? Fundamentalist Christianity can be painful because of its legalism and the nastiness of some of its practicioners. But if there was love involved in your faith, this love can be painful because it asks for sacrifice, sacrifice of one's ego, one's preferences, one's goals in life. The Wiccan religion may not ask much from you. You can be comfortable with it. Comfort is often a good substitute for love. It doesn't make demands.

What's your take on these apples, Justin?

Rowland

[technomage]

What's your take on these apples, Justin?

Rowland ... my take is that you don't know me, nor where I'm at. And you definitely don't know what I hunger and thirst for--or, rather, if I were to tell you, you would not believe that I am telling the truth.

I wish that you did know me, because as ... well, I hate to say it, but as "satisfying" as it may have been to write your post, I'm not the "Justin" that you wrote about. As a matter of fact, I don't even know the "Justin" you were speaking to. But if I ever meet him, like you I will probably pity him.

[technomage]

Goliath, you made quite clear that you do not wish to discuss things with me further. I am attempting to abide by your wishes.

[Harfelugan]

You seem so familiar . I work with a woman who came from a forced Christian experience at a Lakota reservation followed by a couple bad relationships with Christian men she married . She is now into Wiccan faith and Indian Spiritualism . Well studied , she can spot a Christian angleing to convert her back to the faith a mile away . Qouting the sceptics she cuts a wide swath but only when confronted by people who have overstepped their bounds . I have no ability to pull her or yourself back to Christ as I believe that is a work that is reserved for God alone . My business but none of my business . I myself have started reading some of the skeptics writings as a challenge to my faith but but have apparently rooted myself so deep in my faith that the books read like a liberal hate manifesto or seem to be just as controversail to prove as the Bible they try to condemn. I'm sure that my thoughts are mostly from my on bias but there was something in them from one of your other posts that said that they rang clearer to you. With me it will always be , "Lord , who else has the words of life." ? One thing I would like from you is a reponse on what is the the best way to communicate with the woman I work with that will show her respect for her position of faith but still allow me to respect for my own . I'm tired of having to be the poor deluded Christian guy when it comes to discussions with non- Christians . Is this just wishful thinking on my part. Thanks for your time.

[technomage]

Greetings, Roger,

I myself have started reading some of the skeptics writings as a challenge to my faith ....

Roger, even as a Bible skeptic, I would discourage you from doing so: yes, frankly, many of them are, as you note, literal "hate manifestos." A waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.

One thing I would like from you is a reponse on what is the the best way to communicate with the woman I work with that will show her respect for her position of faith but still allow me to respect for my own . I'm tired of having to be the poor deluded Christian guy when it comes to discussions with non- Christians .

Of course, not knowing the lady in question I would only be able to give a rather generic answer ... but Roger, I honestly and earnestly believe that the best way to communicate between believers in different faiths is simply to be real, and to treat them in the way you want to be treated.

I get along great with the Mod-staff of this board (and with the majority of the Christians) because while they have clearly and consistantly maintained their standards, they have never once treated me like I needed to be "re-educated" into Christianity. Not once--by the ones I can communicate with--have I been made to feel stupid for earnestly searching.

Because that's what I do, and that's why I'm here. I have no real confidence that I will find what I'm looking for in Christianity (though it would certainly make my life easier if I did), but I utterly and absolutely refuse to "close the door" on the possibility.

Is your friend in that same circumstance, where she has refused to "close the door?" :shrug: Of course, I do not know. If she is, or if she isn't, the best response I could think of in such a situation is to be her friend. Be her friend not because she can possibly be converted, but be her friend because of who she is now.

If you can do that, Roger, I think you'll go far farther toward your goal. Who knows--maybe even if she has "closed that door," she might re-open it for a friend. Or she may not. I can't make any promises.

[shunyadragon]

Hi, Zeluvia, and welcome to TWeb!


:nods: I'm familiar with Spong ... needless to say he's less than popular with my Fundamentalist friends. :teeth:


:chuckles: Oddly enough, my first fiancee was Bahai. She's now Wiccan. :shrug:

The thing is, I'm currently at the point that I believe that all human religions are wrong, precisely because they are human attempts to reach out to a God who is beyond human understanding. So I believe that Wicca is just as factually incorrect as Christianity, and vice versa.

Hmmm. That brings up an odd thought ... how do Bahais feel about Wicca. I'll have to look at the website for that one....

Justin

First, from a Baha'i perspective would roughly correspond to the matter of fact historical perspective. Wicca is a relatively modern attempt at recreating or reinventing ancient primal religious beliefs. This is done most often as a rebelious alternative to establishment religions. This is basically an illusion from this perspective of what would be considered progressive revelation from God.

The Baha'i Faith believes that revelation is a distinct inseperable part of the heritage of all cultures and peoples of the world and should be revered and honored, not demonized and condemned as Christianity and Islam do.
The problem comes when ppeople cling to the past as the world goes on changing and evolving in a process of creation and revelation.

[technomage]

Wicca is a relatively modern attempt at recreating or reinventing ancient primal religious beliefs.

It has been called that by some (including Gerald Gardner), but that's not an accurate assesment. Nevertheless, in discussions with other Bahai, I have discovered that while there are no condemnations of death for "witchcraft," it's still not exactly approved.

[Rowland]

Rowland ... my take is that you don't know me, nor where I'm at. And you definitely don't know what I hunger and thirst for--or, rather, if I were to tell you, you would not believe that I am telling the truth.

I wish that you did know me, because as ... well, I hate to say it, but as "satisfying" as it may have been to write your post, I'm not the "Justin" that you wrote about. As a matter of fact, I don't even know the "Justin" you were speaking to. But if I ever meet him, like you I will probably pity him.

Hi Justin, whichever one you are. I do not pity the Justin I was talking about. I believe that God has reasons for having you or him walk the path that you and he are walking and for the path that I am walking. I was just having some enjoyment trying to figure you out. I'm sorry if I offended you.

But it is rather startling to me to read that you were once a fundamentalist Christian thinking of the ministry. I can't get my mind around this. My poor paternal grandfather was a devout Pentecostal. When he was in the hospital with TB, which he eventually died of, he used to listen to this radio preacher whom he greatly admired. My dad was also in the same hospital with TB, and when he went by his dad's room he found his dad sobbing. The radio preacher (and I think he was a good singer of religious songs too) had just announced that he was an atheist and always had been. My grandfather was heartbroken. I remember that I was somewhat saddened when I learned that the actor who played the role of Jesus in the movie, Jesus of Nazareth, was an atheist. His eyes spoke to me of his having a deep faith and a love mixed with sadness for the people. It was hard on me when I realized that this actor could seem to really understand the heart of Jesus and yet reject him. Your journey from Christianity to Wicca is also troubling to me. I can't make sense of it although I tried. I believe in universal salvation so I believe that we will arrive at the same destination some day. I don't understand why God would start you out in life as a Christian believer and suddenly pull you off that path and put you on another. It kind of makes me feel uneasy about my own faith. Could I find myself some day doing what you have done? I get a little insecure when I hear stories like yours.

I would believe you if you told me what it is that you thirst for. Why shouldn't I? I can understand a Wiccan becoming a Christian, but not the other way around, just as I can see a Jewish person becoming a Christian, but a Christian becoming Jewish seems a little odd to me even though I knew of a guy, a guy who had studied for the priesthood, who did this and his Christian father disowned him-at least for a time. I know you don't mean to, but you do pose a threat to me, an emotional threat. I can feel this anxiety over your story in my bones. But you are not responsible for making my life anxiety free. I will try not to put this on you. I wish you well.

Rowland

[Meh_Gerbil]

Regarding the OP, I think ya have to ask.

[shunyadragon]

Hey, I've lived with the name for almost forty years--I know just how hard it is to rhyme! :lol:

Justin

No problem if you speak Appalachian. Lots of words, huntin', fishin', trapin', farin', trapin', sangin', rampin', cusin', sponin', shopin', and what ever else you may be doin' in Appalachia.

[shunyadragon]

It has been called that by some (including Gerald Gardner), but that's not an accurate assesment. Nevertheless, in discussions with other Bahai, I have discovered that while there are no condemnations of death for "witchcraft," it's still not exactly approved.

Actually my description is even accepted by some Wiccans I have had discusions wwith in this site. Yes, the Baha'i Faith is reluctant to condemn, and it would unrealistic to think that the Baha'i faith to approve, since the belief focuses more on progressive revelation and not living in the past.

One point I think is clear in the Baha'i Faith is that it advocates more communication and understanding of beliefs and between beliefs, and not judgement from the human perspective through the principle of the 'Independent Investigation of Truh.'

[Meh_Gerbil]

No problem if you speak Appalachian. Lots of words, huntin', fishin', trapin', farin', trapin', sangin', rampin', cusin', sponin', shopin', and what ever else you may be doin' in Appalachia.


It seems I've lost my dear old cusin'
he wandered off when we were huntin'
and into a terrible ravine he'd fallin'
that was the end of my man Justin

[technomage]

Actually my description is even accepted by some Wiccans I have had discusions wwith in this site.

Shunya, my friend, just because something is "accepted" does not make it accurate. True enough, Gerald Gardner portrayed it as such, but as I said, it is not so.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Shunya, my friend, just because something is "accepted" does not make it accurate. True enough, Gerald Gardner portrayed it as such, but as I said, it is not so.

He isn't a True Wiccan(tm).

:hehe:

[technomage]

He isn't a True Wiccan(tm).

:hehe:
Watch it, rodent. Do you wanna ribbit the rest of the day away? :grin:

[Meh_Gerbil]

Watch it, rodent. Do you wanna ribbit the rest of the day away? :grin:

Pfft.. you talk tough but you don't have the HERBS boy.
I'm not afraid of a tree huggin', pot smoking ... . . .. crooooaaaaaak!

:blush:

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, my friend, just because something is "accepted" does not make it accurate. True enough, Gerald Gardner portrayed it as such, but as I said, it is not so.

mornin' Justin

'ave y'been Wickin' lately?

I did not say it was accurate, but the problem exists with more than just Wiccan. How far back can you trace and document the faith? Wiccan as it is today would be difficult to trace to the 19th century, much less earlier. In terms of ancient religions in general 'gaps' are the rule, not the exception.

Archeology and existing primal societies give some important clues as to what was practiced and worshiped before Christianity cleansed Europe.

I have lived in China for more than eight years and I have visited many countryside small villages, and found their practices and beliefs that would be considered primal religions retained in their culture and social structure.

If it all comes down to the Bible . . . Christianity is likewise a religion of gaps.

[XaositectCrayon]

...Or does it?

Christians view the Bible as spiritually authoritative, and 2 Tim 3:16 is, if not the only text that is cited for that purpose, certainly the most famous. Further, many Christians (especially Fundamentalists) state that the Scriptures are scientifically and historically accurate, as well as spiritually authoritative.

Of course, as a Wiccan, you can expect that I don't accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative. There was a time in my life where I did ... but then, there was a time in my life when I wasn't Wiccan. I used to be Christian--Fundamentalist Christian, as a matter of fact. I was saved at the age of thirteen, baptized, and was well on my way to becoming a Christian minister.

Well, some things happened along the way, and now I sit here as a Wiccan who has a profound respect for Christians, but who cannot accept their beliefs as being correct. I cannot accept the Bible as scientifically or historically accurate: more fundamentally, I do not accept the Bible as spiritually authoritative.

Yet Christians continue to try to persuade me to return to the Christian path. That’s not a bad thing: indeed, within a Christian worldview, such an act shows a tremendous amount of love, and even as a non-Christian, I can understand and appreciate the love that motivates proselytization. Yet from the evidence that I have seen, their source text is a flawed assemblage of human writings.

The life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, does not persuade me: there are far too many questions regarding the events described there, and far too many parallels between Christianity and the Greco-Asiatic Mystery Religions. “Fulfilled prophecies” do not persuade me: there are many “holy books” with prophecies that have been fulfilled, depending on the interpretation of the book or the prophecy, and I doubt that Christians would care for a comparison of their Bible with Nostradamus. The willingness of Christian martyrs to die for their beliefs does not persuade me, else I would be forced into a rather horrid comparison between the early Church and such groups as the Branch Dravidians.

And in truth, part of me wants to be persuaded. I cannot express to you just how much easier my life would be if I were to become Christian. Yet if I were to go to a church on Sunday and profess my faith in Christ, it would be a lie on my part. For all my wishes to the contrary, I do not believe.

I don’t necessarily disbelieve in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth: yet, despite the evidence as presented by apologists from Justin Martyr to JP Holding, I don’t necessarily believe that He existed, either. I do feel, based on the evidence that I have seen, that whether or not there was such a person, he became “mythologized” to the point where I feel he’d probably be one of the last people to recognize what has been written about him.

This is the crux of my post: How am I to become Christian if the Bible is not true? And I invite the efforts of apologists, proselytizers, scholars of history, or even Joe Schmoe Christian who may not know much, but does know what he beliefs, to persuade otherwise.

However, I’m not looking for a “debate,” per se: in the formal debates as presented here, it’s far too easy for each party to attack the arguments of their opponent rather than listen to the issues. Debates are a zero-sum game, and while they can be useful and fun, on an issue as serious as this one, the confrontational atmosphere of a formal debate can cloud the message.

The one thing I do ask is this: if you want me to listen to your evidence, I ask you to also listen to mine. If you want me to be persuaded to accept your point of view, I ask the same courtesy.

I could also say “If you want to discuss things with me, well and good, but don’t try to brow-beat me,” but I’ve seen very little of that kind of behavior here … thankfully. :)

Justin


there's a chance you're still a Christian and dont know it. There's alot Yeshu Ha Nozri told Mattai and Todah that he didnt tell the rest of the Nozri. There's alot old bearded Josh didnt tell anyone. Noone knows anymore but I seen after reading you already conquered sloth. So easy to give up your own way and you didnt.

If you return to Christianity it should be on your own and not someones preaching. But if I was Christian I doubt the bible would be my authority anyways. My dad is like that. He believes in Jesus' path and believes that it's been lost and doesnt feel that the protestant/fundementalist views or the catholic church really know what they are. Whether Old bearded Josh was a divine projection, natural western Buddha, philosapher, son of god, or reforming Jew my father believes he was right, whatever he said.

as for me... the belief in spirits and souls is my life. I feel that I shouldnt care about any diety or such as any more than another entity in which I could learn from. But I should learn about my soul as much as I can.

[Meh_Gerbil]

there's a chance you're still a Christian and dont know it. There's alot Yeshu Ha Nozri told Mattai and Todah that he didnt tell the rest of the Nozri. There's alot old bearded Josh didnt tell anyone. Noone knows anymore but I seen after reading you already conquered sloth. So easy to give up your own way and you didnt.

If you return to Christianity it should be on your own and not someones preaching. But if I was Christian I doubt the bible would be my authority anyways. My dad is like that. He believes in Jesus' path and believes that it's been lost and doesnt feel that the protestant/fundementalist views or the catholic church really know what they are. Whether Old bearded Josh was a divine projection, natural western Buddha, philosapher, son of god, or reforming Jew my father believes he was right, whatever he said.

as for me... the belief in spirits and souls is my life. I feel that I shouldnt care about any diety or such as any more than another entity in which I could learn from. But I should learn about my soul as much as I can.

NECRO-POSTER!

[technomage]

there's a chance you're still a Christian and dont know it.

I recently re-converted ... and yeah, you're pretty much right. It feels rather like I never really did leave Christianity.

But if I was Christian I doubt the bible would be my authority anyways.

Hmmm ... the Bible being authoritative is kind of part-and-parcel of being Christian. The way I see it, if you don't treat the Bible as authoritative, then you may be following a spiritually fulfilling path, but it's a different path.

Now for my part, I don't see the Bible as necessarily inerrant, nor do I view large parts of it as necessarily historically accurate. But I'm persuaded that those parts were never intended to be historic--for example, the Creation account. This is not a historical or technical account, but a way of linking the creation of the world to the Hebrew culture.

But I should learn about my soul as much as I can.

I can see that. From my best understanding, however, "learning about the soul" is not at all contradicted by caring about God, but you may see things differently.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I recently re-converted ... and yeah, you're pretty much right. It feels rather like I never really did leave Christianity.



Hmmm ... the Bible being authoritative is kind of part-and-parcel of being Christian. The way I see it, if you don't treat the Bible as authoritative, then you may be following a spiritually fulfilling path, but it's a different path.

Now for my part, I don't see the Bible as necessarily inerrant, nor do I view large parts of it as necessarily historically accurate. But I'm persuaded that those parts were never intended to be historic--for example, the Creation account. This is not a historical or technical account, but a way of linking the creation of the world to the Hebrew culture.



I can see that. From my best understanding, however, "learning about the soul" is not at all contradicted by caring about God, but you may see things differently.

Justin, is there a thread that I can follow to read about your "re-conversion"? I'd like to hear about it and would not want you to repeat what you have probably repeated many times now.

Thanks,

Charleen

[technomage]

Justin, is there a thread that I can follow to read about your "re-conversion"? I'd like to hear about it and would not want you to repeat what you have probably repeated many times now.

Thanks,

Charleen
I haven't posted it yet ... frankly, I'm having some grave problems sorting it out in my head.

The long and short of it is I was arguing with another Christian on an issue of doctrine that I considered heretical. He asked me how I could evaluate what was heretical unless I was a Christian ... and my automatic, gut-level response was "Of course I can!'

I had to sit back and think about that for a while: what did I believe? And through that introspection, I had to admit to myself that I still believed as a Christian, so I'd better get off my tail and start acting like one. From where I sit, belief in God requires obedience ... and I still believed in Jesus Christ, I just hadn't thought about Him in the context of His Godhead in a long time.


So yeah ... in a lot of ways, I can't say I ever really left the Christian faith.

[dizzle]

we planted him as a spy as Cu always suspected :shifty:

[technomage]

we planted him as a spy as Cu always suspected :shifty:
:lmbo: Oh, wouldn't that go over well with the "The Christians are out to get us" crowd! :lol:

[XaositectCrayon]

:lmbo: Oh, wouldn't that go over well with the "The Christians are out to get us" crowd! :lol:
oddly that reminds me of Jack Chick's "Catholic superspys are out to kill me!" paranoia...

[shunyadragon]

I haven't posted it yet ... frankly, I'm having some grave problems sorting it out in my head.

The long and short of it is I was arguing with another Christian on an issue of doctrine that I considered heretical. He asked me how I could evaluate what was heretical unless I was a Christian ... and my automatic, gut-level response was "Of course I can!'

I had to sit back and think about that for a while: what did I believe? And through that introspection, I had to admit to myself that I still believed as a Christian, so I'd better get off my tail and start acting like one. From where I sit, belief in God requires obedience ... and I still believed in Jesus Christ, I just hadn't thought about Him in the context of His Godhead in a long time.


So yeah ... in a lot of ways, I can't say I ever really left the Christian faith.

That would make the heathen and wiccan belief closer than your life vain to Christianity, interesting!

I did not know that heracy questions concerning doctrine were issues for heathens or wiccans. Many heathens and wiccans still believe in Christ, but not the traditional or non-traditional doctrine of the churches and various sects of Christianity. Heracy or doctrine is primarily a Christian issue.

What was the critical doctrine being debated?