Are Christian narrow-minded?

[Ciel]

Hi 9 Harmony,

I may be as suggested, only a pretty empty box, but your words fill me with hope, in the understanding of one voice translated through many, when we truly listen to each other we understand the elements of human nature, and it's causes, apart from faith it is the way to find peace in this world in the understanding of each other.

[At_the_Wellspring]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I agree that most Christian denominations have same basics: The Virgin Birth, Jesus as God the Son, His Death, Burial, and Bodily Resurrection, and Salvation in His Name. Beyond that, there is a kalidescope of variant beliefs within the specific denominations. Some believe you have to get baptised to be saved. Some believe in infant baptism. Some say you have to be Baptised in the Holy Spirit and/or with the evidence of Speaking in Tongues. Some say you have to be a member of their specific church to be saved. Some say you are saved by grace alone, other insist that in addition, works are required. Some have sacraments, some have ordinances. Then there are the aberrant groups who teach doctrine outside the scope of orthodox Christianity.

So Christians end up trying to save each other. Or end up arguing over doctrine. Many are ill equipt to witness to other faiths, either they don't completely understand their own beliefs or they lack an understanding of other religions.

Sorry guys, this doesn't fit exactly what you are talking about right now, but thought I'd add my thoughts to the thread before I take off for the weekend

In my experience I have always struggled with the idea of what I would call the 'dividing line'. The idea that our way of doing things is the correct and right way, the way that church does this... that etc is a bit funny or wrong...

While I know that many churches work well together and come together in unity, I seem to have experienced more of churches talking against eachother. And I haven't been able to accept that one particular ritual, or way of thinking makes one group of people just that little bit more right.

As I have become more interested in other cultures, religions etc, I guess this has extended to the way that I see all religions. My interpretation (though I could be wrong) is that the idea of 'we're right, you're wrong', is more 'humanlike' than 'godlike'. I guess I've come more and more to believe that 'all paths lead to God'. While this beliefs sits comfortably with me and my experience of life, I know it doesn't for others - my cousin once told me I was just a "watered-down Christian".

Maybe my disillusionment with the phrase "no-one comes to the Father except through me" puts me beyond the 'dividing line', no longer a 'Christian'?
I've never particularly liked 'labels' anyway, as to me, all labels are a method of categorising people into one box or another, rather than recognising that, as I believe, we are much more complex than that. But at the same time I still feel a strong connection with my Christian upbringing and personal experiences and spiritual study that has all been within the sphere of Christian faith.

I haven't thought this through much, but I'm just pondering over whether all these statments of being the 'One Way' as 9Harmony mentioned - firstly, if they are actually all the 'One Way' (equal or the same?), or that they recognise the 'One Spirit' - but secondly that also they were talking about themselves in the context in which they lived and taught? Meaning they were the most 'Divinely enlightened' of their time and environment, and so were advising others to only follow them, rather than other false/ unreliable (or whatever) other sources that were around them. But actually, now that I've written that down it doesn't sound quite right, it sounds too similar to 'come to our church, not others, we are the closest to God'...

Hmm... don't know if that makes too much sense...

[Bandit]

just from my observation..i did not hear anyone call any person an empty box or any person an ugly box.
what i think it was is...'THE BOX' is empty & 'THE OTHER BOX' is not pretty.

i dont exactly like everyones BOX either, that does not mean I do not accept the person.

my observation could be wrong, but seeing this is a comparative study, everyone should be able to speak honestly without taking offense.

2 cents

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by At_the_Wellspring

As I have become more interested in other cultures, religions etc, I guess this has extended to the way that I see all religions. My interpretation (though I could be wrong) is that the idea of 'we're right, you're wrong', is more 'humanlike' than 'godlike'. I guess I've come more and more to believe that 'all paths lead to God'. While this beliefs sits comfortably with me and my experience of life, I know it doesn't for others - my cousin once told me I was just a "watered-down Christian".

Maybe my disillusionment with the phrase "no-one comes to the Father except through me" puts me beyond the 'dividing line', no longer a 'Christian'?
I've never particularly liked 'labels' anyway, as to me, all labels are a method of categorising people into one box or another, rather than recognising that, as I believe, we are much more complex than that. But at the same time I still feel a strong connection with my Christian upbringing and personal experiences and spiritual study that has all been within the sphere of Christian faith.

I haven't thought this through much, but I'm just pondering over whether all these statments of being the 'One Way' as 9Harmony mentioned - firstly, if they are actually all the 'One Way' (equal or the same?), or that they recognise the 'One Spirit' - but secondly that also they were talking about themselves in the context in which they lived and taught? Meaning they were the most 'Divinely enlightened' of their time and environment, and so were advising others to only follow them, rather than other false/ unreliable (or whatever) other sources that were around them. But actually, now that I've written that down it doesn't sound quite right, it sounds too similar to 'come to our church, not others, we are the closest to God'...

Hmm... don't know if that makes too much sense...

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Even Jesus said at one point that "...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24). Perhaps He was the Only Way at that time because He was trying to get Israel back to the rightful worship of God, rather than the legalistic religion that the Judiasm devolved to. Many times He blasted the scribes and Pharasees saying they "... shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matt 23:13). He came to turn the peoples thinking beyond the Law that they had imposed their traditions on. In Matt. 5, Jesus expounds on the commandments, equating it against one's brother without cause with "Thou shall not kill" and lusting after another woman with "Thou shall not commit adultery." He came for His people Israel. And at that period in time, in light of the legalistic teachings of His day, no one can come to the Father unless they went through Him. Just a thought.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Far from a pretty box, Faithful Servant.

Looking through the eyes of reality, there is at present in New Orleans, hell on earth. So I pose another question. If all those who are outside the main stream of Christianity, the sinners of the world, as they have been known, if all the sinners face hell and destruction, could you with the sensitivity of a mother, as the Divine is both mother and father to this earth, could you with all the care and love in your heart, bear to see even sinners thrown into the hell of the inferno before your eyes in New Orleans?

Is there not a need for the rational in this life.

If God created all, then also God created choice.

I know I have often been mistaken for a dreamer, yet the rational and the reality is of the greatest importance, as is real human sentiment in the real world.

I think its interesting that you took my metaphor as a personal strike.. That was not my intention I was likening your concept of what Christ is to my concept of Christ and how inacceptable it was to my way of thinking. We are attempting to discuss the narrow mindedness of Christians and I happen to fall into that catergory so I feel I must speak for myself and others of my faith. The attack if you could call it was originally at my doorstep.

I definitely am disheartened that you think that I/we would ever wish hell on anyone.. I have had people in my life do horrible horrible things that anyone in their right mind would hate them for and wish them to go to hell and I DO NOT wish that on anyone!! If anything these people are in my prayers more than anyone else because we are supposed to pray for our enemies and I believe that it is so we dont fall into that hate mentality.. You cannot truly hate someone and pray for them.

Just because I dont want them to go to hell does not diminish the reality of it. I dont want someone to get cancer but that doesnt mean it wont happen if they keep smoking..

It seems to me that you think that I get to choose what I believe.. That simply because something is horrible it means I shouldnt believe in it.. Think about that for a second. It looks good... feels good... but its not realistic to me.

I also do not know what your concept of hell is.. Its not the same as mine and Im not entirely sure if either one of us has the correct idea of it.. I do know one thing.. God isnt in hell .. divine mother and father.. whatever term we use. God certainly is in New Orleans right now.. He is with everyone there that much I do know so as long as God is there we have hope and love and compassion and the courage of our good people.. I also know that satan is there doing what he can to circumvent the work of God and my prayers are for these people as well.

[Faithfulservant]

Cobber.. Its very difficult to discuss the bible with someone who wont accept its validity.. Anything I say.. you would say "but how do you know he said that.. the copies were lost" Know what I mean? Its an unending circle of he said she said... gets nowhere fast and too much of a headache. This is why I usually stay in the Christianity forum.. you get a lot less of this kind of argument and even if someone does.. it gets squelched fast.

oh yeah theres also the " well I dont accept those books but I think these books are ok" people. And they use those certain books for their arguments but disregard the rest.. Im wondering if you are in that group. Im not sure though.. You never did specify your beliefs lol.

usually you can tell what group people are in by the terminology they use... like the divine mother and father.. or Jehovah or G-D.. Sometimes its not so easy..

Anyways.. This scripture is my guide in witnessing to people..

Romans 14

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.

Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.

Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
-----------------------------


I love that chapter..

[Ciel]

Hi Bandit,
The box remark was made about my original post to faithfulservant.
It was said, a pretty box but empty.
It seemed the words contained no value to her.
This box is so empty of any wish to argue.

It can only state it's case, and allows it's self to be gently carried where one turns off the mind and floats downstream. It is created in it's own consciousness. There never was a box. The box is out.

[Faithfulservant]

lol flashback to a certain Star *pinches self*

Ciel.. I was not trying to offend you with my box analogy..it seems to me you are sensitive about your words being accepted as some sort of divine truth or mystical understanding of what spirituality should be. Or I might be confusing you with that certain Star.. If so, then my apologies. Like Ive said before.. CR would be boring if everyone had the same thoughts and beliefs and it wouldnt be very stimulating conversation.

c'est la vie..

Cant please everyone all the time...

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Hi 9 Harmony,

I may be as suggested, only a pretty empty box, but your words fill me with hope, in the understanding of one voice translated through many, when we truly listen to each other we understand the elements of human nature, and it's causes, apart from faith it is the way to find peace in this world in the understanding of each other.

(((((Ciel))))))

I am truly glad that something I said brought you a measure of comfort and hope. I believe we have many reasons to be hopeful.

Have a wonderful weekend!

-Amy

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Cobber

How do you know that jesus did say he is "I am"?. All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE.

Throughout most of the history of the church, the Gospel of John was believed to have been written by Jesus' disciple. A majority of theologians today believe that it was written by a group of authors. There is also speculation that much of the gospel was written by a single, unknown writer, and that a second, later individual reworked the text in order to make it conform to contemporary church teaching. Because of its theological principles and the emphasis on "Jesus as the Son of God", it rapidly became the favorite gospel.

I choose to accept what I've learned, or I choose to not accept. I have studied the scrolls and other materials considered ancient. I cross reference "things" to attempt corrolation (it is the detective in me)

Finally, I try very hard to keep an open mind about the piece meal history we seem to have.

Of all the "historical" references we have at our disposal, religious scripture remains the most intact, wherein secular history is swiss cheese at best.

When all is said and done my friend, I have absolutely nothing to lose, by believing in a God of such kindness, magnitude, and confidence as the one who calls Himself Jesus of Nazareth. I have nothing to lose by trying to live by His example. And I have nothing to lose by believing in a Savior such as one Jesus professes himself to be. So it is all good.

v/r

Q

[Dor]

Originally Posted by Cobber

How do you know that jesus did say he is "I am"?. All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE.

Throughout most of the history of the church, the Gospel of John was believed to have been written by Jesus' disciple. A majority of theologians today believe that it was written by a group of authors. There is also speculation that much of the gospel was written by a single, unknown writer, and that a second, later individual reworked the text in order to make it conform to contemporary church teaching. Because of its theological principles and the emphasis on "Jesus as the Son of God", it rapidly became the favorite gospel.

Yeah and it could have been written by George Jetson and sent back in time too.....more hogwash.

[Ciel]

Quote; faithfulservant;

Ciel.. I was not trying to offend you with my box analogy..it seems to me you are sensitive about your words being accepted as some sort of divine truth or mystical understanding of what spirituality should be.

Faithfulservant, do you remember the question here? This way is so narrow there is not even the smallest possibility of openess. If I return this quote to you, would it offend?

The box analogy corresponded to humour, are you able to laugh at yourself, as you laugh at others. Maybe divine humour is out of the question, but do you see how you ridicule anothers expression of God.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I choose to accept what I've learned, or I choose to not accept.

....

When all is said and done my friend, I have absolutely nothing to lose, by believing in a God of such kindness, magnitude, and confidence as the one who calls Himself Jesus of Nazareth. I have nothing to lose by trying to live by His example. And I have nothing to lose by believing in a Savior such as one Jesus professes himself to be. So it is all good.

v/r

Q

Well said, Q.

lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Cobber

How do you know that jesus did say he is "I am"?. All of the original copies of the gospels have been lost. We must rely upon hand-written copies which are an unknown number of replications removed from the originals. The oldest known surviving part of a gospel dates from about 125 CE.

Throughout most of the history of the church, the Gospel of John was believed to have been written by Jesus' disciple. A majority of theologians today believe that it was written by a group of authors. There is also speculation that much of the gospel was written by a single, unknown writer, and that a second, later individual reworked the text in order to make it conform to contemporary church teaching. Because of its theological principles and the emphasis on "Jesus as the Son of God", it rapidly became the favorite gospel.

My opinion is that the original version of what we now know of as the "Gospel of John" was originally written by Cerinthus and then reworked by Iraeneus to conform more with orthodoxy and to respond to the Gospel of Thomas.

I highly reccomend Elaine Pagels' "Beyond Belief" on the subject of the Gospel of John and its relationship to early "gnostics."

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by At_the_Wellspring

...but thought I'd add my thoughts to the thread before I take off for the weekend

I haven't thought this through much, but I'm just pondering over whether all these statments of being the 'One Way' as 9Harmony mentioned - firstly, if they are actually all the 'One Way' (equal or the same?), or that they recognise the 'One Spirit' - but secondly that also they were talking about themselves in the context in which they lived and taught? Meaning they were the most 'Divinely enlightened' of their time and environment, and so were advising others to only follow them, rather than other false/ unreliable (or whatever) other sources that were around them. But actually, now that I've written that down it doesn't sound quite right, it sounds too similar to 'come to our church, not others, we are the closest to God'...

Hmm... don't know if that makes too much sense...

Hi Wellspring! and everyone!


imho i don't think they were actually talking about themselves personally. I am thinking more along the lines that as the Voice of God for the day in which they appeared, that essentially the teachings they espoused were the teachings of God for their day. So as such yes, they are stating that they hold the key for that age. Through them we are allowed a glimpse of God's majesty. If we heed their teachings and truly try to live by them, we enhance our own spiritual development.

But if we actually research each of these religions we note that each also foretold of One to come after them, so they all acknowledged that they would eventually pass the torch to another enlightened soul.

Also, each of these messengers states things that are often taken to mean they are saying that they are God Himself, yet it this were true, why then do they also makes claims about their lowliness.

The only explanation for these discrepancies (imho) is that these pure souls have 2 stations simultaneously. At times they teach us about God in their humble human station, at other times they speak with the Voice of the Authority of God Himself, (though imho God is not and will never be human, these special souls were conduits for God to reveal Himself to us through their words and actions).

I can see how people derive the concept of exclusiveness within each of these religions. But I think that comes from picking and choosing verses to focus on without looking at the whole. If these messengers really are from God as their followers believe, then we must look at the whole of their teachings. Picking one verse and then proclaiming this is what they meant, when looking at it in conjunction with another verse from the same book that appears to contradict the first should give people reason to pause and reflect. Instead of ignoring the whole we should rather look at the whole and say "ok, how can this mesh, God does not lie, there must be truth enshrined in each verse, how can we reconcile the two?" and therein lies the truth.

I believe that God's message has always been one. That he will continue to educate us through these divine messengers, but we, fallible human beings that we are, have placed these boxes around our prophets, the exclusivism that we see is manmade. We fail to realize that they are not separate, but rather continuing stages of the whole.

God has never left us alone.

of course this is all simply my opinion.