Liberal Christianity without Creation?

[Quahom1]

What name calling? I didn't call anyone names Flow. And what does speaking my piece have anything to do with Moderating? And why take it so personal? To use your own vernacular, Recursive remarks are non-functional. You seem to think that what, liberalism in Christianity should be tolerated? That a watered down version should be accepted? That literalist are passee? Why? For your benefit? The Bible says what it says. Take it or leave it, no one is forcing you to do otherwise. But do not get up in arms when a person states that they think otherwise than you. Especially on a Christian forum...especially here.

If you have a problem with my "heavy handedness", notify I,Brian, please. He is the administrator (and owner of this entire forum). If I am out of line, he will make it quite clear Flow.

v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

I think it should be underlined that we try to support as many Christian viewpoints here, not least Liberal to Conservative, without any bias.

Don't be afraid to express a view different to Quahom or Juantoo3 - they post as individuals with their own thoughts, but clearly mark their posts different when acting as a moderator. And no moderator has a remit to censor different views.

The overall question here I tried to raise is one of fundamentals - regardless as to what the Bible says or not, traditional Christian Theology has it that Jesus was required sacrificed to save us from Original Sin.

However, if someone is to say there was no Original Sin, but that Jesus is their Saviour, the question is - Saviour from what?

I'm not trying to belittle any position in this thread - this is entirely for the purpose of discussion.

It's also worth noting that the Genesis account doesn't need to be literal in order to subscribe to Original Sin as humanity falling from Grace.

I'm sort of hoping to see more of the pro-liberal arguments.

[wil]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The overall question here I tried to raise is one of fundamentals - regardless as to what the Bible says or not, traditional Christian Theology has it that Jesus was required sacrificed to save us from Original Sin.

However, if someone is to say there was no Original Sin, but that Jesus is their Saviour, the question is - Saviour from what?

Whose tradition? This is the question. Without regard to the who did what when. We know that early Christianity was all over the place...the tradition you speak of was a political decision by one group to codify their beliefs and create the rest as wrong. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but that is what is. It was successful...and has this thought as traditional...and everything else as heretical or blasephemous....today called alternative or liberal.

[I, Brian]

Indeed - but the traditional view was effectively subscribed to for more than 1500 years - and I'm not at all against other views being expressed - it's simply that with regard to the original question, how do Liberal Christians balance a rejection of a literal Eden with a literal Resurrection?

I'm not trying to attack - or encourage attacks - on anyone's faith - I'm simply curious how Liberal Christians address such questions themselves as a discussion topic.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If the liberal Christian point of view is that There is no orginal sin, then it would mean by deduction that the death of Christ did not serve any purpose...certainly not the purpose of removing the stain of a sin that doesn't exist...

It would also logically conclude that nothing Jesus said about getting to the father but through Him, is true. Since there is no orginal sin, there is no need for an intercedent on Man's behalf. In short, we don't need Jesus at all...

Hence the liberal Christian's perspective would be (I suspect), Jesus is nice to have around, but not required.

I wouldn't think you would wish me to tell others what Catholics think, what I interpret their view to be, and what they believe. Of course, I can't speak for liberal Christians either. I can only state my viewpoint and belief.

Original Sin, I don't believe in it, and it appears neither did the Jews, so I don't really know who got us all wound up about that.

Jesus's path through humanity, his trials and tribulations in life, his dying on the cross and resurection. Are all to teach us what is possible. Tis one thing for someone to say, "I know you can climb that mountain, of course I've never done it, but it is possible, and I'll tell you how." As the saying goes today, those that can do....those that can't teach. Jesus did both and told us everything he did we can do and more.

Do I consider my elder brother and wayshower my saviour? Yes, but by worshipping him? No, by striving to use the principles he taught us. He rose from the dead, but it appears so many of us prefer to leave him up there on the cross. Funny if he walked around today I'd think he would think feeding thousands, asking who will cast the first stone, his talks, his healings, the ascencion...maybe they would be revered and enshrined.... but that last three hours....we are going to put that moment be the big item?

Again, I can't speak for all liberal Christians, but I believe the stories are powerful, the meanings are deep, and the thought extends beyond the pages of the books, or the walls of the churches... into the streets.

Seeing the good and assisting my brothers and sisters to be all they can be, without judgement or denegration of where they are. Something to strive for. That is what Jesus gave us, he raised the bar.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think it should be underlined that we try to support as many Christian viewpoints here, not least Liberal to Conservative, without any bias.

Don't be afraid to express a view different to Quahom or Juantoo3 - they post as individuals with their own thoughts, but clearly mark their posts different when acting as a moderator. And no moderator has a remit to censor different views.

The overall question here I tried to raise is one of fundamentals - regardless as to what the Bible says or not, traditional Christian Theology has it that Jesus was required sacrificed to save us from Original Sin.

However, if someone is to say there was no Original Sin, but that Jesus is their Saviour, the question is - Saviour from what?

I'm not trying to belittle any position in this thread - this is entirely for the purpose of discussion.

It's also worth noting that the Genesis account doesn't need to be literal in order to subscribe to Original Sin as humanity falling from Grace.

I'm sort of hoping to see more of the pro-liberal arguments.

Again, I will suggest that the belief in Christ Jesus as a Saviour need have nothing to do with this notion of original sin ... because the same truths as expressed by Christian elders can be found in the far more ancient teachings of the Hindu Vedas. Yes, I realize this isn't the Comparative forum, and that's a shame. Nonetheless, I will need to at least provide a couple of examples to make my point:

First Example

"Lead us, O Lord, from darkness to light;
from the unreal to the real;
from death to immortality."
(Brihadaranyaki Upanishad I, 3, 28)

In this ancient mantram, or prayer, the Lord Who is asked so to lead us ... will be found to be IDENTICAL with the Christ of Christianity. Does this prove that there is no original sin? No, perhaps not. But IF I am correct, then it does show that belief in the Christ is far more ancient than even contemporary Christianity is willing to admit ... with its own acquiesances to the traditions of a Messiah in Judaism far predating the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth.

If God sent us Christ, then He also sent us Sri Krishna before Him, He sent us the Buddha, He sent us Orpheus, Zoroaster, Thoth-Hermes, Vyasa, and the earlier Herakles. ALL of these were World Teachers, Messiahs, and `Christs.' The Ancient Record preserves this truth, and only Christians, of all the world's believers, seem to pitch a fit when this fact is pointed out. WHY?

Does it really hurt so much to discover that G-d is organized enough, thoughtful enough, and caring enough to have always walked with us in Human form, to help us along our journey (and return to His Loving, more direct Presence)? That He still walks with us today, when & where needed? That we didn't actually make the colossal goof-up, which misunderstanding can really result only if we take the tales of Genesis literally?

But let's move on to Example Two:

"Whenever the world declineth in virtue and righteousness; and vice and injustice mount the throne, then cometh I, the Lord and revisit my world in visible form, and mingleth as a man with men, and by my influence and teachings do I destroy the evil and injustice and reestablish virtue and righteousness. Many times have I thus appeared, and many times hereafter shall I come again." (Bhagavad-Gita, 4;7,8)

Here, Sri Krishna's words to Arjuna, as those of Christ to His disciples, remind us that God has never abandoned Humanity - who are collectively and only so His "Chosen People." Why is it necessary for God to keep manifesting in this way, as the Bhagavad Gita teaches us, and the Bible after it?

Because Humanity is as a young child, even though we are on our way, growing to maturity, we must still invoke the LIGHT, the TRUTH, and the ETERNAL (`G-d') as in the Upanishad above. And SO did Christ Himself speak, as so many Christians are wont to remind us (John 14:6) ... but not the first was He to appear as Saviour, nor the last.

For Him who hears, Christ speaks plainly in the Gita, even in modern English, less than a century ago. Are we really so unworthy, so corrupt, so hopeless that G-d has abandoned his once-holy people ... and left us to our destruction, save those rare & fortunate few - who, even in their last hour, with their last, dying breath, somehow find the inspiration and the wherewithal to cry "Jesus!" and be delivered!?!

Heavens no. That is just the point. No eternal perdition, no state (or stain) of corruption just because of human birth, no inheriting of the "sins of our fathers." Inasmuch as we belong to collective Humanity, the ONE Human Family, yes, there is a "collective sin." Inasmuch as it is we ourselves to which these passages are referring ("Whom did sin, THIS MAN or his parents, that HE was born blind?") ... then, yes, again we have inherited our own karma.

Come now. Let's not pretend that anyone is trying to invent a new Christianity by acknowledging that Christ taught all these things. If the Scriptures have been carefully, jealously and zealously edited so as to seem to suggest other alternatives, then I should say it is those who insist other than I do who have invented a different Christianity!

To stand and tell me that, "This is how things are, because this here book says it's so" ... that REALLY shows me something. Not a paper pope, but the Living Law, written in every human heart - THIS is the authority which Christ knew, and taught, and emphasized. Or have we so soon forgotten? Shall we dispute this point, and do all we can to preserve the bastions ...

Nothing that is founded on Truth shall fall, just as nothing that is erected on an unstable foundation shall last. The former structure may be a far slower to take its glorious and wonderful form, while in the intervening time, MANY HUNDREDS of lesser kingdoms, castles and monuments will rise & fall. And their names are religions, governments and ideologies, while the former is the singular prototype of each.

I know, I know, that's all sufficiently vague, yet isn't my point exactly what this thread is about? Force a literal interpretation & translation, and you can build an entire religion around a man called Moses, Jesus, Mohammad or Buddha. Insist on too liberal an interpretation, and a faith will fall apart or disappear - in terms of outward organization(s).

What, then, is the solution? Will the Catholics and the fundamentalists hear nothing of "Christ the Saviour" without his death as atonement for our sins (a hearkening back to the blood sacrifice of the OLD religions, of course)? And will the atheists and the skeptical humanists insist that Jesus was nice bloke, but clearly just a radical hippie with a pipe dream that never manifested? Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between, safe from each of these extremes, and much more tenable - even by a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, and an Agnostic. I like to believe so ...

Namaste, and Peace,

taijasi

[Rev Wayne]

Comments that struck me as I read through the posts:

The Bible, in its entirety, tells the story of the relationship between God and Man.

It's also worth noting that the Genesis account doesn't need to be literal in order to subscribe to Original Sin as humanity falling from Grace.

First, I would say my position is traditionally conservative, but I have an open view towards other views presented. In the case of Genesis, I found it fascinating a few years ago when I did some research for a group class project on Africa, and I was assigned the area of religion. I focused particularly on African traditional or tribal religions, many of which, according to the researchers, were untainted (I prefer "untouched" or "uninfluenced" rather than the negative connotations of "taint"--but this was the term I encountered in reading) by the beliefs of the major established religions of the world. In reading some of the beliefs held by various tribes, I was looking for commonalities they all shared (hence my paper was titled "Similarities Among African Tribal Religions").

But in looking mainly at their beliefs compared among one another, I was struck by something I had not anticipated: there were stories and religious beliefs that had remarkable similarity to the accounts of the Bible. These were most evident in comparison with the Creation accounts, and in the Genesis 3 account of the Fall. The Yoruba tribe of Nigeria have a tradition which maintains that Creation took four days, with the fifth day set aside for worship of Olorum, the Supreme Being. In the traditions of the Gikuyu tribe of Kenya, God puts a created "first man and woman" in a garden, where they are in charge of the earth, which includes a "tree of life" and a "holy mountain." The Fall is easily seen in the accounts of the Nuer tribe, who believe that the earth and sky were once joined together by a rope. People came down to the earth for food, and if they died, ascended the rope to the sky, to return later, alive once again. Different versions exist even among the Nuer people, but all of them lead to the eventual severing of the rope. Perhaps even more interesting is the common feature in many tribal traditions of a woman who was responsible for wrongdoing, which led to the end of existence in an idyllic state, and caused a cessation of a direct communal relationship with God, and also caused the "separation of earth and sky," a common expression:

Often in African story a woman is blamed for having brought the idyllic state to an end. The Margi of Nigeria say that in the past the sky could be touched and there was no need to work, God filled men's calabashes without them working; but a woman put out a dirty calabash and infected the finger of one of the sky children, and God retired in anger to his present distance. Elsewhere they say that a woman annoyed God by hitting the sky with her pounding-stick, or women tore pieces of the sky to put in the soup and God went off to a distance.
The Ngombe of the Congo say that men used to live in the sky, but one woman became such a nuisance that God lowered her down from heaven in a basket with enough seed for herself and her children. In Urundi it is thought that God used to live with men and created their children. One day he made a crippled baby and the parents were so angry that they took a knife to kill God, and so he retired. The Ba-ila of Rhodesia simply said that Leza is not so young as he used to be or so near. He has got old, and just as old men dribble tears so the rain is his dribbling. He is not so accessible to prayers as he used to be.
Rather like the Garden of Eden story is that of the Mende, who say that God once lived in a cave and invited the animals to come in pairs but forbade them to touch his food. One day the cow smelt the sweet-smelling food and ate some, and at once God seized the animal and threw it out of the cave. The monkey and all the animals eventually sinned and suffered the same fate, including man. Now all the animals wander about looking for that delicious food, and God watches them from above.
--Geoffrey Parrinder, African Traditional Religion, London: Hutchinson House, pp. 40-41.

Granted, there are large differences, but thematically the similarities are easy to see: existence in a "paradise" or garden, a human action that caused the paradise to cease, and a resultant "distance" or separation. If we accept the premise that these were truly "untainted" relgious traditions, I find it hard to deny that these stories have many of the same elements of the Bible stories, and much in the way of common themes that give them the "ring of truth" taht suggests they have some form of revelation from God that has gone into the stories.
I certainly would be interested in any comments.

[flowperson]

Rev Wayne:

My journey to real understanding began when I read Huston Smith's book, The Religions of Man/ The World's Religions. I was also struck by the similarities of the roots of the great belief systems of the world.

By the way, I ran across the same African stories that you mentioned about twenty years ago when I got serious about studying the origins of the world's cultures. Any ideas I might have had about Judeo-Christian exclusivity with regards to myths of human origins went right out the window, and I was radicalized forever.

flow....

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

That's what I mean, Quahom - the Crucifixion and Resurrection surely require the Original Sin of the Garden of Eden?

So if a Liberal Christian point of view negates the literalism of the Garden of Eden, then aren't they also negating the literalism of the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Simply exploring the topic.

Brian, I'm not sure I have it all straight here but I get the impression that in liberal Christianity the crucifixion and resurrection do not have the same central meaning as they do for more conservative Christianity. The reason may well be that with no original sin to be cleansed from there is no saviour required to pay the debt.

But there is another way to see things. Even without the doctrine of original sin, humans do make abundent mistakes in one little lifetime. Where I grew up the term original sin was not a common concept, but the death and resurrection of Jesus was central. Even when doing our very best we end up messing up all the time. We cannot so much as think one good thought without the aid of the Spirit. Such has been emphasized a lot in my original community.

God is supposedly so high and holy that no sin can be tolerated by him. But humans are completely incapable of making up for their failures because the good things we might use to make up should we have done anyway. So it all boils down to the need of a saviour who paid our debt. Something like that is how the theology goes that I was raised with.

No original sin and babies and children up to the age of accountability are innocent. But we sure do need a saviour to make up for our endless mistakes. I don't buy it but that is basically the theology I was raised with.

Ruby

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Brian, I'm not sure I have it all straight here but I get the impression that in liberal Christianity the crucifixion and resurrection do not have the same central meaning as they do for more conservative Christianity. The reason may well be that with no original sin to be cleansed from there is no saviour required to pay the debt.

But there is another way to see things. Even without the doctrine of original sin, humans do make abundent mistakes in one little lifetime. Where I grew up the term original sin was not a common concept, but the death and resurrection of Jesus was central. Even when doing our very best we end up messing up all the time. We cannot so much as think one good thought without the aid of the Spirit. Such has been emphasized a lot in my original community.

God is supposedly so high and holy that no sin can be tolerated by him. But humans are completely incapable of making up for their failures because the good things we might use to make up should we have done anyway. So it all boils down to the need of a saviour who paid our debt. Something like that is how the theology goes that I was raised with.

No original sin and babies and children up to the age of accountability are innocent. But we sure do need a saviour to make up for our endless mistakes. I don't buy it but that is basically the theology I was raised with.

Ruby

Tell me about Liberal Christianity. (note: I will listen without interjecting my thoughts), but then you will listen to what I have to say with the same...and you will present your opinions and response, to my view.

deal?

[wil]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

God is supposedly so high and holy that no sin can be tolerated by him. But humans are completely incapable of making up for their failures because the good things we might use to make up should we have done anyway. So it all boils down to the need of a saviour who paid our debt. Something like that is how the theology goes that I was raised with.

Namaste Ruby, I don't see it that way at all, I see G-d as so High and Holy that spirit can't see sin, period. G-d sees us as created in his likeness pure and simple. Tis funny after the apple it is written that we became like them...but then we were clothed in skin (our skin) and became separate. Our higher self is healthy, whole, eternal, perfect, our material nature, temporary, has mental and physical issues at times and occasionally misses the target (sins). G-d accepts us all as we are, doesn't see our faults. Again I understand why thousands of years ago that explained away a lot of things...gotta blame someone, surely I didn't cause this issue, musta been G-d.

ps, I'd love to see how you listen and not respond Q, how many posts you gonna sit idly by?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm curious - surely if Jesus was sacrificed but there was no Garden of Eden "original sin" to atone for, then doesn't that very much reduce Jesus in standing as a religious and spiritual figure? A great man, rather than God incarnate?

Not if the "the Fall" is a metaphorical story about how we lost sight of our connection to "God," and Jesus's willingness to sacrifice himself for the sin's of others is a guidepost to point us back to that connection.

[Dondi]

Rev. Wane,

Thank you for those African tribal comparasions. It will make my point easier.

Romans 5:12-19:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Even if one doesn't wish to subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, I don't think that necessarily negates the point about our original condition before God.

When we talk about Original Sin, what are we really saying? That there is a Ideal that God has for Man. That God and Man ought to be in a Perfect Harmony with each other in Love. And that Man somehow, someway has failed to achieve this Ideal. Or if Man had it, he lost it. It's not so much the matter of one particular sin, but rather the fact that our condition compels us to sin.

Whether or not you believe in a literal Adam or that Man evolved to the present species of Homo. Sapien, we are not where we ought to be, need to be. We are still Earth (Adam) bound. And whether or not God is trying to restore us to a pre-Fall state or evolve us toward the Ideal, the end result is the same: To Perfect our Love.

Sin, when one gets down to it, is the distortion of Perfect Love, Perfect Relationship with God and our fellow Man. We are judged because we are imperfect. Our nature is such that we are attendant to our basest nature, the dirt nature from which Adam was made. We are found within ourselves the inability to be perfect. And I think that our perception of imperfection is in the consciouness of everyone in the earth, and why these African tribal legends of creation are simliar to biblical creation. We do not have the resources with ourselves to be perfect, for we neither the example (rule or measurement) nor the strength to achieve it. To try to be perfect within ourselves would be like trying to build a house without a blueprint.

What Christ did was demonstrate that possibility of restoring ability to express Perfect Love, through the Spirit. That is KEY. Christ is the Last Adam in the sense that He came to restore all things back to God. He demonstrated through the Power of the Holy Spirit how we can Love. He drew strength from God and lived the Life that Adam ought to have had. that we ought to have. His continuous reliance on God and not Himself is what got Him through, for He even struggled with God's Will in the Garden: "Nevertheless, not Mine will, but yours". The battle is in the will.

I believe we can in this Life believe we can get to the state of God's Perfect Will, only as long as we relinquish our will to God. We can come to a state of Grace whereby we operate in the Spirit and not in the Adamic flesh, which would drag us down. But we have to be willing to Love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, which includes Loving our neighbor as ourself. Is this hard to do? You bet! But if we seek to try and live like this, it ought to get easier as time progresses.

[Rev Wayne]

Even if one doesn't wish to subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, I don't think that necessarily negates the point about our original condition before God.

Amen! And I hope I did not come across in a manner that would seem any different. The point I chose to quote, after all, was:

"It's also worth noting that the Genesis account doesn't need to be literal in order to subscribe to Original Sin as humanity falling from Grace."

This comment struck me, because it upholds an idea that I would embrace, that just because someone might disagree that the creation account is in all points literal, does not automatically preclude any possibility of their also believing in the doctrine of original sin. Those who hold to the literal position sometimes make that error.

And the instances cited about African religions were intended only to show that there are variations of the same themes in other traditions. In retrospect, that may be neither here nor there in regard to the question of literal/not literal. It has less to say against the biblical doctrine of original sin than it does to affirm the belief, though differently expressed, in other religions. With the added point that these seem to have been uninfluenced by the major religions of the world, a doctrine of original sin in another tradition, being a truth which we accept in our own tradition, raises certain questions. One would be, where did they then come by such truth? My own take on it, and I don't assert it as dogmatic fact, is that they too received it by revelation from God.

But when I say things like that, I usually get a chorus of boo's from well-meaning Christians who want to claim all of revelation and allow none to leak out to anybody else. So perhaps I'd better affirm that above all I see Christ as the Supreme Revealer. I just think that if we see things expressed in other religions that we affirm as true in our own, and which we can't trace back to having been "borrowed" from Christianity (or patterned after it), then it seems disingenuous to try to claim they did not receive it by some revelation from God, be that a "lesser" revelation if one feels it must be so expressed.

Your point about sin "compelling" us is a good point, and one which I cannot adequately address, as I am no expert on the religions I spoke of. I have seen nothing in the accounts I've read to affirm or deny whether they would view it that way. I get the idea that in those particular accounts, the focus was on origins and causation, and directed more toward "we had relation with God, we sinned, and that sin brought the separation we now see." Cause and effect, I suppose, and a common feature of African story-telling, so no surprise that it would be that way in telling their religious stories (I have seen them described by some authors as "why" stories).

As for the rest of what you posted, I am in wholehearted agreement as well.

[Dondi]

I think the Bible does address those who do not have full revelation, as in Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

And later in Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

This seems to tell me that there are two sources of revelation apart from scriptures: creation and conscience.

As for the compulsion toward sin, my view is that as long as we are living in a fallen world in corrupt and dying bodies, our tendency is going to sway toward sin. Now the Holy Spirit is able to sustain us as we allow His control, but until we are made perfect in the incorruptable bodies, we are always going to have problems with temptation.