I dislike the old testamant but enjoy the teachings of Christ

[Cetacea]

(and Buddha and Thomas Merton as well) What does that make me?

[BrklynLiberal]

1. A polytheist?

That is not an insult...

[Cetacea]

7. It's ok. thanks n/t

[madeline_con]

2. Well read?

[Mind_your_head]

3. Confused?

Trolling for a religious "fight club" *heh*

:shrug:

[Cetacea]

8. No, not trolling. Confused mostly. n/t

[COStorm]

67. Is it trolling?

Is this really trolling? I would think it's the start of a good conversation...:shrug:

[charlie]

4. At least 10,000 times smarter than any Fundie n/t

[Muttocracy]

5. interested in moral philosophy?

The fact that some version of the Golden Rule (do unto others...) is in every religion tells me that it's a valuable way to live regardless of religion. In spite of even.

[Cetacea]

9. I agree.

I had a satori experience when I was very young and it really turned me around as I was raised Roman Catholic. I don't know. Maybe I am a pantheist?

[aquart]

6. Well, I'd probably start with "ignorant" and proceed from there.

I'm guessing your grounding in the origin and history of religion is a little sparse.

[kestrel91316]

10. The OP is discussing his SPIRITUAL OUTLOOK, not the history of religion.

The word "ignorant" does not apply.

Where the hell do you get off trying to dictate or denigrate someone's journal of spiritual discovery???

[Cetacea]

12. Thanks Kestrel. Maybe my question came off as trollish.n't

[beam me up scottie]

18. The more I learn about religion,

the more I miss being ignorant...

:)
Imagine.

[Cetacea]

20. I miss John.

Though his spirit and music are still changing the world.

[Sophree]

23. My Dad used to play Beatles albums for us

For me and my brothers- the White album, Sgt. Pepper. Those were my weekends growing up, along with Crosby, Stills, and Nash, Simon & Garfunkle, The Band...

Memories...

[beam me up scottie]

27. Yes.

He'll never really die as long as we have his music...

[aquart]

30. Spiritual discovery without factual knowledge?

Well, sure, why not. Safer that way. Ignorance is nirvana, after all.

[Cetacea]

11. My "grounding" comes more from direct mystical experience than dogma

I don't know that much about the old testament as regards Christ. Is it possible to be a Christian while rejecting the old testament? Doesn't "love every body" contradict old testament teachings?

[pnwmom]

29. There is much in the New Testament that contradicts Old Testament

teachings, and Jesus spoke about this. For Christians, the New Testament takes priority, so don't worry.

[cosmik debris]

31. Jesus was suppose to uphold the OT laws

Not replace them.

You really can't accept all the teachings of Jesus without accepting that he taught that the OT was the way to go.

Now if you have a cafeteria religion, that works out OK.

But if you say that you like the teachings of Jesus, you have to say "except the part about the OT". Because he was squarely in favor of the OT.

That's why so called liberal christians are also called cafeteria christians.

[pnwmom]

33. You're wrong. He himself was the new Word. The writers of the New Testament

rejected many of the teachings of the Old Testaments, as well as the Pharisees who promoted them.

For example, how many Christians do you know who follow the dietary laws in the Old Testament, or believe that circumcision is required for religious reasons? Very few.

I suspect you're one of the non-Christians who enjoys telling Christians what they are "supposed" to believe. Sorry, but you're off base.

[Meshuga]

34. It is not about telling what Christians should believe

But perhaps about what Jesus believed as a first century Jew? My guess is that Cosmik Debris is trying to point out that Christians don't mirror Jesus because Jesus was a Jew and Jesus very likely followed Jewish law (and embraced the OT). And that is a valid point to make. So I don't understand your attempt to accuse him of telling Christians what they are supposed to believe. I see his complaint as valid since important components of Christianity (like the OT) seem to be sometimes dismissed and sometimes considered important depending on the argument. I might be wrong but that is my perception.

Jesus is not the founder of Christianity, his followers were the founders of Christianity, so it even makes sense that Christianity might be foreign to a historical Jesus (a Jew), assuming he existed. Christians don't follow Jewish law (i.e., Christians don't follow a kosher diet) simply because Christians are not Jewish and Jewish law is not meant to be followed by non-Jews. So this perfectly explains Christians following Jesus ethical teachings without following Jewish law.

But as a Jew, Jesus probably embraced Jewish law. Here is a quote attributed to Jesus:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:17-20

About the Pharisees, they were promoters of the twofold law, not promoters of the teachings in the "Old Testament" as set in the text. For the Pharisees to gain power withing the Jewish world they had to remove the authority away from the written Torah (the first five books of the "Old Testament") without totally doing away with the written Torah but giving the last word to an open ended Oral law. Establishing the written law as "the law" was not in the best interest of the Pharisees since it would not enable them to gain political power within Judaism. Pharisaism is the sole survivor of the Jewish sects after the fall of the Temple and this explains why even Jews don't stone other Jews who don't follow the laws.

[cosmik debris]

35. Thank you, you're correct

But I think the point being made by that poster was that it is more important what Christians believe than what Jesus said.

For example, she pointed out that modern Christians do not follow dietary laws or circumcision laws. But Jesus certainly did follow those laws and promoted them. So for her it seems, the issue is what Christians believe, not what Jesus believed. That is an unassailable argument. No Bible quotes can ever overcome that.

[Meshuga]

37. If Biblical quotes don't work

And if it doesn't matter what Jesus believed then I assume that nothing is being really followed. I thought that faith was a main component of Christianity so if faith in scripture and in Jesus are dismissed then there is nothing much left.

[cosmik debris]

39. As I said in post 31

"That's why so called liberal christians are also called cafeteria christians."

[TheCML]

40. Are you a Christian?

Because the only people I have ever heard that term from are fundamentalist Christians. And I take offense to it, as a Christian I do not take the Bible literally. I think fundamentalists more than "liberal Christians" are more guilty of picking and choosing, as they do take it literally yet love to point fingers at gays, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge being overweight as a sin, or if your going to take the Bible literally eating pork or shellfish.


The term "cafeteria Christian" whatever the hell it means, doesnt apply to a large chunk of "liberal Christians" (whatever the hell THAT means) because we dont all interpret the Bible the same way.

[cosmik debris]

43. "Cafeteria christian" is a term used to describe christians

who pick and choose which parts of the bible are important and which parts they can ignore. That is the opposite of christians who take the bible at face value.

There are two extremes, and there is middle ground.

You may say that it is all true.

You may say that none of it is true.

Or you may say that part of it is true.

Those who say that part of it is true are cafeteria christians because they decide which parts they want to believe and which parts they want to make excuses for.

It has been my experience that the fundamentalists believe that it is all true.

Many non-christians believe that none of it is true.

And "liberal christians" make excuses for the parts that they wish were not true.

[TheCML]

45. Its not a basic as that.

Also, you failed to answer my question in the first place, so I am lead to believe that you really dont have an interest in it either way outside of agitation.

[cosmik debris]

48. Sure it is.

And I don't know why you're agitated or offended by that. The largest majority of christians are willing to dismiss some parts of the bible. There are enough contradictions in the bible to make it almost necessary to dismiss some parts of it.

What else would you call people who pick and choose which parts to believe and which parts to disbelieve?

[TheCML]

50. Im not agitated.

A large majority of Christians also do not believe that the Bible simply dropped from Heaven in hundreds of languages ready to go. No, it iself has been translated hundreds if not thousands of times, and the content in it was actually picked and choosen while other content was left out. I invite you to read the ELCA's take on it, as it most closely reflects my views on the matter. Im am not trying to be confrontational I just think you telling Christian what they ought and ought not to believe is like me a vegetarian going to a BBQ and telling them how to marinade the ribs, I wouldnt eat them, and I really have no interest so why bother? If not to just agitate.


http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/The-Bible.aspx

[cosmik debris]

51. So why are you offended by the term cafeteria christian?

It obviously applies to you. You don't deny that.

You said the term didn't apply to liberal christians and now you confirm that it does.

This discussion started out to be about Jesus' position on the old testament, not what you should or should not believe, but what Jesus did believe. The quote from Matthew posted by MrWiggles supports my position. If you choose to disbelieve that quote, that's OK with me.

[TheCML]

52. Everyone who claims to be a Christian

By your logic everyone is a "cafeteria Christian" I dont like the term because I think its an over simplification. The subject is far too big to be black and white.

[cosmik debris]

54. It has to be black and white

Either you believe the world was made in 7 days or you don't.

How can you find gray area in that?

[Jamastiene]

61. Allergory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory

[cosmik debris]

63. So the ENTIRE bible is allegory?

Or only the parts that you decide are allegory?

[Jamastiene]

60. Well said.

This is supposed to be a site for "liberals." Why anyone would use that sort of terminology here is beyond me.

[cosmik debris]

64. I use the term because it is an accurate description

Of the large majority of christians.

[pnwmom]

42. Jesus broke the law when he healed the sick on Sunday.

An important exception.

He also refused to stone a woman who'd been condemned to death, and criticized the Pharisees for praying in public. Those are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head, and it's been a long time since I read the New Testament.

But yes, you are right that what Christians believe encompasses not just the words of Jesus, but the whole New Testament, and for Catholics, at least, ongoing revelation.

[Sophree]

46. That's exactly what I was thinking of

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

By the law, yes, the woman could have been stoned to death. Jesus reminds us that none of us are without sin. In fact, He was the only sinless one and by His standards, the one who could have cast the first stone, but displayed mercy and forgiveness instead. An example of God's unending love and forgiveness.

[Cetacea]

36. In strictly a political sense, wasn't he killed for "bucking the system"

Forgiveness in place of en eye for an eye, a loving and forgiving god as opposed to a cruel one, healing on the sabbath, and of course mobilizing the poor...

[Meshuga]

38. That's one story

But is that really what happened or is there a possibility that the NT might also have its own political implications and attempts to demonize those who were seen as adversaries to the cause and goals of the authors?

The pharisaic interpretation of "eye for an eye, etc." as explained in the oral law is used to explain how a guilty party should monetarily compensate the victim for "damages, pain, medical expenses, incapacitation, and mental anguish." It was not used to allow the maiming of an offender. Is that your interpretation? Because, if it is then Jesus' ideas were not really that revolutionary and if it isn't then why would he be killed for that? Who would kill him for that?

The literal interpretation of "eye for an eye, etc." is only needed in order to elevate Jesus Christ to the revolutionary figure who supposedly brought all these "new" ideas to the table. But I don't think his ideas were so revolutionary.

Saying that god in the OT is cruel and mean is the kind of contradictions I am talking about. In the Christian context, the god in the OT is the same god as the god in the NT, otherwise Christianity doesn't really work since it uses the entire OT as the basis for its own story. So trying to dismiss the OT by saying that the god in the NT is more loving and forgiving doesn't really fly. You can say that God mellowed out but he only forgives those who accept Jesus as their savior. At least that is what Christian scripture says. So the NT god is not so loving to those who don't accept Jesus and Christianity. Unless you consider tough love as a legitimate form of love like, for example, making someone burn in hell for eternity for not accepting JC as the one and only savior.

[Sophree]

44. Same God

You're right- God is the same- OT and NT. The NT does not try to represent a different, "mellower" God, though. That may be an interpretation made by some, but I don't think it's a correct one. And there are many, many verses in the OT that proclaim God's love and forgiveness.

[pnwmom]

41. Jesus broke the law when he healed the sick on Sunday.

That was a major issue.

And C.D. was claiming that anyone who didn't follow the Old Testament was a "cafeteria Christian" -- and, as a non-believer he has no business telling Christians what they should believe.

[Igel]

55. There are those that disagree with you.

They distinguish between four kinds of "law": There are those that were given between the children of Abraham (or his physical descendants) and God; there are those that are ritual, and in the NT described as pointing towards Christ; and there are those given by Christ, whether when he spoke with Moses or when he lived under Roman rule, but which are required for a functioning state; and there are those given by Christ, whether to Moses or to the Apostles, that are of general use, "righteousness" (something mentioned, but not defined, in the Sermon on the Mount ... and defined as though Jesus agreed with every individual's idiosyncratic definition).

There's a fifth, those that were given to make things work.

In the former, you can put circumcision and Hanukkah.

In the second, sacrifices and washings.

In the third, stonings and apportioning of lands.

In the fifth, a few things like divorce, given because of "for the hardness of their hearts".

In the fourth, lots of things--like the Sabbath that Jesus is Lord over, or rules against incest (which Jesus didn't bother to mention in the NT) or adultery.

If you assume that NT writers rejected the OT, then you can interpret Paul and others one way. If you assume that they did not reject the OT, you still get completely plausible--and in many cases, more consistent--interpretations. For instance, why did Paul agree with the elders in Jerusalem about not requiring circumcision of Gentiles, but still asking them to refrain from eating meat from animals that were strangled. But why not be more exhaustive? Because in every city they had synagogues where Moses was preached.

I don't care what others believe, really, and don't tell other Xians what they have to believe. But there are Xians that keep Passover and the dietary laws, but yet reject literal circumcision as unnecessary (with 'circumcision of the heart' being fitting for Abraham's 'spiritual' heirs). They usually believe that they're not saved by these things, but that since sin is unrighteousness, and Jesus defined righteousness as God's word--the only 'word' at the time being the OT--they shouldn't sin that grace may abound.

As for other matters ... I keep asking various Xians where the OT God is in the Trinity or their theology. Most don't like Yahweh, yet Jesus seemed to think he was important and kept quoting him. Most don't want to say he's the Father, for various reasons; but most believe he's certainly not Jesus, and there's no way he's the Holy Spirit. Meaning either Jesus worshipped a false God, or the Trinity's actually a ... Quaternity? Eh. Silly question, but it gets right at the question at hand, I think, if you're in at all a traditional sort of framework.

(I'm preachier than usual--I'm visiting the in-law, my father-in-law died last week and between my mother-in-law's church services, the memorial service, and her son's recent accession into Methodism, I'm sort of besieged by "biblical" and "Xian" conversations these days ... so I'm sort of acting out.)

[pnwmom]

28. What? Just because the poster finds the New Testament more accessible or

personally meaningful doesn't make him or her "ignorant."

[autorank]

13. Listen to music instead ... metal, goa, classical, jazz, blues, trance,

...anything to stay away from the hucksters;)

Or ... when people say, "Do you go to church?" you could say "I'm not religious. I'm not spiritual
either." That's always fun.

Seriously, it makes you a "free thinker" - the highest compliment.

[Cetacea]

16. Hey there, autorank

Kudos to you on your election work. Sorry I couldn't help this year!:hi:

[autorank]

47. Hey Artie

This year we has what we needed, so many votes they didn't dare steal it!

:hi: Happy Everything!!!!!!!!

[moobu2]

14. There you go

Just pick and choose which verses best suit your personality….they all do it.

[Sophree]

15. Think of the Old Testament

I'm not an expert, but I've read most the Old Testament and all of the New Testament. The Old Testament is more of a history of the Israelites and the writings of prophets of God, plus the Psalms and Proverbs. It contains descriptions of war, etc. that aren't necessarily "feel good" type things- and warnings against disobeying God's law. It's been described as how things really were, and still are in many ways- not so good.

The NT is the Good News (or "Gospel") of Jesus, the history of the early church (book of Acts) and letters written mostly by Paul. The letters are as encouraging and instructive to people today as they were when they were written to the churches around the Greek world that Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy helped to start. The good news is that as imperfect as we are, that we'll never succeed in following all of God's commandments, that God loves us greatly and that we are forgiven. That's why it may appeal to you? I'm just guessing...

Although, I've found equal encouragement and wisdom in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms.

[Cetacea]

17. So when Christ added his commandments

was he still embracing the earlier, old testament ways? I ask because the main problem I have with fundies is how they cherry pick old testament when it seems to suit their needs and when it also contradicts the teachings of Christ (ie, war, gays, ignoring the poor,etc)

[Sophree]

19. The best I can answer is yes and no...

I don't believe He added commandments, just highlighted the ones that are most important to God- loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself.

I mean, there was still war and pain and poor people during Jesus's time, as there still are. It's not like those things just disappeared or are going away. It's just that He provided hope for the hopeless, reminding us to take care of widows and orphans (usually the poorest of the poor). Personally, I take the Bible as a whole, and I don't believe in cherry-picking it. But I think it's important to put the OT in its historical and theological context.

There's also something called the New Covenant- the Old Covenant (agreement) was what God promised to Abraham's descendents. The New Covenant manifested through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ- that we are forgiven, that the New Covenant is for all people, not just the Israelites.

edit- typo

Also edited to add- I think Jesus cleared some misunderstandings and hypocrisy while on Earth- turning the other cheek, rather than an eye for an eye, throwing the "money changers" out of the Temple- people who profitted greatly from the devout and oftentimes poor people who came to the Temple.

[Cetacea]

21. Thank you very much.

Perhaps I'll try to read some of it again someday. It's been quite some time

[Sophree]

24. Sure.

:-)

[Mind_your_head]

25. Christ Jesus didn't "add any comandments" n/t

[COStorm]

66. Oh yes He did...

Jesus added a bunch...

And stripped away a lot...

[exboyfil]

22. Read closely the Old Testament

Like the Iliad it has timeless passages that reveal how little man has changed in 3,000+ years. Sorrowful passages like "O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you - O Absalom, my son, my son!" Reading the story of David and the history of Israel reveals how much impact a single action can have in the course of a life and in history. David's adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband leads to the destruction of his family and ultimately of the kingdom of Israel. Nathan's confrontation of David is a lesson on how power which is abused needs to be challenged. A man with many sheep takes the lamb of someone who only possesses that one lamb. How moving.

The O.T. is full of these contradictions, and in that is its greatest beauty. Even a "A man after God's own heart" can fall, and while personal redemption still exists, the consequences of the action remains.

You don't have to be a believer in Yahweh or the risen Christ to enjoy the O.T. You can appreciate it for the literature of its time and its commentary on the human condition (like the Iliad or Shakespeare).

[Mind_your_head]

26. Yes

You don't have to be a believer in Yahweh or the risen Christ to enjoy the O.T. You can appreciate it for the literature of its time and its commentary on the human condition (like the Iliad or Shakespeare).

But it is MORE, much much more.......one life one solitary life has affected SO much. And all of history speaks of it....this life.

[Odin2005]

49. Heh, I'm an Atheist and I find it interesting as mythology.

And on a sociological-historical level I dare say that Modern Western values of social justice are descended ultimately from the Jewish prophets. Graeco-Roman society, on the other hand, was dominated by traditional Indo-European conceptions that ran very much counter to social justice and instead were based on aristocratic individualism, Fate, and Natural Law (or Karma as it is called in India, the other great Indo-European society). Hebraic notions of social justice and the divine fused with Indo-European notions of individualism and Natural Law to form the basis of the Western worldview.

[Cetacea]

32. Thank you all. I should have written that ASPECTS

of the OT bother me. I was sleep-deprived when I OPed. Perhaps what I really dislike are the fundies' tendency to ignore the often symbolic nature of the writings and convert those writings into vehicles for behavior and thought control. As the Aramaic meaning of the word "sin" is to miss the point I can hardly believe in a vengeful god who is so prominent in the old writings.

I believe that Christ was one with God and that part of his teachings suggest that everyone is capable of experiencing god in this lifetime, ie, "The Kingdom is within you" and The Sermon on the Mount, etc...There are many well-documented cases of mystical/religious experiences that transcend knowledge and training.
Based on the volumes "The Variety of Religious Experience" and "Cosmic Consciousness"
the experiences happen to people from all walks of life irregardless of prior educational status or spiritual practice (grace?) In all cases the recipients were/are transformed and their lives forever changed, notably instantly developing a heightened moral sense and a "KNOWING" that life is eternal and that god is everywhere and in everything.

So I think that the answer to my own question is I am probably somewhere between being a pantheist and Mystical Theologist.

Thanks again for your generous responses. Happy Holidays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_theology

[maxsolomon]

53. It makes you FREE.

check out The Jefferson Bible, by Thomas Jefferson. you will enjoy.

[Cetacea]

56. Jefferson Bible and Gospel ofThomas essay:

Thank you. I had not read Jeffersons. You might like this:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htm

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. And Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

He wrote two volumes -- Old Testament and New Testament.

He explains the historical facts and what really happened politicall.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. People focus on the "wrath of God" passages in the OT, but there's much more than that

There's poetry in the Psalms and Song of Solomon, philosophical musing in Ecclesiastes, and moral teaching that form the basis of the Jewish tradition of social activism in the prophets.

It IS ignorant to say that you hate the Old Testament and love the New Testament, because unless you're against social justice or philosophy or poetry, you've obviously never read the whole thing but are just relying on what other people have told you about it.

[Jamastiene]

59. A Methodist?

The church down the street from me, the one I went to when I was at my grandmother's house, mainly taught from the New testament, minus all that Revelations stuff. It was a church about love and acceptance. I actually liked that church.

The church at the school I went to claimed to be Baptist, but they were really more what you would call Christian Identity (think Eric Rudolph and Army of God types). I did NOT like them and turned completely away from all Christianity for years after that experience.

Now, I'm agnostic and take from a lot of religions what I see as useful in my life. I'm much happier doing that than trying to be "devout" in any one religion. It's just my own way of doing things.

From what I read of your OP, it sounds like maybe you do the same to some degree. I wish there was a name for it, but I do not know for certain what it is, if there is one.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

62. I'm assuming you mean the positive stuff Jesus said.

Not the negative stuff, condemning nonbelievers to hell and all that.

If you're into the Sermon on the Mount and "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "As ye did it to the least of them, so also you did it unto me", then that's cool.

I'm down with that.

[raccoon]

65. To me the Old Testament God is like a raving maniac and/or an abusive

out-of-control, violent alcoholic.

I can't see the appeal of it at all.

[dcsmart]

68. Jesus was a Jew and taught from the "old testament"

you mean you dislike the hebrew scriptures and like the christian scriptures. well, jesus was jew and will always be jewish and believed in the Torah and said that one not one word will ever pass from it. if you would like to learn about the jewishness of jesus i suggest you read. "the changing faces of jesus and "the authentic gospel of jesus", both by geza vermes. he wrote other books about the jewish jesus. old and new testament are offensive. i suggest hebrew scriptures and christian Scriptures.

[Peregrine Took]

69. I can't stand the OT, either. All those bloody animal sacrifices and for what?

Ugh!

I had to put it down and switch to the NT, whew!, much better!

I love Tom Merton, too - how come you never hear about him anymore? Or John XXIII either.